Conceptual Fit of Coaching Styles

Autonomy-Supportive coaching style is more effective for female than male athletes in team sports.

Gender (nominal)

Gender is a concept which connects directly to the sense of how receptive or non-receptive humans are likely to be regarding all forms of coaching. Gender is one manifestation of the notion of how prosocial or anti-social human beings are likely to be. Some experts have argued that human beings are naturally inclined to be prosocial animals when given the proper nurturing -- such as a namely this type of support mechanism: when this type of support is lacking, it is more than likely that one will substitute it by pursuing extrinsic goals such as fame, ego enhancement or other extrinsic rewards. Such rewards are not something which help to reinforce prosocial behavior (Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011).

Thus, given this research the question becomes whether or not female athletes are more prosocial than male athletes and thus, more receptive to autonomy-supportive coaching styles. This is an important distinction, because such autonomy supportive coaching styles can also assist in pushing prosocial behavior forward even further. "Controlled motivation was associated with antisocial behavior toward teammates and antisocial behavior toward opponents, and these two relationships were mediated by moral disengagement. The results provide support for research investigating the effect of autonomy-supportive coaching interventions on athletes' prosocial and antisocial behavior" (Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011). Fundamentally, the research has demonstrated that gender has nothing to do with whether the behavior is prosocial: rather, the research demonstrates that the coaching style is what can have the greatest impact on how the behavior manifests. Research suggests that coaches who are simply able to maintain healthy and good relationships with athletes are able to cultivate and thus encourage prosocial behavior in the most aggravated and intensive fashion (Rutten, 2007). Other studies regarding gender and prosocial behavior don't offer up the strongest evidence that gender and behavior has a strong connective link among athletes. For instance, gender can sometimes moderate the rapport between athlete status and school misconduct, though athletic participation had a less salutary impact on misconduct for girls than for boys (Miller et al., 2005). Findings like these simply demonstrate that gender has very little to do with the outcomes connected to prosocial behavior, or the effectiveness of autonomy-supportive coaching styles. The most important factor for success in an autonomy-supportive coaching style is to create an environment of strong, consistent and positive support (Miller et al., 2005).

DV: Effectiveness of autonomy-supportive coaching style (ordinal)

Autonomy-supportive coaching style is a proactive style of coaching which has received a lot of attention in recent times. There are a range of ways of conceptualizing this form of coaching, but some experts largely interpret is as being "…part of motivational climate (atmosphere and conditions that coach provides in the team) in which the activities take place. The functional aspect of autonomy - supportive climate is that people feel that their own behavior rather than external pressures and demands are originated from themselves. In contrast with the controlling climate, autonomy- supportive climate is associated with intrinsic motivation, Creativity, cognitive flexibility, conceptual learning, self-esteem, perceived competence, trust and health" (Khaef & Noorbakhsh, 2013). These are elements which experts have found to be tremendously effective in the overall process of coaching. Positive elements such as building self-esteem and trust are elements which mean that the entire coaching process is an exercise in self-empowerment. It's important to remember than in the process of engaging in this form of coaching that there are three environmental factors which play an important part in the process of constructing a strong environment: a possibility of making a choice, offering fundamental, logical and meaningful reasons and awareness of the feelings and viewpoints of other people (Khaef & Noorbakhsh, 2013). Numerous studies have demonstrated that the viewpoint of coach behavior generally supports the autonomy of athletes via the satisfaction of psychological and organism needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness to the motivation connected with self-determination (Khaef & Noorbakhsh, 2013).

Hypothesis 2: Controlling coaching style is more effective for male than female athletes in team sports.

IV: Gender (nominal)

The hypothesis that a controlling coaching style is more effective for male than female athletes in team sports makes a clear and present assumption about gender: such a hypothesis implies that the male gender is one which requires more control and is thus more wildly out of control. This means that according to this hypothesis male athletes need to be conceptualized as less focused and more given to impulses and can be characterized by more erratic behavior. These concepts of male athletes have to be rejected namely because there just isn't evidence to reflect that they are in fact accurate or true. The notion that male athletes thrive on a more controlling coaching style would have to be founded on the fact that there are traits inherent in athletes of this gender which would be more receptive and reactive to a particular coaching style of this nature. "Research guided by SDT in the sport and physical education literature has demonstrated that autonomy-supportive coach behaviors (e.g., offering a rationale and acknowledging feelings) are related to more self-determined forms of motivation in athletes" (Bartholomew, 2010). This demonstrates that controlling coaching is likely to be unideal for either gender, be the athletes male or female. The research demonstrates again and again that once an athlete is engaged in behaviors that he or she considers interesting or personally important, that person is more likely to engage in more self-sufficient and positive outcomes, such as bolstered persistence, performance and self-esteem (Bartholomew et al., 2010). Thus, controlling leadership is no more effective for men over women: it is largely ineffective for either gender. Both men and women share the tendency to reject leadership which attempts to get them to do something or care about something which is largely out of their control or sphere of desire.

DV: Effectiveness of controlling coaching style (ordinal)