Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Group Sport Psych > Lecture 6 - 3C's and CA relationship > Flashcards

Lecture 6 - 3C's and CA relationship Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Sports Trivia flashcards
1
Q

Outline lyle (2002) Definition of coaching

A

Coaching is an interpersonal affair

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Outline Jowett & Shanmugam (2016)’s definition of coaching

A

At the heart of coaching lies the dyadic coach-athlete relationship

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How did Jowett (2007) definie the coach athlete relationship

A

The coach athlete relationship is all situations in which a coaches and athletes feelings, thoughts and/or behaviours are inter-related

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Overall, outline definitions of coaching

- could use as an introduction to an essay about this stuff

A
  • There is no one definition of coaching
  • It’s a notion challenged by many researchers- causing a rapid increase in number of definitions for coaching and coaching models
  • Arguably – coaches and athletes working together is at the heart of coaching- the coach-athlete relationship
  • But what is generally agreed upon is:“Coaches and athletes are locked into a two-person (dyadic) relationship and its quality can offer a measure of coaching and its effectiveness”- Jarod, 2017
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Outline Jarod (2017)’s definition of the CA relationship, that is generally agreed upon in research

A

“Coaches and athletes are locked into a two-person (dyadic) relationship and its quality can offer a measure of coaching and its effectiveness”- Jarod, 2017

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are 2 general ways of measuring coach effectiveness

- not sure how this could fit, and it might have been previously mentioned

A
  1. Performance
  2. Quality of CA relationship
    - but can influence 4 other things (card 7)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Outline the 4 other things that the CA relationship can impact

  • and the researchers have shown
  • may need to only remember one or two
A

So for one it can impact performance, but it can also impact 4 things:

  1. Happiness (Lafrenier et al (2011)
  2. Coping (Nicholls et al (2016)
  3. Challenge or threat states (Nicholls & Perry, 2016)
    - see coach as challenge or threat influence by CA relationship
  4. Sporting Performance (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 3 current theoretical models of CA relationship

A
  1. LaVoi (2007) - 4 components of CA relationship
  2. Poczwardowski et al (2002)
  3. Jowett (2007) – 3+1 Cs model
  • Theoretical models because you cant really test them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q 
Outline LaVoi (2007) theoretical models of CA relationship
- describing
A

LaVoi (2007) identified four main components in the coach-athlete relationship:

  1. Authenticity
  2. Engagement
  3. Empowerment
  4. Ability

This is just a theoretical model, you cant test it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Outline Poczwardowski et al (2002) theoretical models of CA relationship
- describing

A

Conceptualised the coach-athlete relationship as recurring patterns of mutual care between coaches and athlete

  • just a theoretical model, you cant test it
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Outline Jowett (2007) theoretical models of CA relationship

A

Create the 3+1 Cs model of CA relationships

  1. Closeness
  2. Commitment
  3. Complementarity
  4. Co-orientation
  • unlike previous theoretical models, you can actually test this one
  • this model provides a medium to study the quality of the CA relationship
  • Initially was the 3Cs Conceptual model (Card 12), but later added co-orientation to the model (card 12)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Outline the 3Cs conceptual model then the addition of co-orientation
- describing the model

A

First part of this model, when it was first designed, was the 3Cs:
1. Closeness (interpersonal feelings)- all about feelings, emotional attatchments, affective bond- trust, respect, appreciation, emotional caring, liking each other- “emotional connection or affective bond developed between a coach and an athlete”

  1. Commitment (interpersonal thoughts)- Intention of coach and athlete to maintain their athletic partnership over time – intention to work together for a long time, stick it out when times are tough- loyalty through good and bad times- resilience for future development and success
  2. Complementarity (interpersonal behaviours)- Coach and athletes behaviours that are co-operative, collaborative (teamwork) and supportive- Its nota looking at if behaviours are exactly the same: but if they complment each other

This model provides a medium to study the Quality of the coach-athlete relationship

Then added:
4. Co-orientation - runs through each of the 3Cs previously mentioned:
- It’s about UNCOVERING athletes and coaches perceptions of each other
They uncover these perceptions in 2 ways:- 2 sets of interpersonal perspectives that run through all of the 3Cs:
A. Direct perspective- how the athlete perceives the coach in terms of the 3Cs - e.g. I trust my coach
B. Meta perspective- reflects athletes ability to accurately infer the coachs 3 Cs- e.g. my coach trusts me

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Outline the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)(Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004)
- measuring

A

The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004)
- measures the 3C’s from a direct and a Meta perspective

  • Has been checked for reliability and validity and has passed
  • There are 2 versions, either for a coach or for an athlete- measures direct perspective, then from a meta perspective
  • Can also come in a short or long edition (Rhind & Jowett, 2011)11 items vs 29 items
  • Has been translated and validated in various languages

Measures the 3C’s

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What are the 3 areas of stuff that research has looked into

A
  1. Antecedents
    - stuff that will influence the 3C’s and the quality of the
    CA relationship
    - need to be mindful of stuff like individual difference characteristics, social-cultural factors, relationship factors (i.e. relationship length) when judging the quality and content of the CA relationship, they provide the context
  2. The 3Cs
    - influenced by antecedents, and then influence consequences
  3. Consequences
    - CA relationship, as good or bad, will have a knock on effect and bring about consequences
    - can influence BNT and thus satisfaction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are 4 examples of research into Antecedents in the research
- research into antecedents of the 3C’s

A
  1. Personality and gender orientation
    - e.g. Davis & Jowett (2011)*** MENTIONED?
    GENDER: Jowett & Nezlek, 2012 and Byrne (1985) - Card 16
    PERSONALITY: Yang et al (2013) and Davis & Jowett (2013)
  2. Sport type and performance level
    - e.g. Jowett & Clark-Cater (2006)** MENTIONED?
    - Rhind, Jowett & Yang
  3. Culture and Race/ Ethnicity
    - e.g Ahmad (2013)
  4. Relationshp Factors
    - e.g. Jowett & Nezlek (2013)

Antecedents influence the quality of the relationship
- good/bad

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Outline research into gender as an antecedent for the 3C’s

  • the first area of research into antecedents - part 1
  • the other part is personality

Jowett & Nezlek, 2012
Byrne et al (1985)

A 
A): 
Genders in these relationships can either be:
1. Male-male (same gender dyad)
2. Male-female (other gender dyad)
3. Female-female (same gender dyad)
4. Female- male (other gender dyad)
- Same gender coach-athlete dyads:
- perceive higher levels of quality relationships, as defined by closeness, commitment and complementarity (the 3Cs) than ther gender CA dyads (Jowett & Nezlek, 2012)

B): Similarity attraction theory (Byrne et al (1985)

  • despite evidence that other-gender dyads are not as good for relationships, Byrne said they could still be successful due to “Similarity Attraction Theory”
  • this theory argues you are attracted to others who are similar- this may be achieved by identifying common ground (shared interests, goals, beliefs, opinions, preferences)
17
Q

Outline research into personality as an antecedent for the 3C’s

  • the first area of research into antecedents - part 2, the other part is gender
  • Yang et al (2013) & Davis & Jowett (2013)
A

Yang et al (2013) & Davis & Jowett (2013) show that personality affects coaches perceptions of quality of relationships

E.g. if an athlete has a less desirable or difficult personality (e.g. anxious or avoidant attachment styles, neuroticism)

  • they will then have low levels of closeness, commitment and complementarity
  • if a coach perceives an athlete as being like this, they will perceive their relationship as worse

Some personalities just don’t go/ mix

18
Q

Outline Sport Type as the second antecedent for the 3C’s

- Rhind, Jowett & Yang (2012)

A

Does it make a difference if they coach a team or just an individual? = Yes, individual sports are better:

•Rhind, Jowett & Yang (2012):

  • Individual sports are likely to be more satisfied than athletes who participate in team sports
  • individual sports have CA relationships higher on the 3Cs
  • they are more close, committed and complementary with their coaches
  • perhaps they get to know their coach better, form bonds better and quicker – quality of relationship goes up quicker
19
Q

When you are analysing the content and quality of the CA relationship, what 3 things do you need to be mindful of?
- introducing the research section perhaps?

A

When you analyse the content and quality of the CA relationship always be mindful of the broad groups of antecedents (previously mentioned):

  1. Individual difference characteristics
  2. Social-Cultural background
  3. Relationship-related Factors

This is because these provide a context to understand the relationship more fully

20
Q

What are general consequences that have been investigated in the research
- introducing the next area of research, the 3rd area - consequences

A

Consequences in the literature include:

  1. Performance
    - motivation
    - confidence
    - team cohesion
    - collective efficacy
  2. Well-being
    - Depression
    - vitality
    - satisfaction (e.g. BNT)
    - life quality
21
Q

Outline general research into satisfaction as a consequence

  1. Davis, Jowett & Lafraniere (2013)
  2. Jowett (2009)
  3. Jowett & Nezlek (2012)
A

Most of the research is around Satisfaction
- if you have coaches and athletes that are satisfied/ happy: you are more likely to continue in times of adversity, choose challenging activities, and desire to accomplish things

•Having a better quality of CA relationship, the more satisfied coaches/ athletes are with:

  1. The coaching relationship- e.g. Davis, Jowett & Lafraniere (2013)
  2. Performance, training and coach treatment- e.g. Jowett (2009)

But the question remains, why does a good relationship increase satisfaction?- Jowett & Nezlek (2012)investigated this

22
Q

Outline Jowett & Nezlek (2012) research into why a good relationship increases satisfaction

A

Jowett & Nezlek (2012) explore the question as to why a good relationship increases satisfaction, they said it is mediated by 3 things:
- they looked at the impact of 3 moderators on the association between CA relationship and sport related satisfaction (training, performance, treatment.

Methods: Looked at how these 3 things impacted the association between relationship and satisfaction
1. Relationship length, 2. Performance, 3. Gender composition of the Dyad

Feelings:

  1. Competition level
    - the lower the level, the weaker the association
    - at a high level, the CA relationship can help athletes cope with the demands at the level, e.g. injury or burnout. Could also help prevent these things, e.g. talking about stuff
  2. Relationship Length
    - The longer the relationship, the stronger the association
    - because you trust, respect and know how to work with each other
    - likely they have been through the bad stuff together – e.g. injury, performance slumps, therefore relationship is stronger – committed to each other, closer to each other
    - seeing each other through good and bad times builds all 3Cs
  3. Gender composition (same vs other)
    - same gender = higher quality relationships, more satisfaction
    - all female dyads were the bost combination
    - Supports the notion of similarity
    - female coach-male athlete was the worst – not very common in sport, historically, males are seen as better at coaching, leading, competitive nature, better at making tougher athletes – deep rooted in the system – not as many female-male CA dyads
23
Q

What are 10 outcomes that research has looked at?

A
  1. motivation
  2. Positive affect
  3. Self-concept
  4. Passion
  5. team cohesion
  6. Collective efficacy
  7. Motivational Climate
  8. Coaching behaviours
  9. Conflict
  10. Wellbeing
24
Q

Outline the notion of conflict and 3C’s

  • not sure where this could go, intergrate it after talking about good relationsihps? - say even in good relationships, there is sometimes conflict
  • Outline Jowett (2009) investigated conflict and the 3C’s
A

•With any good relationship there is sometimes conflict

  • relationship usually survives but sometimes this conflict is not resolved and destroys the relationship
  • or what if the relationship just couldn’t get off the ground in the first place

Jowett (2009) found that from both a direct and meta perspective- all 3Cs are negatively correlated with Intepersonal conflict
- not going to be close, committed or complementary to someone you are in conflict with
Sometimes they can be salvaged sometimes they cant

25
Q

What 4 things do good quality relationships do

- describing good quality relationships before introducing research about them?

A

Good quality relationships have positive intent, subsequently, they are:

  1. Rewarding and Satisfying
  2. Supportive and accommodating
  3. Energising and encouraging
  4. Comforting and reassuring

Overall: good quality relationships are purposeful

26
Q

What does the International Olympic Committee say about coaching?
- good for conclusions

A

International Olympic Committee (IOC) says:“The quality of the relationship between a coach and the athlete has a crucial effect on the athletes satisfaction, motivation and performance”

27
Q

Outline the case of Coach K and CA relationships

- again perhaps could use for conclusions

A

He was a basketball coach of the USA basketball teams, said:

“Two is better than one if two can act as one”

28
Q

what are the three furture research directions?

- interventions and future research

A
  1. Integrate the notion of relationships with established leadership frameworks (e.g. transformational leadership)
  2. See the role of CA relationship during injury, coping, adversity, conflict, burnout,
    - when there is adversity, look at the importance of CA relationship
    - Individual differences including perfectionist and narcissistic tendencies as well as emotional intelligence
    - Whats the quality of CA relationship when working with different personality types: narcisstic vs perfectionist
  3. Intervention studies aiming to examine the effectiveness of coaches who use a “relational coaching” approach
    - how do we build a good quality relationship
    - how do we build the 3C’s

Group Sport Psych (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions