Lecture 6 - 3C's and CA relationship Flashcards
Outline lyle (2002) Definition of coaching
Coaching is an interpersonal affair
Outline Jowett & Shanmugam (2016)’s definition of coaching
At the heart of coaching lies the dyadic coach-athlete relationship
How did Jowett (2007) definie the coach athlete relationship
The coach athlete relationship is all situations in which a coaches and athletes feelings, thoughts and/or behaviours are inter-related
Overall, outline definitions of coaching
- could use as an introduction to an essay about this stuff
- 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
Outline Jarod (2017)’s definition of the CA relationship, that is generally agreed upon in research
“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
What are 2 general ways of measuring coach effectiveness
- not sure how this could fit, and it might have been previously mentioned
- Performance
- Quality of CA relationship
- but can influence 4 other things (card 7)
Outline the 4 other things that the CA relationship can impact
- and the researchers have shown
- may need to only remember one or two
So for one it can impact performance, but it can also impact 4 things:
- Happiness (Lafrenier et al (2011)
- Coping (Nicholls et al (2016)
- Challenge or threat states (Nicholls & Perry, 2016)
- see coach as challenge or threat influence by CA relationship - Sporting Performance (Jowett & Cockerill, 2003)
What are the 3 current theoretical models of CA relationship
- LaVoi (2007) - 4 components of CA relationship
- Poczwardowski et al (2002)
- Jowett (2007) – 3+1 Cs model
- Theoretical models because you cant really test them
Outline LaVoi (2007) theoretical models of CA relationship - describing
LaVoi (2007) identified four main components in the coach-athlete relationship:
- Authenticity
- Engagement
- Empowerment
- Ability
This is just a theoretical model, you cant test it
Outline Poczwardowski et al (2002) theoretical models of CA relationship
- describing
Conceptualised the coach-athlete relationship as recurring patterns of mutual care between coaches and athlete
- just a theoretical model, you cant test it
Outline Jowett (2007) theoretical models of CA relationship
Create the 3+1 Cs model of CA relationships
- Closeness
- Commitment
- Complementarity
- 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)
Outline the 3Cs conceptual model then the addition of co-orientation
- describing the model
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”
- 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
- 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
Outline the Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q)(Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004)
- measuring
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
What are the 3 areas of stuff that research has looked into
- 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 - The 3Cs
- influenced by antecedents, and then influence consequences - Consequences
- CA relationship, as good or bad, will have a knock on effect and bring about consequences
- can influence BNT and thus satisfaction
What are 4 examples of research into Antecedents in the research
- research into antecedents of the 3C’s
- 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) - Sport type and performance level
- e.g. Jowett & Clark-Cater (2006)** MENTIONED?
- Rhind, Jowett & Yang - Culture and Race/ Ethnicity
- e.g Ahmad (2013) - Relationshp Factors
- e.g. Jowett & Nezlek (2013)
Antecedents influence the quality of the relationship
- good/bad
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): 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)
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)
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
Outline Sport Type as the second antecedent for the 3C’s
- Rhind, Jowett & Yang (2012)
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
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?
When you analyse the content and quality of the CA relationship always be mindful of the broad groups of antecedents (previously mentioned):
- Individual difference characteristics
- Social-Cultural background
- Relationship-related Factors
This is because these provide a context to understand the relationship more fully
What are general consequences that have been investigated in the research
- introducing the next area of research, the 3rd area - consequences
Consequences in the literature include:
- Performance
- motivation
- confidence
- team cohesion
- collective efficacy - Well-being
- Depression
- vitality
- satisfaction (e.g. BNT)
- life quality
Outline general research into satisfaction as a consequence
- Davis, Jowett & Lafraniere (2013)
- Jowett (2009)
- Jowett & Nezlek (2012)
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:
- The coaching relationship- e.g. Davis, Jowett & Lafraniere (2013)
- 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
Outline Jowett & Nezlek (2012) research into why a good relationship increases satisfaction
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:
- 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 - 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 - 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
What are 10 outcomes that research has looked at?
- motivation
- Positive affect
- Self-concept
- Passion
- team cohesion
- Collective efficacy
- Motivational Climate
- Coaching behaviours
- Conflict
- Wellbeing
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
•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
What 4 things do good quality relationships do
- describing good quality relationships before introducing research about them?
Good quality relationships have positive intent, subsequently, they are:
- Rewarding and Satisfying
- Supportive and accommodating
- Energising and encouraging
- Comforting and reassuring
Overall: good quality relationships are purposeful
What does the International Olympic Committee say about coaching?
- good for conclusions
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”
Outline the case of Coach K and CA relationships
- again perhaps could use for conclusions
He was a basketball coach of the USA basketball teams, said:
“Two is better than one if two can act as one”
what are the three furture research directions?
- interventions and future research
- Integrate the notion of relationships with established leadership frameworks (e.g. transformational leadership)
- 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 - 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
