The relationship between coaches' emotional

Sports Coaching Review

ISSN: 2164-0629 (Print) 2164-0637 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rspc20

The relationship between coaches’ emotional intelligence and basic need satisfaction in athletes Matthew Watson & Jens Kleinert To cite this article: Matthew Watson & Jens Kleinert (2018): The relationship between coaches’ emotional intelligence and basic need satisfaction in athletes, Sports Coaching Review To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2018.1491669

Published online: 24 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rspc20

SPORTS COACHING REVIEW https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2018.1491669

ARTICLE

The relationship between coaches’ emotional intelligence and basic need satisfaction in athletes Matthew Watson and Jens Kleinert Institute of Psychology, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

Scant empirical evidence exists on the importance of coaches’ emotional intelligence (EI). This cross-sectional study examined whether coaches’ EI is linked to the perception and satisfaction of their athletes’ basic psychological needs. Coaches (n = 16, male = 68.8%, mean age = 33 ± 11 yrs) and youth athletes (n = 171, male = 46.9%, mean age = 15 ± 1.5 yrs) from 16 non-elite German sports teams (basketball n = 3, football n = 5, handball n = 3, and volleyball n = 5) participated in this research. Coaches’ EI, athletes’ need satisfaction, and athletes’ perceived autonomy support were assessed by self-report questionnaires. Multilevel analyses showed that coaches’ EI self-control significantly predicted the accuracy of coaches’ perceptions of athletes’ competence satisfaction. Furthermore, coaches’ EI well-being significantly related to athletes’ perceived autonomy support. Findings suggest a partial role of coaches’ EI in supporting athletes’ need satisfaction.

Received 21 April 2017 Accepted 10 June 2018 KEYWORDS

Trait EI; basic psychological need satisfaction; coaching

Introduction

Emotional intelligence (EI) is said to be an important attribute for sport coaches (e.g., Cruickshank & Collins, 2015; Latimer, Rench, & Brackett, 2007) that allows them to nurture strong interpersonal relationships with athletes (Chan & Mallett, 2011) and, in turn, optimally support their athletes’ motivation and performance (O’Neil, 2011). More specifically, the interpersonal aspects of EI, such as the ability to accurately perceive and understand emotion in others, appear necessary to allow coaches to infer the feelings and intentions of their athletes and appropriately respond to their needs (Lorimer, 2013). The intrapersonal aspects of EI, such as emotion regulation, appear necessary to allow coaches to demonstrate emotional stability and deliberately express emotion in order to purposefully influence their athletes (Becker, 2009). Despite the depth of empirical literature concerning athletes’ EI, which reports favourable links to CONTACT Matthew Watson [email protected] Institute of Psychology, German Sport University Cologne, Am Sportpark Muengersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2

M. WATSON AND J. KLEINERT

performance, stress responses and psychological skill usage, there is a paucity of empirical studies that examine the function of coaches’ EI (Laborde, Dosseville, & Allen, 2016). The purpose of the current study, therefore, is to examine the relationship between coaches’ EI and three outcomes, namely athletes’ need satisfaction, coaches’ perceptions of athlete need satisfaction and athletes’ perceived autonomy support. When examining the role of EI in coaches, it is important to define EI and its dimensions. Broadly, EI refers to one’s responses to intrapersonal and interpersonal emotional information and encompasses the identification, expression, understanding, regulation, and use of this information (Brasseur, Grégoire, Bourdu, & Mikolajczak, 2013; Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Petrides & Furnham, 2003). Two conceptualisations that underpin much of the EI research to date are the ability and trait perspectives, the former comprising trainable abilities assessed via performance tests and the latter comprising lower level personality dispositions assessed via self-report questionnaires (Petrides, Pita, & Kokkinaki, 2007). The current study will utilise the trait perspective put forward by Petrides (2009a) as athletes’ need satisfaction in training is seen as more contingent upon the typical, dispositional EI behaviours demonstrated by coaches. In contrast, the results of ability EI tests, which demonstrate individuals’ performance in the various EI dimensions, may not reflect the extent to which coaches enact EI behaviours during interactions with their athletes. Petrides outlines a global trait EI synonymous with the aforementioned definition, but distinguishes between four sub-factors: Emotionality (encompassing emotion perception, empathy, and emotion expression); Self-control (encompassing emotion regulation, stress management, and low impulsiveness); Sociability (encompassing assertiveness, emotion management, and social awareness); and Well-being (encompassing happiness and optimism). Few empirical studies currently exist that examine the role of trait EI in sport coaches. Thelwell, Lane, Weston, and Greenlees (2008) found a number of associations between subscales of trait EI and coaching efficacy, which is “the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes” (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999, p. 765). Specifically, the EI subscales of emotional regulation and social skills both showed significant associations with coaches’ perceived confidence to influence the psychological states and skills of their athletes (i.e., motivation efficacy). The appraisal of own emotions subscale was also significantly associated with the belief coaches had in their teaching and diagnostic skills (i.e., technique efficacy). Similarly, Hwang, Feltz, and Lee (2013) reported a relationship between EI and coaching efficacy, but further showed EI to be a significant predictor of coaches’ training and instruction, positive feedback, social support, and situational consideration. The authors concluded that coaches reflected on

SPORTS COACHING REVIEW

3

the proficiency of their EI abilities and derived their efficacy beliefs and perceptions of behaviour accordingly. Whilst these studies offer support for the importance of EI to the attitudes and behaviours of sport coaches, neither study examined effects on the coaches’ athletes. In order to examine effects of coaches’ EI on their respective athletes, variables that are strongly influenced by the coach-athlete relationship are of particular interest. One important variable that is influenced by this relationship is the athlete’s motivation. A relevant framework to utilise in the consideration of athlete motivation is basic psychological needs theory (BNT; Ryan & Deci, 2000), a micro-theory of the self-determination theory of motivation that posits that humans possess three innate psychological needs that essentially regulate the emotional state of an individual. These three needs, which must be satisfied for well-being, growth, and positive development within particular situational contexts, are the need for autonomy (i.e., feeling a sense of control regarding choices and decision-making and perceiving one’s actions to complement one’s integrated sense of self), the need for competence (i.e., feelings of mastery through effective interaction within one’s environment), and the need for relatedness (i.e., feelings of belongingness to and respect by significant others; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Satisfaction of the three basic needs in athletes predicts intrinsic motivation (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002), a quality of motivation towards a certain behaviour that is characterised by the inherent enjoyment of engaging in the activity itself. A primary contributor to athletes’ need satisfaction is perceived autonomy support from the coach (Smith, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2007). According to Deci and Ryan (1985, 1987), authority figures (e.g., sport coaches) that are autonomy-supportive will engage in behaviours that acknowledge their subordinates’ thoughts and feelings, that encourage choice, self-initiation, and regulation of people’s own behaviour, whilst concurrently minimising the use of pressure and demands to control others. Such coach behaviours are influenced by their personal characteristics (Horn, 2008), yet few research studies have examined personal characteristics (e.g., coaches’ trait EI) in regard to coaches’ autonomysupportive behaviour (Ntoumanis, 2012). Stebbings, Taylor, and Spray (2011) reported that coaches’ psychological well-being positively predicted their self-reported autonomy supportive behaviours, whilst self-determined motivation has been linked to autonomy support in physical education (PE) teachers (Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, & Legault, 2002; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). To the best of our knowledge, only one study has considered coaches’ personality as an antecedent to their autonomy support: Matosic et al. (2017) reported that narcissism showed a negative relationship to coaches’ autonomy support. Calls have been made to

4


further examine personality, for example trait EI, as an antecedent of coaches’ use of motivationally adaptive or maladaptive behaviour in their interactions with athletes (e.g., Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & ThøgersenNtoumani, 2009). Coaches’ EI can be theoretically linked to an increased perception of athletes’ need satisfaction. Specifically, coaches’ with high emotion perception and empathy (i.e., trait EI emotionality) will be better able to identify and understand the affect that accompanies need satisfaction (Quested & Duda, 2009; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Vandercammem, Hofmans, & Theuns, 2014) in their athletes (Chan & Mallett, 2011). Based on this emotion perception, coaches can make inferences as to their athletes’ motivational states (Lazarus, 2006). For example, higher competence satisfaction can be deduced from an athlete’s expression of happiness after achieving success in a challenging training drill, whilst a lack of autonomy satisfaction can be deduced from a creative player’s frustration in a restricted playmaking role. To summarise, coach EI facilitates the identification of athletes’ emotional states, which is necessary to understand the processes of need satisfaction that underlie these emotions. Besides the ability to identify athletes’ emotional states, other dimensions of coaches’ EI (e.g., emotion regulation, assertiveness, and social awareness) may directly influence need satisfaction in their athletes. For example, a coach that perceives a lack of enthusiasm from his or her team during a training task may experience frustration, but modulates this emotional cue and refrains from criticising the team (regulation), choosing instead to express encouragement (expression). Such demonstrations of emotional control and expression are reported favourably by athletes in qualitative studies (e.g., Becker, 2009; Keegan, Harwood, Spray, & Lavallee, 2009) and are linked to athletes’ competence, enjoyment, and effort (Black & Weiss, 1992). Coaches’ EI is also seen to be an important prerequisite for strong coach-athlete relationships (Chan & Mallett, 2011), whilst athletes’ perceptions of the quality of the coach-athlete relationship have been found to positively predict their need satisfaction (Felton & Jowett, 2013). In the PE context, students’ autonomy and competence satisfaction has been linked to perceived emotional support and interest from the teacher (Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). It is plausible that coaches’ EI also has an important role in their use of autonomy-supportive behaviours. Coaches’ emotional abilities (e.g., empathy) have been linked to the extent to which they utilise autonomysupportive behaviours (Matosic et al., 2017), whilst dimensions of EI appear integral to certain autonomy-supportive interpersonal behaviours. For example, inquiring about and acknowledging others’ feelings, one tenet of the seminal list of autonomy-supportive behaviours outlined by Mageau and Vallerand (2003), appears particularly congruent with the idea


5

that emotional awareness and regulation is important for coaches (Vella, Oades, & Crowe, 2010). Other dimensions of trait EI, such as self-control, may also be relevant as research shows that PE teachers reduce their use of autonomy support when feeling pressured (Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). However, no study has yet examined coaches’ EI and athlete perceptions of autonomy support from their coach. In summary, there is a lack of empirical research into the link between coaches’ EI and both athletes’ need satisfaction and perceived autonomy support. The few studies pertaining to coaches’ beliefs of their coaching efficacy provide useful insights but do not directly indicate the importance of EI for coaches to support their athletes. The effects of coaches’ behaviours (which are influenced by their personal characteristics) are dependent on the interpretation of these actions by their athletes (Smoll & Smith, 1989), thus it is necessary to include athletes’ perceptions when examining the role of coaches’ EI. Until now, however, studies of coaches’ EI have only considered the coach’s perspective (Laborde et al., 2016). Given these research gaps, the present study examines the potentially important link between coaches’ EI and athletes’ need satisfaction. Specifically, the study aimed to test the following hypotheses: (1) that coaches with higher EI would perceive more accurately the level of needs satisfaction of their athletes compared to coaches with lower EI, (2) that coaches with higher EI would have athletes with greater basic need satisfaction across all three needs compared to coaches with lower EI (i.e., they are more ‘need-supportive’), and (3) that coaches with higher EI would have athletes that report greater perceived autonomy support compared to coaches with lower EI (i.e., they are more ‘autonomy-supportive’).

Method Participants

The sample comprised coaches (5 female, 11 male; mean age = 33 ± 11 yrs; range = 20 to 58 yrs) and youth athletes (91 female, 80 male; mean age = 15 ± 1.5 yrs; range = 12 to 19 yrs) from 16 non-elite sports teams (basketball n = 3, 27 athletes; football n = 5, 65 athletes; handball n = 3, 26 athletes; and volleyball n = 5, 53 athletes). Each team consisted of a mean of 10.69 (SD = 2.89) athletes. Teams were involved in league competition between second (regional level) and fifth (district level) divisions, and had a mean of 2.40 (SD = 0.72) training sessions per week, equating to a mean of 4.13 (SD = 1.25) hours of training per week. Coaches had a mean of 8.16 (SD = 4.30) years of coaching experience in their study-specific sport, whilst athletes had played for their respective coaches for a mean of 2.35

6


(SD = 2.27) years. Athletes themselves had a mean of 6.56 (SD = 3.71) years of playing experience in their study-specific sport. Procedure

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the local University. Coaches were sent a brief outline of the study themes and requirements via email. Interested teams were asked to distribute informed consent forms to the parents or legal guardians of athletes under 18 years old, which were collected prior to completing questionnaires. In most cases, the first author met with participating teams on one occasion, typically following a training session, wherein coaches and athletes were instructed to answer each item truthfully and to avoid conferring. Participants were assured that their responses were confidential and were to be treated anonymously, whilst they may dropout without explanation at any point. Questionnaires were coded to distinguish between teams, then coaches and participants within each team, but individual names were not linked to questionnaire packets. Researchers oversaw the completion of the questionnaires and were available to clarify questions if necessary. Measurements Athletes’ basic need satisfaction

Athletes’ basic need satisfaction, specific to a typical training session with their coach, was assessed with the Contextual Basic Need Satisfaction questionnaire (CBANS; Raven & Kleinert, 2016) in its original German language form. In its current form, the questionnaire comprises 11 items and 3 subscales: competence (3 items, e.g., “the coach enabled me to experience progress and success”), relatedness (3 items, e.g., “the coach gave me opportunities to feel belonging to something or somebody”), and autonomy (5 items, e.g., “the coach gave me opportunities for free choice”), requiring responses on a four-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very true). This questionnaire’s internal consistency has been shown to be acceptable in sport settings (Kleinert, 2012; Raven & Kleinert, 2016). In the present study, the reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of each subscale was 0.68 (competence), 0.65 (relatedness) and 0.80 (autonomy), which are above the recommended minimum of 0.60 for research in psychology (Aron, Coups, & Aron, 2013) Coaches’ need-empathy

To operationalise the accuracy of coaches’ perceptions of athletes’ need satisfaction (n.b., the degree of accuracy in coaches’ need satisfaction perception is hereafter termed “need-empathy” for brevity), each team’s


7

athlete-completed CBANS data were compared with a CBANS questionnaire completed by their respective coach (the calculation of the outcome variables deriving from this comparison is explained in the data analysis section). Each coach-completed CBANS was identical to the athlete-completed CBANS in content, except the instructions were modified to ask coaches to answer from their athletes’ perspective (“Thinking about a typical training session you’ve led, how do you think your players would answer these statements?”). Previous research has modified coach behaviour questionnaires in this way to capture coaches’ perspectives (e.g., Smith et al., 2016; Stebbings et al., 2011). Reliability values were not calculated for coach-completed questionnaires within the current study due to the low number of coaches. Trait emotional intelligence

A German version of the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire – Short Form (TEIQue-SF) was used to measure coaches’ emotional intelligence (Freudenthaler, Neubauer, Gabler, Scherl, & Rindermann, 2008). The TEIQue-SF is based on the long form of the TEIQue (Petrides, 2009b) and measures global trait emotional intelligence including four subscales: emotionality (8 items, e.g., “Expressing my emotions with words is not a problem for me”), self-control (6 items, e.g., “I’m usually able to find ways to control my emotions when I want to”), well-being (6 items, e.g., “On the whole, I’m pleased with my life”), and sociability (6 items, e.g., “I can deal effectively with people”), requiring responses on a 7-point Likertscale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). After reverse scoring negative items, global/subscale values are determined by averaging the respective items, with higher scores reflecting higher trait EI. The internal reliability of the German TEIQue for global trait EI (.96), emotionality (.90), self-control (.86), well-being (.94), and sociability (.88) has been reported elsewhere (Freudenthaler et al., 2008). Autonomy support

The short form Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ), adapted from the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCQ) originally developed by Williams et al. (Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996), was translated into German and used to measure the degree to which athletes perceived their coach to be autonomy-supportive. Back-translation of the questionnaire was completed according to Varricchio (2004) by two bilingual sport psychology experts and compared for equivalence by the authors. Previous research has used the SCQ to examine athlete perceptions of autonomy support from the coach (e.g., Stebbings et al., 2011) The SCQ comprises six items (e.g., “I feel understood by my coach”) that are answered on a 7-point Likert-scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The average of the six responses provides the

8


perceived autonomy support score. The reliability (α = .81) of the questionnaire for this sample is within the recommended range for research in psychology (Aron et al., 2013). Data analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics 23 was used to assess whether data were normally distributed and subsequent correlations. Data from one athlete CBANS questionnaire were missing and not included in correlation or multilevel analyses. Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality for global EI and EI subscales were nonsignificant and, therefore, assumed to be normally distributed. Pearson Correlation (2-tailed; n = 16) analyses were subsequently completed to determine whether global EI and EI subscales were correlated with coaches’ age and coaching experience and warranted inclusion in the multilevel analysis. Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality for athlete-level variables (i.e., n = 171) indicated that data were not normally distributed and, therefore, correlations involving these were computed with Spearman’s Rank correlations, multiplying out coach-level (i.e., n = 16) variables accordingly. Using the Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) software program (Bryk, Raudenbush, & Congdon, 2011), multilevel analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses of this study, as athletes were seen as nested within their teams, sharing common variance from their respective coach and, therefore, not independent of each other (Woltman, Feldstain, Mackay, & Rocchi, 2012). Multilevel models are recommended in hierarchical data structures such as these as they reduce the risk of Type I errors, whilst preserving the power and variance of the sample (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Moreover, sample sizes of 10 or more level 2 units are recommended when running multilevel analyses (Nezlek, 2008). To test hypothesis 1, the differences between athletes’ CBANS responses and their respective coach’s CBANS responses were determined and used to represent the coaches’ “need-empathy”. More precisely, for each CBANS subscale (i.e., competence, relatedness, autonomy), the absolute difference (i.e., the distance) between athletes’ responses and coaches’ responses were computed and then reversed to give a range from 0 (i.e., minimum accuracy of need-empathy) to 3 (i.e., maximum accuracy of need-empathy). Thus, three level-1 outcome variables were created: “competenceempathy”, “relatedness-empathy”, and “autonomy-empathy”. To test hypothesis 2, the three subscales of the athletes’ CBANS responses (i.e., their need satisfaction without integration with the coaches’ CBANS responses) were tested separately as level-1 outcome variables. To test hypothesis 3, perceived autonomy support (SCQ) was tested as the level1 outcome variable.


9

Predictor variables for all hypotheses were level-2, or “coach level”, variables, specifically global EI, EI subscales (i.e., emotionality, self-control, well-being, and sociability), coach age (years), and coaching experience (years). EI variables were individually entered into separate models to avoid entering the same data twice. It is important to note that, for analyses in HLM, level-2 variables are multiplied out to match the level1 n within each team.

Results

Table 1 provides an overview of how coaches estimate athlete need satisfaction on a team-level, including direction (i.e., over- or underestimation) and accuracy (i.e., reversed distance). In general, coaches accurately estimated athletes’ relatedness satisfaction (as shown by a mean difference of 0.01) and only slightly underestimated athletes’ competence satisfaction (−0.14). Comparably, coaches highly underestimated athletes’ autonomy satisfaction (−0.41). Correlations between variables and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. Athletes’ mean CBANS values for competence (0.510; p < 0.001; n = 170), relatedness (0.435; p < 0.001; n = 170), and autonomy (0.550; p < 0.001; n = 170) significantly correlated with athletes’ perceived autonomy support from the coach (SCQ). Coaches’ age and experience did not significantly correlate with any EI-related variables. Coaching experience, however, significantly correlated with EI self-control (0.512; p = 0.042; n = 16). The first step in the main analysis involved running unconditional models (i.e., models without predictor variables) to determine the extent of between-team variation in each outcome variable. The resulting variation, or intraclass correlation (ICC), was therefore conducted for competenceempathy (ρ = .17, p < .001), relatedness-empathy (ρ = .10, p < .001), autonomy-empathy (ρ = .27, p < .001), athlete competence (ρ = .06, p < .001), athlete relatedness (ρ = .09, p < .001), athlete autonomy (ρ = .05, p < .001), and perceived autonomy support (ρ = .12, p < .001). The hierarchical data structure and ICCs all greater than 0 justify the use of multilevel modeling (Nezlek, 2008). Table 1. Mean responses for need satisfaction (CBANS). 1. Athlete CBANSa 2. Coach CBANS 3. Difference 4. Distance Competence Relatedness Autonomy

Mean 2.37 2.47 2.03

SD 0.20 0.22 0.19

Mean 2.23 2.48 1.61

SD 0.34 0.49 0.38

Mean SD Mean SD −0.14 0.43 0.51 0.19 0.01 0.42 0.46 0.18 −0.41 0.41 0.61 0.26

5. Accuracy of needempathy M 2.49 2.54 2.39

SD 0.19 0.18 0.26

Note. aMean of team means; SD = standard deviation; 3. = Coach CBANS – Athlete CBANS; 4. = Absolute values of 3.; 5. = Reversed values of 4.;

n 170 170 170 171 170 170 170 16 16 16 16 16 16 16

Mean 2.36 2.48 2.00 5.42 2.48 2.53 2.41 5.58 5.19 5.48 5.88 5.59 33 8.16

SD 0.50 0.53 0.53 0.94 0.37 0.43 0.44 0.40 0.79 0.50 0.56 0.60 12 4.3

Range .33–3.00 .67–3.00 .60–3.00 1.50–7.00 1.33–3.00 1.33–3.00 1.20–3.00 4.73–6.23 3.13–6.50 4.50–6.17 4.83–6.67 4.67–6.67 20–58 1.5–15

1 .361** .408** .510** −.064 .032 −.316** −.027 .033 −.055 .024 −.042 −.006 .034 .311** .435** −.063 .140 −.085 .081 .137 −.015 .028 −.102 .191* .165*

2

.550** −.170* −.055 −.430** .090 .103 .009 .153* −.070 −.037 −.047

3

−.108 .007 −.304** .124 .149 .054 .223* −.172* .015 −.006

4

.011 .230** .205** .023 .309** .022 .086 −.014 .161*

5

.130 .112 .091 .150 −.098 .186* .038 .212**

6

.171* .105 .199** −.108* .096 .217** .274**

7

.837** .727** .542* .436 .114 .414

8

.384 .294 .352 .193 .354

9

.334 .266 .277 .512*

10

−.175 −.192 .065

11

−.305 .141

12

.565*

13

-

14

Note. SD = standard deviation; mean, SD and range n = 170 (1.-7.), n = 16 (8.-14.); Higher values for empathy variables indicate closer responses between coach and athlete CBANS; Spearman’s correlations 1.-14. (n = 170), Pearson correlations 8.-14. (n = 16); *p < .05, **p < .01

1. Athlete Competence 2. Athlete Relatedness 3. Athlete Autonomy 4. Autonomy Support 5. Competence-Empathy 6. Relatedness-Empathy 7. Autonomy-Empathy 8. Coach Global EI 9. Coach EI Emotionality 10. Coach EI Self-Control 11. Coach EI Well-Being 12. Coach EI Sociability 13. Coach Age (yrs) 14. Coach Experience (yrs)

Table 2. Correlations between Variables and Descriptive Statistics.

10 M. WATSON AND J. KLEINERT


11

To test hypothesis 1 (i.e., that coaches with higher EI would more accurately perceive the need satisfaction of their athletes), level-2 predictor variables were added grand-mean centered into the unconditional model of each need-empathy outcome variable. Within these regression with means as outcomes models a significant relationship was only found between EI self-control and competence-empathy (b = .24, p = .006, r2 = .56). Adding coach age and coach experience, respectively, failed to reduce the deviance statistic, indicating that the model fit was not improved. The same procedure was followed for hypothesis 2 (i.e., that athlete need satisfaction would be higher in teams with higher EI coaches) but no main effects were found between athlete need satisfaction subscales and level-2 predictor variables. Finally, the same procedure was followed to test hypothesis 3 (i.e., that athletes’ perceived autonomy support would be higher in teams with higher EI coaches). Only coaches’ EI well-being showed a main effect (b = .47, p = .012, r2 = .57). No other level-2 variable significantly predicted perceived autonomy support or reduced the deviance statistic (to show improved model fit) when included alongside EI well-being. Model statistics for all model variations are presented in Table 3. Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to examine the relationship between coaches’ emotional intelligence and, respectively, their need-empathy, athletes’ need satisfaction, and athletes’ perceived autonomy support. Overall, the results indicate a minor role of coaches’ EI in the need satisfaction of athletes. The first hypothesis of this study was partially supported as only one of the four EI subscales (coaches’ EI self-control) linked to the accurate perception of the satisfaction of one specific athlete need (competence). A direct link between coaches’ EI and athletes’ need satisfaction was not found (hypothesis 2). Finally, coaches’ EI well-being significantly related to athletes’ perceived autonomy support from the coach (hypothesis 3). The significant positive relationship between coaches’ EI self-control and their ‘competence-empathy’ (i.e., the more accurate perception of athlete competence satisfaction) is similar to the findings of Watson and Kleinert (2017), in which PE teachers’ trait EI self-control significantly related to their relatedness-empathy towards pupils. Comprising the subcomponents emotion regulation, impulsiveness (low), and stress management, EI self-control is a desirable attribute in sports coaches: Coaches that can control impulses and manage stress are likely to remain consistent, which is an integral attribute of coaching (Becker, 2009; Côté & Gilbert, 2009), whilst an inability to appraise their own emotions and appropriately regulate them could impair their athletes’ learning and performance

SE 0.048879 0.056225 0.049064 0.045894 0.047260 0.064433 0.107438

Coefficient 2.361455

2.473755

2.012299

2.481543

2.534354

2.392548

5.437768

50.613***

37.133***

53.626***

54.072***

41.014***

43.998***

T 48.312***

459.628656

176.559115

193.879368

131.527387

266.659337

262.667565

Deviance 245.070261

Note. DV = dependent variable, L2 = level 2, IV = independent variable, SE = standard error, T = t-ratio *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Variables 1) DV: Athlete Competence L2 IV: EI 2) DV: Athlete Relatedness L2 IV: EI 3) DV: Athlete Autonomy L2 IV: EI 4) DV: Competence-Empathy L2 IV: EI L2 IV: EI Self-Control 5) DV: Relatedness-Empathy L2 IV: EI 6) DV: Autonomy-Empathy L2 IV: EI 7) DV: Perceived Autonomy Support L2 IV: EI L2 IV: EI Well-Being

Unconditional Model

Table 3. Model Statistics for Unconditional and Means-as-Outcomes Models.

0.420770 0.467831

0.098290

0.134777

0.172560 0.239319

0.158317

0.245122 0.161642

0.166339

0.113753

0.108628 0.073800

0.114131

0.138487

0.124187

−0.000039 0.113304

SE

Coefficient

1.717 2.894*

0.591

1.185

1.589 3.243**

1.387

0.818

−0.000

T

Deviance

455.992354 452.687904

179.815933

196.835385

133.510051 128.190543

269.110855

265.952826

249.286813

Regression with Means-as-Outcomes Model

12 M. WATSON AND J. KLEINERT


13

(Thelwell et al., 2008). It is surprising, however, that EI emotionality did not relate to need-empathy, as this subscale of EI includes the sub-components emotion perception and empathy. This could be due to the fact that EI emotionality comprises both intrapersonal and interpersonal aspects; a coach could conceivably hold highly developed interpersonal perception but limited intrapersonal perception, or vice versa. Future studies are encouraged to assess these propositions. That competence-empathy was found to significantly relate to coaches’ EI self-control is consistent with the training context in which the study took place. Training sessions are usually geared towards skill development and thus involve the repetition of tasks with a specific focus, conditions that allow a coach to clearly observe the emotional states that coincide with athletes’ competence satisfaction. Strong support for this finding is provided by Mikolajczak, Roy, Verstrynge, and Luminet (2009) in which high trait EI self-control individuals demonstrated greater attention to emotional material in neutral and stressful situations, although less mood deterioration in the stressful situations, than low self-control individuals. Thus, high self-control coaches, during intense training sessions in particular, may better perceive athletes’ competence satisfaction as they are able to engage with relevant emotional information. In contrast, low self-control coaches may be more susceptible to unfavourable emotions in training sessions (as they are less able to regulate their emotion) and distance themselves from athletes’ emotions. High self-control coaches could also be assumed to facilitate more stable training environments, augmenting the ability to perceive competence satisfaction. In support of this, coaches who are better able to appraise their own emotions (an inherent component in regulation) hold more confidence in their teaching and diagnostic skills (Thelwell et al., 2008). The absence of other significant need-empathy findings warrants further discussion. In terms of autonomy-empathy, behaviours that coaches recognise as providing autonomy, such as offering choices, may be less salient to athletes (Coatsworth & Conroy, 2009). This is especially true in team-sport settings as decisions are often made by the team as a whole (e.g., voting for a team captain) and reduce individual athletes’ experiences of autonomy. In support of this, coaches tend to overrate their provision of autonomy support compared to the experience of their athletes (Smith et al., 2016). Regarding relatedness-empathy, athletes’ relatedness satisfaction may be the easiest for coaches to perceive as they can observe interactions amongst athletes (e.g., whether they are socially included or excluded) and thus accurately report athletes’ relatedness satisfaction regardless of trait EI level. The absence of a significant relationship between coaches’ EI and athletes’ need satisfaction is consistent with the findings of Watson and Kleinert (2017). Nonetheless, this result is somewhat surprising given the congruency between the EI subscales of emotionality and sociability and aspects of

14


autonomy-supportive behaviour stated in Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) definition, such as understanding and acknowledging athletes’ feelings. The lack of significant relationships here may be attributable to the conditions of the team training environment, in which there is a need for the coach to address the team overall. For example, an emphasis on team strategy is unlikely to progress each individual’s skill development (reflected by lower competence satisfaction) or freedom for choice (lower autonomy satisfaction) but is essential for competitive performance. However, an emotionally intelligent coach should recognise such constraints/frustrations and take steps to ameliorate negative affects, such as acknowledging athletes’ feelings and providing rationales, thereby satisfying the need for relatedness. Finally, the third hypothesis was only partially supported as coaches’ EI well-being, but not global EI or other subscales, linked to athletes’ perceived autonomy support. However, a significant relationship based solely on EI well-being does not provide conclusive evidence for the role of coaches’ EI in athlete need satisfaction, as this subscale is arguably only distally related to handling intrapersonal and interpersonal emotional information. Nevertheless, this finding extends existing BNT-based research that found coaches’ psychological well-being to positively predict coaches’ self-reported perceived autonomy-supportive behaviours towards their athletes (Stebbings et al., 2011). The trait EI well-being subscale comprises self-esteem, happiness, and optimism. Optimism positively predicts increased attention to useful or relevant negative information (Aspinwall, Richter, & Hoffman, 2001), increasing an individual’s ability to employ effective coping strategies and problem solving. Happiness and self-esteem are related to less avoidance behaviours (Cacioppo et al., 2008) and the development of resources to cope with challenges (Cohn., Fredrickson, Brown, Mikels, & Conway, 2009). Thus, for coaches, higher trait EI well-being would seem to augment their use of the autonomy-supportive behaviours outlined by Mageau and Vallerand (2003). For example, engaging with negative information and using fewer avoidance coping strategies facilitate acknowledging others’ feelings and using less guilt-inducing statements. Future studies are encouraged to further examine the role of coaches’ general wellbeing in athlete need satisfaction. Given that 1) a direct link between coaches’ EI and need satisfaction in athletes was not found and 2) the number of significant results were rather low, the findings of this study cannot provide comprehensive support for a role of coaches’ EI in supporting their athletes. These findings also demonstrate the importance of comparing coaches’ EI with athlete-level outcomes to avoid overestimating the direct role of coaches’ EI in supporting athletes’ need satisfaction.


15

Our study has some limitations. Firstly, due to the cross-sectional study design, no causal relationship can be determined. A relationship between coaches’ EI and need satisfaction in athletes may exist as coaches’ reports regarding their EI is affected by the behaviour of their athletes (e.g., emotional expression). Secondly, as coaches completed one CBANS questionnaire per team (as opposed to one per athlete), the exact coaches’ needempathy cannot be determined. However, assessing need satisfaction at an overall team level is nonetheless practically relevant as coaches consider team needs as a whole when planning/evaluating training (especially at non-professional levels where training time is usually limited). Thirdly, as an introductory examination of coaches’ EI and athlete need satisfaction, the study’s level 2 sample size was relatively small, which inhibited reliability analyses of the TEIQue-SF (although the reliability of this questionnaire has been reported elsewhere) and the coach-completed CBANS. Although few, the current study revealed some novel insights that warrant further research, particularly to address the mechanisms through which coaches’ trait EI self-control and EI well-being facilitate the perception of athletes’ competence satisfaction and athletes’ perceived autonomy support, respectively. Future studies are encouraged to objectively and subjectively examine self-control, particularly emotion regulation, in connection with coaching behaviours. Additionally, to further the limited research on coach personality factors and their interpersonal styles, future research should build on the current study and that of Matosic et al. (2017) by examining coaches’ trait EI as an antecedent of controlling coaching. Finally, replicating this study using larger sample sizes and in differing situational contexts (such as individual sports) would represent a significant contribution to the research on leadership in sport. In conclusion, this study can only offer partial support for a role of coaches’ emotional intelligence in coaching as it relates to the accurate perception of athletes’ basic need satisfaction. In terms of practical implications, it may be worthwhile to include self-control as a topic in coach development programs, given that it also holds links to improved performance under pressure (Mosley, Laborde, & Kavanagh, 2018).

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Dr. Christian Zepp and Christin Roßmann for their help with data collection.

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

16


References Aron, A., Coups, E. J., & Aron, E. N. (2013). Statistics for psychology (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson. Aspinwall, L. G., Richter, L., & Hoffman, R. R., III. (2001). Understanding how optimism works: An examination of optimists’ adaptive moderation of belief and behaviour. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism & pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 217–238). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bartholomew, K., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2009). A review of controlling motivational strategies from a self-determination theory perspective: Implications for sports coaches. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2, 215–233. Becker, A. (2009). It’s not what they do, it’s how they do it: Athlete experiences of great coaching. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4(1), 93–119. Black, S. J., & Weiss, M. R. (1992). The relationship among perceived coaching behaviors, perceptions of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 309–325. Brasseur, S., Grégoire, J., Bourdu, R., & Mikolajczak, M. (2013). The profile of emotional competence (PEC): Development and validation of a self-reported measure that fits dimensions of emotional competence theory. PLoS ONE, 8(5), e62635. Bryk, A. S., Raudenbush, S. W., & Congdon, R. (2011). Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modelling [computer software manual]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International. Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C., Kalil, A., Hughes, M. E., Waite, L., & Thisted, R. A. (2008). Happiness and the invisible threads of social connection: The Chicago health, aging, and social relations study. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 195–219). NY: The Guilford Press. Chan, J. T., & Mallett, C. J. (2011). The value of emotional intelligence for high performance coaching. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 6(3), 315–328. Coatsworth, J. D., & Conroy, D. E. (2009). The effects of autonomy-supportive coaching, need satisfaction and self-perceptions on initiative and identity in youth swimmers. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 320–328. Cohn., M. A., Fredrickson, B. L., Brown, S. L., Mikels, J. A., & Conway, A. M. (2009). Happiness unpacked: Positive emotions increase life satisfaction by building resilience. Emotion, 9(3), 361–368. Côté, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4(3), 307–323. Cruickshank, A., & Collins, D. (2015). The sport coach. In I. O’Boyle, D. Murray, & P. Cummins (Eds.), Leadership in sport (pp. 155–172). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024–1037. Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2013). “What do coaches do“ and “how do they relate“: Their effects on athletes’ psychological needs and functioning. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 23(2), e130–e139. Feltz, D. L., Chase, M. A., Moritz, S. E., & Sullivan, P. J. (1999). A conceptual model of coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 765–776. Freudenthaler, H. H., Neubauer, A. C., Gabler, P., Scherl, W. G., & Rindermann, H. (2008). Testing and validating the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue) in a German-speaking sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(7), 673–678.


17

Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviors and college athletes’ intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 20–36. Horn, T. S. (2008). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 239–267). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Hwang, S., Feltz, D. L., & Lee, J. (2013). Emotional intelligence in coaching: Mediation effect of coaching efficacy on the relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership style. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(3), 292–306. Keegan, R. J., Harwood, C., Spray, C. M., & Lavallee, D. (2009). A qualitative investigation exploring the motivational climate in early career sports participants: Coach, parent and peer influences on sport motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 361–372. Kleinert, J. (2012, May). Kontextuelle bedürfnisbefriedigung: Erste erfahrungen mit einem diagnostiktool für die sportpsychologische forschung und betreuung [Contextual need satisfaction: First experiences with a diagnostic tool for research and counselling in sport psychology]. In M. Wegner, J. P. Brückner, & S. Kratzenstein (Eds.), Sportpsychologische Kompetenz und Verantwortung (pp. 96). Hamburg: Feldhaus. Laborde, S., Dosseville, F., & Allen, M. S. (2016). Emotional intelligence in sport and exercise: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 26, 862–874. Latimer, A. E., Rench, T. A., & Brackett, M. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence: A framework for examining emotions in sport and exercise groups. In M. Beauchamp & M. Eys (Eds.), Group dynamics advances in sport and exercise psychology: Contemporary themes. New York, NY: Routledge. Lazarus, R. S. (2006). Emotions and interpersonal relationships: Toward a person-centered conceptualization of emotions and coping. Journal of Personality, 74(1), 9–46. Lorimer, R. (2013). The development of empathic accuracy in sports coaches. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 4, 26–33. Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 883–904. Matosic, D., Ntoumanis, N., Boardley, I. D., Sedikides, C., Stewart, B. D., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2017). Narcissism and coach interpersonal style: A self-determination theory perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27, 254–261. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31)). New York, NY: Basic Books. Mikolajczak, M., Roy, E., Verstrynge, V., & Luminet, O. (2009). An exploration of the moderating effect of trait emotional intelligence on memory and attention in neutral and stressful conditions. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 699–715. Mosley, E., Laborde, S., & Kavanagh, E. (2018). The contribution of coping-related variables and cardiac vagal activity on prone rifle shooting performance under pressure. Journal of Psychophysiology, 1–17. doi:10.1027/0269-8803/a000220 Nezlek, J. B. (2008). An introduction to multilevel modeling for social and personality psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 842–860. Ntoumanis, N. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on motivation in sport and physical education: Current trends and possible future research directions. In G. C. Roberts & D. C. Treasure (Eds), Motivation in sport and exercise (vol. 3, pp. 91–128). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. O’Neil, D. A. (2011). The value of emotional intelligence for high performance coaching: A commentary. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 6(3), 329–331.

18


Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 186–196. Petrides, K. V. (2009a). Psychometric properties of the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). In C. Stough, D. H. Saklofske, & J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Assessing emotional intelligence: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 85–101). New York, NY: Springer Science. Petrides, K. V. (2009b). Technical manual for the trait emotional intelligence questionnaire (TEIQue). London: London Psychometric Laboratory. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–57. Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), 273–289. Quested, E., & Duda, J. L. (2009). The experience of well- and ill-being among elite dancers: A test of basic needs theory. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26(2), 41. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raven, H., & Kleinert, J. (2016). Den eigenen Fähigkeiten vertrauen – Die Rolle von Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung und psychologischen Grundbedürfnissen im Schulsport. Sportunterricht, 65(4), 113–118. Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419–435. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395–418. Smith, A., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. (2007). Goal striving, goal attainment, and wellbeing: Adapting and testing the self-concordance model in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 29, 763–782. Smith, N., Tessier, D., Tzioumakis, Y., Fabra, P., Quested, E., Appleton, P., . . . Duda, J. L. (2016). The relationship between observed and perceived assessments of the coachcreated motivational environment and links to athlete motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 23, 51–63. Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522–1551. Stebbings, J., Taylor, I. M., & Spray, C. M. (2011). Antecedents of perceived coach autonomy supportive and controlling behaviours: Coach psychological need satisfaction and well-being. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(2), 255–272. Taylor, I. M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student selfdetermination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747–760. Thelwell, R. C., Lane, A. M., Weston, N. J. V., & Greenlees, A. (2008). Examining relationships between emotional intelligence and coaching efficacy. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(2), 224–235. Vandercammem, L., Hofmans, J., & Theuns, P. (2014). Relating specific emotions to intrinsic motivation: On the moderating role of positive and negative emotion differentiation. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e115396.


19

Varricchio, C. G. (2004). Measurement issues concerning linguistic translations. In M. Frank-Stromborg & S. J. Olsen (Eds.), Instruments for clinical health-care research (3rd ed., pp. 57). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Vella, S., Oades, L. G., & Crowe, T. P. (2010). The application of coach leadership models to coaching practice: Current state and future directions. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 5(3), 425–434. Watson, M., & Kleinert, J. (2017). Control yourself: Physical education teachers’ emotional intelligence has a minor role in pupils’ need satisfaction. Advances in Physical Education, 7, 234–247. Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115–126. Woltman, H., Feldstain, A., Mackay, J. C., & Rocchi, M. (2012). An introduction to hierarchical linear modeling. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 52–69.