This article was downloaded by: [Clemson University]On: 19 September 2013, At: 13:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Western Journal of CommunicationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwjc20

Communicative Acts in Coach–AthleteInteractions: When Losing Competitionsand When Making Mistakes in TrainingSam S. Sagar a & Sophia Jowett ba School of Psychology, Leeds Metropolitan Universityb School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences, LoughboroughUniversityPublished online: 09 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Sam S. Sagar & Sophia Jowett (2012) Communicative Acts in Coach–AthleteInteractions: When Losing Competitions and When Making Mistakes in Training, Western Journal ofCommunication, 76:2, 148-174, DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2011.651256

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2011.651256

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Communicative Acts in Coach–Athlete Interactions: When LosingCompetitions and When MakingMistakes in TrainingSam S. Sagar & Sophia Jowett

Athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ communicative acts of interaction in two key interpersonal

situations were examined, and their impact on the athletes: (a) when athletes lose

competitions; and, (b) when athletes make mistakes in training. Athletes (N¼ 324, M

age¼ 20.11) completed an open-ended survey. Data were deductively and inductively

analyzed. Athletes perceived coaches’ communicative acts to be positive (e.g., perfor-

mance analysis and feedback) and negative (e.g., hostile reaction), and to impact their

motivation, affect, physical self-concept, and learning. The study highlights the salient

role of coaches’ communication in theses situations and discusses its theoretical and

practical implications in the sport performance context.

Keywords: Aggression; Coach Effectiveness; Communication; Emotions; Hostility;

Interaction; Interpersonal Situations; Punitive; Sport

Young people are involved in numerous performance-oriented contexts, such as

school (e.g., reading), music (e.g., playing piano), dance (e.g., ballet), and organized

sport (e.g., swimming). Optimal performance in these contexts is highly valued and is

monitored and evaluated by the performer, the instructor, and by others. Sport

represents a significant achievement domain for young people, with over 40 million

youths participating in organized competitive sports each year (Smith & Smoll, 2002).

Dr. Sam S. Sagar is a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at Leeds Metropolitan University. Dr. Sophia

Jowett is a reader in psychology in the School of Sport, Exercise and Health Sciences at Loughborough

University. Correspondence to: Sam S. Sagar, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences,

Leeds Metropolitan University, Civic Quarter, Leeds LS1 3HE, UK. E-mail: S.Sagar@leedsmet.ac.uk

Western Journal of Communication

Vol. 76, No. 2, March–April 2012, pp. 148–174

ISSN 1057-0314 (print)/ISSN 1745-1027 (online) # 2012 Western States Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/10570314.2011.651256

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Within the sport context, athletes are instructed or coached on how to improve skill

and achieve optimal performance and ultimately success. Sport coaching is an

instructional communication context, and is considered to be an interpersonal situ-

ation involving interactions between individuals, primarily the coach and the athlete

(Turman & Schrodt, 2004). The nature and quality of their interpersonal interactions

have important implications for the athlete’s well-being, skill development, and

sporting performance (Cote & Gilbert, 2009; Jowett, 2007). Investigating specific

situations in which coaches and athletes interact can generate valuable knowledge

that can help interactants (or relationship members) not only communicate effec-

tively and appropriately but also promote the quality of their relationships, as

well as factors (e.g., support, consideration, influence) associated with leadership

(Keyton, Beck, Messersmith, & Bisel, 2010). In the present article, we refer to the

communication that takes place between coaches and athletes as communicative acts

of interaction to indicate that actions and interactions communicate information to

the interactants. Further, we propose that the broader notion of interpersonal situa-

tions may provide a distinct environment or place from which communicating, lead-

ing, interacting, and relating take place. In other words, the specific situation may

have a significant role in determining the manner to which individuals interact.

Sport Coaching and Leadership Styles

The coach–athlete interpersonal relationship has been examined by communication

scholars (e.g., Kassing & Infante, 1999; Turman, 2003a, 2003b; Turman & Schrodt,

2004) and psychologists (e.g., Jowett, 2007; Smith & Smoll, 1990), showing that

within this relationship, coaches have a major influence on their athletes by taking

a leadership role that encompasses support, instruction, and guidance. Specific

characteristics of interpersonal situations in the context of sport coaching have been

featured prominently in a number of theoretical models pertaining to coach–athlete

relationships (see Jowett, 2007; Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007) and coach leadership

(e.g., Chelladurai, 2001; Smith & Smoll, 1990, 2007). A coach–athlete relationship

model that has gathered momentum over the last decade is Closeness, Commitment,

and Complementarity (3Cs) (Jowett, 2007, 2009). This model captures the coach and

the athlete’s interdependent feelings of closeness, thoughts of commitment, and

complementary. The 3Cs model underlines the quality of the relationship or the

degree to which relationship members are interdependent, and postulates that the

quality of the relationship can function in ways that encourage (or discourage)

athletes and coaches to express their needs and satisfy their goals (Jowett, 2007).

Findings generally suggest that coach–athlete relationship quality is associated with

athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction with training and performance (Jowett & Nezlek,

in press), physical self-concept (Jowett & Cramer, 2010), achievement goals and

intrinsic motivation (Adie & Jowett, 2010), and passion for sport (Lafreniere, Jowett,

Vallerand, Donahue, & Lorimer, 2008). Further, the coach–athlete relationship qual-

ity can affect and be affected by situational circumstances presented to coaches and

athletes at any given moment; for example, rules and norms that underline specific

Western Journal of Communication 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

sports are social–contextual situations that can affect the quality of the relationship as

defined by the 3Cs model (see Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007).

Sport coaching leadership models highlight the impact of situational factors on

coach behavior. Both Chelladurai’s (2001) multidimensional model and Smith and

Smoll’s (1990) meditational model of coach leadership suggest that situational fac-

tors–such as performance level, competition versus practice, practice outcomes, pre-

vious success and failure record, organizational structure, and cultural factors—are

likely to influence both coaches’ actual behaviors and athletes’ perceptions and eva-

luative reactions of their coaches’ behaviors. Chelladurai’s multidimensional model

highlights the manner in which the coach, the athlete, and the situation interact to

determine the nature of the coach’s behavior, which, in turn, influences the athlete’s

performance, satisfaction, and well-being. The model proposes five coaches leader-

ship behaviors or styles: (1) a democratic style encompasses behaviors that encourage

athlete participation in sport-related decision-making; (2) an autocratic style includes

behaviors that coaches employ to establish authority as coach; (3) a training and

instruction style includes coaches’ behaviors that aim to develop athletes’ knowledge

and skill; (4) a positive feedback style comprises coaches’ behaviors aimed to com-

municate their appreciation for their athlete; and, (5) a social support style serves

to satisfy the athlete’s interpersonal needs. The model suggests that, although coaches

often enact a combination of all five styles, one leadership style will emerge as the

one used most often, depending on the specific situation the coach is facing.

Athletes have reported to prefer most training and instruction and social support

behaviors (Chelladurai, 2001). Turman and Schrodt’s (2004) findings show that

although all five coaching leadership behaviors are associated with athletes’ affective

learning (i.e., positive attitude and motivation toward learning and the instructor),

positive feedback, social support, and training and instruction behaviors were

more closely associated with athletes’ affective learning than autocratic or democratic

behaviors.

Despite these models highlighting the influence of interpersonal situations on

coach–athlete communication and social interaction, research on the influence of

specific interpersonal situations on coach–athlete communicative acts of interaction

has been scant, and often not well documented. Recently, Smith and Smoll (2007)

have stated that while ‘‘the role of situational factors has not been previously

explored . . . a clearer specification of important situational factors is critical to the

ultimate usefulness of the proposed model’’ (p. 85). Thus, studying specific situa-

tional factors can further explain coach–athlete interpersonal behavior and relation-

ship quality. As such, the present study aimed to address this gap by focusing on two

key and common interpersonal situations that occur in the context of sport coaching:

when athletes lose competitions, and when they make mistakes in training. Examin-

ing these specific interpersonal situations can reveal important communication

methods and processes and, thus, inform theory and practice.

Although athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ interpersonal behavior in specific inter-

personal situations are important, as they help explain, improve, and understand the

nature of the communication that takes place, examining them may show that they

150 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

have salient applications. Clear communication reflects effective instruction (or

coaching) and promotes a better learning (e.g., skill development) in sport as well

as a sense of confidence, motivation, and satisfaction in the learner. Coaches’ mes-

sages and communicative acts of interactions have been shown to affect athletes’

psychological and emotional well-being, motivation, and sport persistence (e.g.,

Martin, Rocca, Cayanus, & Weber, 2009; Smith, Smoll, & Barnett, 1995; Turman

& Schrodt, 2004). They can influence athletes’ cognitive appraisal of distinct situa-

tions as well as the quality and functions of the coach–athlete relationship. For

example, athletes can like, respect, cooperate, and commit to their coaches less,

and be less motivated to participate when their coaches criticise, misunderstand, dis-

agree, argue, shout, intimidate, and insult them for making mistakes (Jowett, 2009;

Martin et al., 2009). Athletes can also perceive coaches who ignore, punish, shout,

dislike, distrust, and neglect them as threatening or abusive and as contributing to

a destructive and ineffective coach–athlete partnership (Adie & Jowett, 2010; Baker,

Cote, & Hawes, 2000; Smith et al., 1995). Moreover, research has shown that coaches

who provide training in a verbally and physically aggressive manner are more likely to

be perceived by their athletes as having undesirable communication styles (e.g.,

hostile, unresponsive) and as being less credible (in terms of expertise, character,

and competence; Kassing & Infante, 1999). These findings are consistent with

research conducted in the school education context. That research showed that a

hostile learning environment, which is characterized by teachers’ instructions given

in an aggressive manner, can reduce students’ motivation for learning and their close-

ness to the teacher (Myers & Knox, 2000). Accordingly, it is important to study

athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ interpersonal behaviors, and the impact of such

behaviors on athletes’ learning, sport experience, and well-being.

The Present Study

Although the relationship (Jowett, 2007, 2009) and leadership models (Chelladurai,

2001; Smith & Smoll, 1990, 2007) outlined above place importance on situational

characteristics, their specific delineation in the literature remains too generic and

unclear. Moreover, they do not identify coaches’ actual techniques or messages to

athletes during their coaching practice. Therefore, the present study aimed to provide

a more specific and distinct description of certain interpersonal situations that com-

monly and frequently emerge within a performance-oriented context. Specifically, we

focused on the sport coaching context in which communicative acts of interaction,

including interpersonal behaviors and feelings, can influence athletes’ experiences,

learning, and well-being. For the purpose of the present study, we viewed an inter-

personal situation as a set of circumstances that are presented to an individual at a

given moment in time. Although athletes and their coaches are faced with numerous

situations, in the present study we examined two interpersonal situations that are

typical, and that occur frequently and inevitably, and thus can have profound effects

on athletes’ sport experience, learning, and well-being, including happiness and

satisfaction (e.g., Martin et al., 2009; Smith et al., 1995).

Western Journal of Communication 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The two specific situations examined in the present study are: (a) when the athlete

has lost a competition; and, (b) when the athlete has made mistakes in training. These

situations were examined for two reasons. First, sport is inextricably linked with

winning or losing. Both winning and losing are situations that are equally important

for learning, however, the emotions that they elicit typically makes winning more

desirable than losing. Nonetheless, the experience of losing is pervasive because the

majority of the competitors at any competition will experience it. Second, learning

within the coaching process is inextricably linked to athletes making mistakes (Smith

& Smoll, 2007); one cannot learn unless one makes mistakes. We examined these

situations by studying athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ reactions and the conse-

quences of those reactions on the athletes’ feelings and thoughts. Finally, we sought

athletes’ recommendations on how coaches can better manage these typical, yet

important, situations.

Athletes’ self-esteem, physical self-concept, motivation, and satisfaction with sport

have been associated with coach–athlete relationship, coach behavior (e.g., Jowett &

Cramer, 2010; Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004; Smith & Smoll, 1990), and the

nature of coaches’ messages and overall communication with their athletes (Turman,

2003a, 2005; Turman & Schrodt, 2004). For instance, children and young athletes can

feel dissatisfied with their sporting experiences and drop out of sport when coaches

focus too much on winning (Seefeldt & Ewing, 2000). The nature of sport compe-

tition emphasizes winning as an outcome, and the win–lose characteristic of sport

can elicit painful feelings of regret, sorrow, and shortcomings in the athletes. Such

feelings are often linked to the messages they receive from their coaches about their

performance mistakes and the importance of winning (Turman, 2005). Hence,

coaches’ messages are powerful predictors of how athletes (and particularly young

athletes) feel and perceive themselves, and their sporting experiences. Further, the

way in which coaches interact and communicate with their athletes influences how

athletes learn, develop, perform, and behave (D’Arripe-Longueville, Fournier, &

Dubois, 1998; Jowett, 2007; Turman, 2005). Competent communication consists of

appropriateness, effectiveness, and adaptability to any given situation (Keyton et al.,

2010). As such, an examination of coaches’ communicative acts in these two specific

situations—when athletes lose a competition and when they make mistakes in

training—is especially salient as it can help identify how coaches should react adap-

tively and communicate effectively when placed in these situations. Subsequently, the

generated information can contribute additional knowledge about the social interac-

tion, interpersonal relationship and communication between coaches and athletes,

and the way sports are enacted.

Identifying and understanding such interpersonal situations in which communi-

cation and interaction emerge and unfold is especially salient because of the

combined theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, a

study of interpersonal situations will provide valuable information both to the

psychology and communication literatures about social interaction, interpersonal

relationships, and communication between coaches and their athletes. Such infor-

mation can also potentially be applied to dyads in other performance-oriented

152 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

contexts; such as teacher–student, supervisor–supervisee, and instructor–performer

(e.g., musician, dancer, actor). From a practical perspective, a focus on interpersonal

situations can highlight solutions to problems, such as conflict in interacting and

relating, and can facilitate a better group performance and personal satisfaction,

and promote collective responsibility.

Method

Participants

A sample of 324 British athletes (159 females and 165 males) was recruited from

sporting clubs around the Midland and Southern regions of the United Kingdom.

The athletes’ average age was 20.11 years (SD¼ 1.65 years; range¼ 18–28 years)

and they had been competing for M¼ 7.36 years (SD¼ 4.01 years; range¼ 1–14

years) in a variety of team and individual sports (athletics [17%], rugby [9%],

American football, basketball [8% each], gymnastics, football [soccer; 7% each],

swimming, netball, rowing [6% each], volleyball, triathlon, tennis, badminton [5%

each], judo [4%], cricket [2%]), and at a range of competitive standards (local club

level [45%], regional=county level [21%], national level [18%], and international

level [16%]). The athletes reported that they had been working with their present

coach for M¼ 22.86 months (SD¼ 4.88 months; range¼ 6–96 months), spending

an average of 7.37 hours per week (SD¼ 1.41 hours) with the coach. Their responses

referred to the coaches (263 males and 61 females) who had coached them over the

course of their sport participation, from childhood to the time of data collection.

Procedure

After obtaining approval from the University Ethics Committee and permission from

the head coaches of the clubs, athletes were approached after their training sessions.

They were informed of the study’s aim (to investigate coaches’ reactions in two sep-

arate contexts: postcompetitions, and during training sessions), its voluntary nature,

and that data would be used only for research purposes and kept strictly confidential.

After signing an informed consent form, each athlete completed (taking between 20

and 25 minutes) the open-ended survey that is described below.

The Survey

A two-section open-ended qualitative survey was developed for the purpose of the

study. The first section requested demographic information (e.g., age, sex, sport,

competitive level, hours spent weekly with coach). The second section was divided

into two separate parts and contained seven questions that examined the athletes’

perceptions of their coaches’ reaction when they lost competitions and when they

made mistakes in training; each question offered space (A4 size paper) for the athletes

to write their answers. Prior to utilizing the survey, a pilot study was conducted to

test the survey with four athletes who completed it and provided feedback on the

Western Journal of Communication 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

appropriateness and clarity of the questions. After receiving their feedback, and mak-

ing their recommended minor changes to the phrasing of the questions, the survey

was finalized. The final version comprised seven questions (see Appendix).

Data Analysis

Athletes’ demographic information was computed for statistical information. Their

written answers to each of the survey questions were typed up verbatim (yielding

92 pages of single-spaced text). While some athletes answered each of the survey’s

questions, others answered some but not all of the questions; written answer per

question ranged from one to six lines. The data were analyzed deductively and induc-

tively employing principles of thematic analysis (Smith, 1995) to identify emerging

patterns. QSR NUDIST N6 (2002) was used to organize and manage the data. The

coding process involved: (a) dissecting the data into text segments of similar meaning

(i.e., have common thread) and labeling them; (b) examining them for similarities

and differences by constant comparison; and (c) grouping together conceptually

similar data to form a hierarchical structure of emerging themes and categories

(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Constant comparison of codes for similarities and differ-

ences enabled us to categorize the data while concurrently writing conceptual and

theoretical memos (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This dynamic coding process allowed

for codes to emerge from the data while studying them, and helped interpret the data

and develop an explanation of the issue under investigation, and to construct sub-

themes. This process also served a form of trustworthiness; in that we were constantly

reaffirming the meaning of the category.

Trustworthiness and credibility of the research was obtained through several steps

designed to ensure rigor in data analyses. First, we maintained an audit trail, which is

a record of the analytical decisions and processes that allowed us to verify rigor and

to minimize interpretive bias. Second, taking a collaborative approach (e.g., ongoing

peer debriefing) in the analytical process helped to reduce interpretive bias and con-

tinually to examine the credibility of the researchers. Third, maintaining a reflexive

journal forced us to reflect on our biases and values (Malacrida, 2007) including

our beliefs on what constitutes effective or ineffective coach communicative acts of

interaction. We recorded these biases and reflections in a journal during the analysis

phase, which helped to challenge them and, thereby, minimize bias in the course of

the study. Fourth, data triangulation was achieved by the first author independently

coding all the surveys collected, and the second author independently coding a third

of them (i.e., a random selection of 100 surveys). This process led to a 90% agreement

rate of coding (interrater reliability). Following this collaborative effort in the process

of interpretation, the data were verified and contextualized and themes were estab-

lished. Lower order themes were assigned labels that were as close as possible to

the athletes’ words (e.g., blame, disappointed) and higher order themes and cate-

gories were assigned labels using the language of social science (e.g., hostile reaction,

punitive behavior). Finally, using QSR NUDIST maximized the transparency of the

analytical process (Bringer, Johnston, & Brackenridge, 2004).

154 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Results

The results section is divided into three subsections: (1) coaches’ reactions when

athletes lose competitions (this includes coaches’ typical reaction and coaches’ worst

reaction); (2) coaches’ reactions when athletes make mistakes in training; and, (3)

athletes’ recommendations for coach reaction when athletes lose competitions and

make mistakes in training. Each subsection is presented below separately and the

tables show the categories in relation to their underlying themes. Additionally, direct

quotes from the athletes’ accounts are included to illustrate the meaning of particular

themes; each quote includes the athlete’s identification number (e.g., #1), sex, and

sport.

(1) Coaches’ Reactions When Athletes Lose Competitions

Data analyses revealed four categories for coaches’ typical reaction when athletes lose

competitions: emotional reaction, hostile reaction, postcompetition feedback, and

positive encouragement=motivation. Four categories were also identified for coaches’

worst reaction when athletes lose competitions: emotional reaction, hostile reaction,

punitive behavior, and postcompetition feedback (see Table 1).

Coaches’ emotional reaction when athletes lose competitions encompassed three

themes: negative emotions, positive emotions, and reserved emotional reaction.

‘‘Negative emotions’’ was the only theme reported for coaches’ worst reaction when

athletes lose competitions. In both of these situations, perceiving coaches’ negative

emotional reaction evoked negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 76) such as frus-

tration, disappointment, unhappiness=feeling down, anger, upset, feeling guilty,

and hurt. It also made them feel that they had let down their coach (N¼ 14), lowered

their perception of self (e.g., feel like failure, worthless, talentless, lose self-confidence;

N¼ 12), and made them feel dissatisfied with the coach (N¼ 6). Such coach reaction

demotivated some athletes (N¼ 6) and motivated others (N¼ 11). For example, ‘‘He

was stroppy and sulking, and angry that I swam badly. He looked utterly dis-

appointed, and ignored me for the rest of the day. I cried, felt embarrassed,

unmotivated, guilty, and awful. Felt I let him and everyone down and wanted to give

up the sport’’ (#214, female, swimming; occurred at age 16 years).

In contrast, perceiving coaches’ positive emotions evoked positive emotions in the

athletes (e.g., feeling good=better mood [N¼ 13]), restored their perception of self

after losing (N¼ 12), and motivated them (N¼ 8). Finally, perceiving coaches’

reserved emotional reaction also restored athletes perception of self (N¼ 9), and

made them feel in a better mood (N¼ 8) and motivated (N¼ 4) after losing.

Coaches’ hostile reaction towards athletes after losing competitions encompassed

verbal (e.g., shout, swear), physical (e.g., throw objects around), and relational

aggression (e.g., ignore the athlete, look away, not talk to the athlete), and blaming

the athlete for losing the competition. Coaches’ aggression (all the three types)

evoked negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 269) such as upset, disappointed,

angry=annoyed, unhappy (including dejected and sad), embarrassed, guilty, scared,

Western Journal of Communication 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table1

SummaryofCategories

andThem

esforCoaches’ReactionsWhen

AthletesLose

CompetitionsandWhen

AthletesMakeMistakes

inTraining

Coaches’typical

reactionwhen

athleteslose

competitions

Coaches’worstreactionwhen

athleteslose

competitions

Coaches’reactionswhen

athletes

makemistakes

intraining

EMOTIO

NALREACTIO

NEMOTIO

NALREACTIO

NEMOTIO

NALREACTIO

N

.Negativeem

otions

-Disappointed(N

¼37)

-Angry=annoyed(N

¼22)

-Upset(N

¼13)

-Stroppy=unhappy=sulks(N

¼6)

-Frustrated(N

¼4)

-Negativeappearance=outlook(N

¼5)

.Positive

emotions

-Positive

appearance=outlook(N

¼21)

-Congratulate

(N¼11)

-Happy(N

¼4)

-Pleased

(N¼4)

-Jokes=humor(N

¼3)

.Reservedem

otional

reaction

-Calm

(relaxed

andcomposed)(N

¼12)

-Controlled

emotions(N

¼10)

.Negativeem

otions

-Angry=Annoyed(N

¼25)

-Disappointed(N

¼14)

-Upset(N

¼10)

-Cry

(N¼4)

.Negativeem

otions

-Angry=annoyed(N

¼22)

-Disappointed(N

¼9)

-Frustrated(N

¼9)

HOSTILEREACTIO

NHOSTILEREACTIO

NHOSTILEREACTIO

N

.Aggressivebehavior

-Verbal

aggression(N

¼17)

.Aggressivebehavior

-Verbal

aggression(N

¼95)

.Aggressivebehavior

-Verbal

aggression(N

¼74)

156

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

-Relational

aggression(N

¼5)

.Blames

(N¼6)

-Relational

aggression(N

¼45)

-Physical

aggression(N

¼17)

.Blame(N

¼15)

-Relational

aggression(N

¼18)

-Physical

aggression(N

¼3)

.Blame(N

¼5)

PUNITIV

EBEHAVIO

RPUNITIV

EBEHAVIO

R

——

—.

Punishment(N

¼16)

.Threat

(N¼10)

.Punishment(N

¼19)

.Threat

(N¼6)

POSTCOMPETITIO

NFEEDBACK

POSTCOMPETITIO

NFEEDBACK

POSTMISTAKEFEEDBACK

.Perform

ance

analysisandtechnical

feedback

-Providefeedbackandinstructions(N

¼76)

-Seeksathlete’sfeedback(N

¼5)

-Providefeedback(general)(N

¼70)

-Provideinstructions(N

¼29)

-Criticism

(N¼18)

.Ineffectivefeedback(N

¼25)

.Praise(N

¼9)

.Ineffectivefeedback(N

¼26)

.Criticism

(N¼19)

.Tellingoff(N

¼18)

.Criticism

(N¼30)

.Tellingoff(N

¼14)

.Ineffectivefeedback(N

¼16)

POSITIV

EENCOURAGEMENT=MOTIV

ATIO

N

.Encourages=motivates(N

¼55)

.Consoles=comforts(N

¼27)

.Supports(N

¼11)

.Empathic=understanding(N

¼10)

.Reassures(N

¼7)

——

——

——

Note.Categories

areindicated

inbold

upper

key

text;higher

order

them

esareindicated

with‘.’;andlower

order

them

esandsubthem

esareindicated

with‘-’.Thenumbersin

bracketsreferto

thenumber

ofathleteswhoreported

thedata.

157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

frustrated, anxious, and hurt. It also made them feel dissatisfied with the coach

(N¼ 27) and that they had let down the coach (N¼ 7), and lowered their perception

of self (N¼ 23) and motivation (N¼ 22). Only three athletes said that they had learnt

from it. Finally, perceiving that coaches blamed the athletes for losing also evoked

negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 53; e.g., upset, angry, guilty, feeling

unhappy, frustrated, embarrassed), and made them feel dissatisfied with the coach

(N¼ 9) and demotivated (N¼ 5). For example, ‘‘He was shouting and blaming

players in front of others, kicking our bags, throwing stuff around. I felt guilty like

it was my fault, upset about his behavior, and not motivated. He then left the ground

and didn’t talk to us for a week’’ (#163, female, football) (verbal, physical, and

relational aggression).

Coaches’ punitive behavior after losing competitions was perceived as coaches’

worst reaction to losing; it was not reported for coaches’ typical reaction to losing.

This behavior encompassed punishment and threat and evoked negative emotions

in the athletes (N ¼ 27; angry embarrassed, frustrated, unhappy), lowered their per-

ception of self (N¼ 5), and made them feel dissatisfied with the coach (N¼ 5). For

example, ‘‘He gave me a punishment circuit for 1.5 hours. I felt negative, angry,

unwilling to cooperate’’ (#266, male, rowing, occurred at age 13 years); ‘‘He threa-

tened not to come back to coach our next game’’ (#186, female, basketball).

The third category for coaches’ typical reaction when athletes lose is postcompeti-

tion feedback. It comprised three themes: performance analysis and technical feedback

(e.g., provide feedback and instructions, seek athlete’s feedback, criticism), ineffective

feedback (i.e., little, none, or unhelpful feedback), and praise. Coaches’ worst reaction

when athletes lose encompassed postcompetition feedback and comprised three

themes: ineffective feedback, criticism, and telling off.

Coaches providing feedback and instructions made the athletes feel motivated and

confident (N¼ 74), evoked positive emotions in them (N¼ 53; happier, better mood,

feel good), enhanced their learning (N¼ 44), and made them feel supported and

reassured (N¼ 21), and satisfied with their coach (N¼ 19); e.g., ‘‘He gives us feed-

back on where it went wrong, and points to improve on [instructions], and tries to

leave us feeling positive for our next game. We learn from it and it makes us feel more

confident and motivated, and positive that we can do it’’ (#72, female, rugby). It

also, however, evoked negative emotions for some athletes (N¼ 14) such as feeling

disappointment, down, and guilty for losing.

Perceiving coaches’ ineffective communication after losing elicited negative emo-

tions in the athletes (N¼ 32), made them feel dissatisfied with the coach (N¼ 22)

and demotivated (N¼ 6), and lowered their perception of self (N¼ 5). For example,

‘‘She doesn’t give any feedback. I feel annoyed and unmotivated ‘cos I need advice on

what I’m doing wrong and how to improve, and positive comments to motivate me.

It makes me feel like a failure, and like she doesn’t care and I’m of no importance to

her’’ (#213, female, swimming).

Perceiving coaches’ criticism elicited negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 28),

and made them lose self-confidence (N¼ 8) and feel dissatisfied with their coach

(N¼ 8); for example, ‘‘He criticised me constantly when I lost and did not point

158 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

out any positives. I lost confidence in my ability and went down on number of tourna-

ments I played after that’’ (#319, female, tennis; occurred at age 13 years). Although

coaches’ criticism demotivated some athletes (N¼ 9), it motivated others (N¼ 4), and

helped some learn from it (N¼ 3). Finally, perceiving coaches’ telling off also elicited

negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 13; anger, upset, unhappy, shame), made them

lose self-confidence (N¼ 6), and made them feel humiliated (N¼ 4), and dissatisfied

with the coach (N¼ 4); e.g., ‘‘He completely slated us, said we were bad players and

‘you played awful, no wonder you lost!’ and ‘sort out your act!’. He made us feel

terrible, confused, hurt, and ashamed of our performance, and lose confidence . . . .I left the team soon after that’’ (#367, male, rugby; occurred at age 16 years).

The final category for coaches’ reaction when athletes lose competitions is positive

encouragement and motivation. It encompassed five themes: encouraging, consoling=

comforting, supporting, being empathic and understanding, and reassuring athletes

after they had lost a competition. Perceiving such coaches’ reaction elicited positive

emotions in the athletes (N¼ 38; feel good=better mood, happy) and made them feel

confident (N¼ 27), motivated (N¼ 21), reassured (N¼ 15), positive (N¼ 14),

encouraged (N¼ 9), and supported (N¼ 7); e.g., ‘‘He consoles, reassures, motivates

me, doesn’t make me feel guilty. He always looks on the bright side and the positives

of my performance and previous successes. He makes me feel better about myself,

motivated and more confident’’ (#211, female, swimming).

(2) Coaches’ Reactions When Athletes Make Mistakes in Training

Data analyses revealed four categories for coaches’ reaction when athletes make

mistakes in training: emotional reaction, hostile behavior, punitive reaction, and

postmistake communication (see Table 1). Coaches’ emotional reaction relates to coa-

ches expressing anger, disappointment, and frustration when athletes make mistakes.

Perceiving such coaches’ reactions evoked negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 14;

anger, frustration, feeling bad=demoralized), and made them feel confused (N¼ 5)

and that they had let down their coach (N¼ 5). However, some athletes reported that

it motivated them (N¼ 9); e.g., ‘‘He becomes visibly frustrated at mistakes in training

and this makes me feel even more frustrated and annoyed when doing things wrong=

mistakes, and I want to do better’’ (#111, male, football).

Coaches’ hostile reaction towards athletes when they make mistakes in training

encompassed verbal (e.g., shout, swear, insult athlete), relational (e.g., not talk to ath-

lete, ignore athlete, walk away from the athlete), and physical aggression (e.g., throw

objects around), and blaming the athlete for the mistake. Coaches’ aggression (all

three types) evoked negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 59; anger, shame, frus-

trated, upset, scared), reduced their perception of self (N¼ 12), and pressurized

(N¼ 9) and demotivated them (N¼ 9); e.g., ‘‘When coaches shout and swear when

I make mistakes it makes training worse and difficult to deal with, and gets me too

annoyed! I’ve cried on many occasions and felt demoralised after training badly and

making mistakes and being shouted at’’ (#139, female, gymnastics; verbal aggression).

Some athletes, however, reported that coaches’ shouting motivated them (N¼ 7),

Western Journal of Communication 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

and that they had learned from it (N¼ 2); e.g., ‘‘I like being shouted at [by the coach]

as it motivates me, makes me want to do better’’ (#246, female, netball).

Finally, perceiving that coaches blame the athletes for making mistakes also

elicited negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 8; shame, anger). For example, ‘‘He

blamed me, singled me out for making an error, then stopped the session and told

everyone about my mistake . . . . It embarrassed me and I felt humiliated and really

mad at him, and very upset’’ (#207, male, basketball).

Coaches’ punitive behavior when athletes make mistakes in training

encompassed two themes: punishment and threat. Perceiving such coaches’ behavior

evoked negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 32; anger, upset) and lowered their

perception of self (N¼ 9); e.g., ‘‘He shouted and told me to get off the floor and

off his sight. He made me leave the gym for twenty minutes instead of helping me

to correct it. He made me feel useless, worthless, and like I’m talentless’’ (#134,

female, gymnast) (punishment). Some athletes, however, also reported that coaches’

punitive behavior motivated them (N¼ 4); e.g., ‘‘His threats to end the session

and send me home make me angry, but also motivates me’’ (#326, male, tennis;

threat).

The final category for coaches’ reaction when athletes make mistakes in training is

postmistake feedback. This category includes three themes: criticism, telling off, and

providing ineffective feedback. Perceiving coaches’ criticism for mistakes elicited

negative emotions in the athletes (N¼ 54; anger, frustration, shame, upset), and

made them feel demotivated and dejected (N¼ 11), and lose self-confidence

(N¼ 8); e.g., ‘‘He makes snide comments, shouts, and constantly criticises us in

training and puts us down for mistakes instead of encouraging us. It’s very frustrat-

ing. We feel upset, fed up, dejected, and like we’re useless, and lose confidence and

drive’’ (#200, male, basketball). Perceiving coaches telling athletes off for making

mistakes also elicited negative emotions in athletes (N¼ 20; feel bad, upset, shame);

e.g., ‘‘He shouted, gave me a strong telling off for my mistakes in front of everyone.

Accused me of not trying and that this was the reason for my mistakes. I felt embar-

rassed and really angry and dejected’’ (#229, male, swimming). Finally, perceiving

coaches’ ineffective feedback to mistakes evoked negative emotion in the athletes

(N¼ 18; frustration anger) and made them dissatisfied with their coach (N¼ 6);

e.g., ‘‘He doesn’t react to anything I do in training whether it’s good or bad. It annoys

me. I feel he’s not interested, and like I’m insignificant and don’t matter to him, and

that he thinks I’m useless’’ (#19, female, athletics).

(3) Athletes’ Recommendations for Coach Reaction When Athletes Lose Competitions

and Make Mistakes in Training

Data analyses revealed similar categories for athletes’ recommendations for coaches’

reaction when athletes lose competitions and when athletes make mistakes in

training. These are: (a) effective coach practice; (b) appropriate relational=socialenvironment; and, (c) coach positive interpersonal qualities (see Table 2). However,

some themes within these categories differed.

160 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Table 2 Summary of Categories and Themes for Athletes’ Recommendations for Coa-

ches’ Reactions When Athletes Lose Competitions and When Make Mistakes in Training

Recommendations for coaches’ reaction

when athletes lose competitions

Recommendations for coaches’ reaction

when athletes make mistakes in training

EFFECTIVE COACH PRACTICE EFFECTIVE COACH PRACTICE

. Provide postcompetition analyses and

feedback

- Provide performance=technical feedback and

instructions (N¼ 213)

- Allow time to recover=reflect before giving

feedback and instructions (N¼ 25)

- Telling off=criticism is beneficial=needed

(N¼ 8)

. Reward athletes’ effort

- Praise athlete (N¼ 31)

- Appreciate athlete’s effort (N¼ 26)

. Avoid hostility towards athletes

- Avoid verbal aggression (N¼ 28)

- Avoid relational aggression (N¼ 21)

. Coach emotional reaction

- Okay for coach to show negative emotions

(N¼ 16)

- Coach should not show negative emotions=

control them (N¼ 13)

. Provide guidance and feedback

- Provide performance=technical feedback

and instructions (N¼ 142)

- Provide one-to-one feedback (N¼ 29)

. Offer discipline and motivation

- Verbal aggression

- Coaches’ shouting is beneficial=

motivator (N¼ 14)

- Coaches should avoid swearing (N¼ 6)

- Punitive behavior

- Coach’s punishment is beneficial=

motivator (N¼ 6)

- Coach should avoid punishment (N¼ 6)

. Coach emotional reaction

- Coach should not show=control negative

emotions (N¼ 23)

- Coach negative emotional response is

beneficial=motivator (N¼ 9)

- Acceptable for coach show negative

emotions (N¼ 3)

APPROPRIATE RELATIONAL=SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENT

APPROPRIATE RELATIONAL=SOCIAL

ENVIRONMENT

. Encourage (N¼ 56)

. Support (N¼ 37)

. Motivate (N¼ 23)

. Console=comfort (N¼ 14)

. Reassure (N¼ 13)

. Encourage (N¼ 45)

. Support (N¼ 24)

. Motivate (N¼ 20)

. Reassure (N¼ 18)

. Console=comfort (N¼ 8)

. Praise=appreciate athlete’s effort (N¼ 7)

COACH POSITIVE INTERPERSONAL

QUALITIES

COACH POSITIVE INTERPERSONAL

QUALITIES

. Be positive (N¼ 29)

. Be understanding (N¼ 26)

. Be helpful (N¼ 19)

. Be enthusiastic (N¼ 14)

. Be patient (N¼ 12)

. Be friendly (N¼ 11)

. Be positive=have positive attitude

(N¼ 26)

. Be understanding=show empathy

(N¼ 22)

. Be respectful=not mock athlete for

mistakes (N¼ 19)

(Continued )

Western Journal of Communication 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Effective coach practice is the first category in the athletes’ recommendations for

coaches’ reaction when athletes lose competitions. It incorporates four themes: pro-

vide postcompetition analyses and feedback, reward athletes’ effort, avoid hostility

towards athletes, and coach emotional reaction. The coach practice category in the

athletes’ recommendation for coach reaction when athletes make mistakes in training

encompasses three themes: provide guidance and feedback, offer discipline and

motivation, and coach emotional reaction. The first theme in this category (i.e., pro-

vide postcompetition analyses and feedback, and provide guidance and feedback)

appears in both sets of recommendations and was the most frequent recommen-

dation cited by the athletes. This theme proposes that coaches should provide athletes

with performance=technical feedback and instructions after losing competition, and

guidance and feedback after making mistakes in training. Some also suggested that

coaches should allow athletes time to recover and reflect on their competition loss

before providing feedback and instructions. A small number of athletes (N¼ 8) advo-

cated that coaches’ criticism and telling off after losing competitions was beneficial

and needed; for example, ‘‘A good telling off and criticism when players are rubbish

is helpful and motivates them to do better. Need a mix of being critical and encour-

aging, then pull players together to gel and motivate them’’ (#110, male, American

football).

The second theme in the coach practice category is reward athletes’ effort, which

suggests that coaches should praise athletes after losing and appreciate their efforts in

the competition. The third theme, avoid hostility towards athlete, suggests that

coaches should avoid verbal (e.g., shout, swear) and relational aggression towards

athletes after losing a competition; e.g., ‘‘Coaches mustn’t give up on the athletes

or ignore them, but must be supportive, positive and help them improve and under-

stand why they lost so that they learn from it’’ (#310, male, triathlon; avoid relation

aggression).

Table 2 Continued

Recommendations for coaches’ reaction

when athletes lose competitions

Recommendations for coaches’ reaction

when athletes make mistakes in training

. Be passionate (N¼ 11)

. Be caring (N¼ 10)

. Be approachable (N¼ 10)

. Be respectful (N¼ 10)

. Be strict, assertive, tough (N¼ 18)

. Be patient (N¼ 11)

. Be honest and open (in feedback=

guidance) (N¼ 8)

. Be helpful (N¼ 7)

. Be caring (N¼ 6)

. Be cooperative (N¼ 6)

. Be professional (N¼ 5)

Note. Categories are indicated in bold upper key text; higher order themes are indicated with ‘.’; and lower order

themes and subthemes are indicated with ‘-’. The numbers in brackets refer to the number of athletes who

reported the data.

162 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

The fourth theme, coach emotional reaction, appears in both sets of recommenda-

tions for coaches’ reactions (i.e., when athletes lose competitions and when they

make mistakes). While some athletes recommended that coaches should express their

negative emotions because it motivates athletes, others advocated that coaches should

control and not show such emotions. For example, ‘‘Coaches shouldn’t show anger,

disappointment or frustration, but must react calmly and composed, be supportive

and helpful as athletes feel bad after losing or when making mistakes in training’’

(#216, female swimming).

Finally, the theme, ‘‘offer discipline and motivation,’’ in the recommendations for

coaches’ reaction to athletes’ mistakes in training suggests that coaches shouting

(i.e., verbal aggression) and punishing (i.e., punitive behavior) could help promote

discipline and motivation in athletes after they have made a mistake; e.g., ‘‘Coach

shouting in training is okay ‘cos I believe it’s needed for a coach to be hard [in order]

to get the players to be good, focused, and work harder. But avoid personal insults’’

(#198, male, basketball). In contrast, some athletes viewed such coach reactions to be

ineffective and recommended that coaches should avoid swearing and punishing ath-

letes for mistakes; e.g., ‘‘Coach shouting and swearing when you make mistakes make

it difficult to cope with and must be avoided. It’s very unhelpful and makes training

even worse and gets me upset and very annoyed!’’ (#139, female, gymnastics).

Appropriate relational=social environment is the second category in both sets of

recommendations. It encompasses common themes such as encourage, support,

motivate, console, and reassure athletes. For example,

Console, and support players even if they lost. But be realistic and truthful in analy-sis of the performance, offer solutions and correct mistakes. Build team confidence.Draw out the positives, and encourage them to be positive and concentrate on thenext competition. (#193, male, basketball)

Coach positive interpersonal qualities is the third and final category in both sets of

recommendations. It encompasses common themes such as coaches should be posi-

tive, understanding, respectful, patient, helpful, and caring towards their athletes.

Further recommendations for coaches’ reaction when athletes lose competitions were

that coaches should be enthusiastic, friendly, passionate, and approachable. Further

recommendations for coaches’ reactions to athletes’ mistakes in training were that

they should be strict, assertive and tough, honest and open in their feedback and

guidance, cooperative, and professional. For example, ‘‘Be patient but critical, helpful

and understanding, and willing to help and work hard with the athlete to learn and

improve’’ (#64, male, athletics).

Discussion

The present study examined two typical and significant interpersonal situations that

have received scant research attention within performance-oriented contexts. Specifi-

cally, within the context of sports coaching, the study focused on athletes’ percep-

tions and interpretation of coaches’ reactions when: (a) the athlete has lost a sport

competition; and, (b) when the athlete has made mistakes in training, and how

Western Journal of Communication 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

coaches’ reactions in these two situations impacted the athletes’ feelings and well-

being. It also ascertained athletes’ recommendations on how coaches can better man-

age these important situations. The findings show that the athletes perceived coaches’

reactions to their losing competitions to be both positive and negative. Coaches’ reac-

tions that the athletes perceived to be positive included, the expression of positive

emotions (e.g., being calm and relaxed, congratulating the athletes, showing positive

appearance=outlook), and the provision of postcompetition analyses (e.g., giving ath-

letes feedback and instructions on performance), and encouragement=motivation

(e.g., supporting, consoling, reassuring). Coaches’ reactions that were perceived as

negative included: the expression of negative emotions (e.g., anger, disappointment),

hostile reactions (e.g., aggression, blame), and punitive behaviors (e.g., threat, pun-

ishment) towards the athletes. Perceiving positive coach reactions appears to elicit

overall positive emotions and mood in the athletes, while negative reactions appear

to elicit negative emotions in the athletes. The athletes reported that coaches’

expression of negative emotions had detrimental effects on them both at interperso-

nal (i.e., made them feel that they had failed to meet coaches’ expectations) and intra-

personal levels (i.e., made them feel as less competent and skillful sport performers).

Perceived negative coaches’ reactions when making mistakes in training

encompassed coaches’ expression of negative emotions, hostile reactions, and puni-

tive behaviors, as well as negative communicative transactions such as criticism and

telling the athlete off. It was evidenced that, like perceiving negative coach reactions

when athletes lost competitions, perceiving negative coach reactions when athletes

made mistakes also contributed to the athletes experiencing negative emotions such

as disappointment, frustration and dissatisfaction, as well as low perception of physi-

cal self (e.g., feeling unworthy and less valued, incompetent, and unskillful).

These findings reinforce previous research that has shown coaches’ negative beha-

viors in the instructional context to relate negatively to athletes’ motivation, affect,

and relationships with their coaches (e.g., D’Arripe-Longueville et al., 1998; Jowett,

2009; Martin et al., 2009; Reinboth et al., 2004). They point to the detrimental effects

of negative, controlling, intimidating, authoritative, and conflictual coach behaviors

as they particularly occur when athletes lose competitions and when athletes make

mistakes in training sessions. The findings contribute to research that suggests that

such coach reactions can be ineffective and have negative impact on athletes’ psycho-

logical performance-related factors (e.g., motivation, determination) and overall

well-being (e.g., affect, satisfaction). Thus, they consolidate other research findings

as well as pointing to specific reactions of coaches, as perceived by their athletes.

In contrast, the athletes reported that coaches’ positive reactions (e.g., congratu-

lating, praising, supporting, providing feedback and instructions) were likely to

reinforce and encourage them. The experience of such positive feelings, in turn,

appears to elicit positive outcomes for the athletes. These findings align with previous

research that has shown that positive coach behaviors such as reinforcement and

encouragement can lead to increased levels of athletes’ physical self-concept, general

self-esteem, motivation, and satisfaction. Specifically, coach behavior that aims to

encourage, support and motivate, teach or instruct, and promote cooperation and

164 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

interpersonal commitment have been found to increase athletes’ self-esteem (e.g.,

Smith & Smoll, 1990; Smoll, Smith, Barnett, & Everett 1993), physical self-concept

(e.g., Jowett & Cramer, 2010), satisfaction with training and performance (Jowett

& Nezlek, in press), and intrinsic motivation (e.g., Adie & Jowett, 2010). Thus, even

in undesirable ‘‘negative’’ situations such as losing competitions and making mis-

takes, which are typically displeasing, disconcerting, and disapproved, positive coach

reactions can potentially have beneficial and desirable outcomes for the athlete. From

an applied perspective, this suggests that positive interactive communication in

‘‘negative’’ interpersonal situations may have a more beneficial impact on the people

involved than in ‘‘positive’’ interpersonal situations (e.g., winning competitions).

Although it may be difficult for coaches to be positive in negative situations, such

as when their athletes lose a major competition or a championship (where the stakes

are high), the effects of adopting a positive attitude (e.g., being calm, relaxed, sup-

portive, reassuring) in such situations can have a beneficial effect on subsequent

coach–athlete interactions (for instance, during training and competitions), as well

as enhancing the athletes’ self-confidence and motivation.

Although perceived negative coach behaviors and reactions appear to have a det-

rimental effect on some athletes, they also seem to produce beneficial effects under

certain conditions. Therefore, we discuss each of these negative behaviors in turn.

Previous research has reported that coaches’ threats and punishments have the

capacity to increase athletes’ levels of anxiety and decrease their motivation (Baker

et al., 2000; Smith & Smoll, 2007). Evidence has shown that coaches resort to threats

and punishments when they perceive that their athletes are delivering a substandard

performance (Miles & Greenberg, 1993) and are less responsive to the coaching strat-

egy as competition increases (Liukkonen, Laakso, & Telama, 1996). Although most of

the participating athletes perceived coaches’ threats and punishments to be ineffective

and demotivating, some perceived them to be motivating and favorable and believed

that they had deserved the punishment. This perception may have occurred because

an athlete’s interpretation of coach’s reactions can be affected by the specific circum-

stances of any given situation. Moreover, athletes’ responses to coaches’ behavior may

be moderated by the athletes’ personalities (e.g., the degree to which an athlete is

open to and accepts others’ criticism and points of view, and is conscientious towards

work), which is likely to influence their perceptions of the situation (e.g., asking

themselves ‘have I tried hard enough and has my coach tried hard enough?’).

Researchers have suggested that athletes respond less negatively to coaches’ punish-

ment if they feel that they deserve it; when athletes attribute their failure or mistakes

to their poor performance and lack of effort (Smith & Smoll, 2007). Athletes low in

self-esteem (and especially children-athletes) are particularly vulnerable to coaches’

negative behaviors such as criticism and low reinforcement and encouragement,

and feel incompetent and deserving of coaches’ threats and punishment (Smith &

Smoll, 1990). While situational factors play an important role in athletes’ perceptions

of their coaches’ behavior and, therefore, must be accounted for when examining

athletes’ perceptions, it is important to acknowledge that individuals’ different

personality characteristics may play a key role.

Western Journal of Communication 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Aggressive reaction was another negative coach behavior that the athletes per-

ceived when they lost competitions and made mistakes in training. Verbal and non-

verbal aggressions are behaviors that are used to inflict harm on another person and

have negative consequences for the receiver (Bandura, 1973). Therefore, if directed

towards a person regularly, aggressive behaviors can constitute psychological abuse

(Infante & Rancer, 1996). While most of the athletes perceived coaches’ aggressive

behaviors and reactions to be undesirable and detrimental, some believed that coa-

ches responded in this way in an effort to improve their performances and as a means

to motivate and push them to try harder. They also believed that aggressive behavior

acted as a means of venting coaches’ negative emotions (e.g., frustration, disappoint-

ment, anger). Coaches’ aggressive behavior was characterized by three types of

aggression: relational, verbal, and physical. Relational and verbal aggressions were

prominently featured in our findings. Relational aggression attempts to hurt others

through social isolations (e.g., social ostracism) while at the same time avoiding

face-to-face interaction (Beatty, Valencic, Rudd, & Dobos, 1999; Storch, Werner, &

Storch, 2003). Such behavior can damage interpersonal relations and has been

associated with peer rejection and alcohol consumption in collegiate athletes (Storch

et al., 2003).

Verbally aggressive behavior and messages involve attacking another person’s

self-concept with the intent to hurt the receiver in order to stimulate psychological

pain (Infante & Rancer, 1996). Such behavior typically evokes negative affect in

the receiver such as embarrassment, anger, and feelings of inadequacy. It can also lead

to dissatisfaction with the interpersonal relationship, impaired relational quality

(Infante, Myers, & Buerkel, 1994; Martin & Anderson, 1995, 1996), and reduced

motivation (Myers & Knox, 2000) and group cohesion (Anderson & Martin, 1999).

In the present study, athletes reported that coaches’ verbal aggression elicited negative

emotions in them, and reduced their perceptions of physical self and satisfaction with

their coach. To date, researchers have not identified a context where verbal aggression

related to any positive outcomes or consequences. For example, in the school edu-

cation context, students perceived teachers’ verbal aggression as creating a hostile

learning environment that reduced their motivation for learning as well as their liking

of the teachers and their perception of the teachers’ credibility (Myers & Knox, 2000).

Similarly, in the sport context, athletes perceived coaches’ verbal and physical

aggression as reducing their liking of and satisfaction with the coaches, reducing their

successful competition outcomes (in terms of win–loss percentage), and as leading

them to exhibit fewer sportsmanship behaviors (Kassing & Infante 1999). Thus, coa-

ches’ aggressive communication seems to have adverse effect on how athletes orient

towards competition (i.e., sportsmanship) and on their level of closeness and satisfac-

tion with their coaches. Based on our findings and those of previous research, it

appears that instructors’ (e.g., teachers, coaches) aggressive communication in the

learning context has negative consequences for the learners.

The findings also show that a small number of athletes perceived aspects of coa-

ches’ verbal aggression (i.e., shouting, but not swearing or insulting) to be motivating

and beneficial. It is possible that these athletes perceived such coaches’ behaviors as

166 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

positive control, rather than aggressive and hostile, and as effective aspects of the coach

leadership role. Coaches’ use of positive control such as supporting, encouraging, and

instructing as opposed to punishing, ignoring, and intimidating, has been associated

with enhanced athletes’ self-esteem (Smith & Smoll, 2007) and liking their coaches,

teammates, and the sport (Smoll et al., 1993; Turman, 2006). From a practical perspec-

tive, our findings highlight that coaches’ aggressive reactions can potentially have

negative consequences for athletes and, thus, are ineffective. They can operate to the

detriment of athletes’ satisfaction, affect, motivation, and coach–athlete relationship,

and reduce athletes’ appreciation for their sport (Turman & Schrodt, 2004). As such,

coaches must be made aware of the potential risks of their aggressive behavior both to

their relationship with their athletes and to the athletes’ well-being and psychological

adjustment after losing competitions and making mistakes in training.

Research evidence has shown that athletes who perceive negative coach behavior

and rapport can feel intimidated and fearful of their coaches and experience anxiety

and negative emotions (e.g., Baker et al., 2000; Reinboth et al., 2004). Moreover, per-

ceiving negative consequences such as coaches’ negative emotions, hostile reactions,

and punitive behaviors after losing competitions and making mistake in training

might elicit fear of failure in athletes. Fear of failure is conceptualized as a motive

to avoid failure that is grounded in the belief that failure will lead to aversive conse-

quences; the stronger the belief, the greater the fear will be (Conroy, Willow, &

Metzler, 2002). Although fear of failure in the sport domain has been examined pre-

viously (e.g., Sagar, Busch, & Jowett, 2010; Sagar & Lavallee, 2010; Sagar, Lavallee, &

Spray, 2007, 2009), it has not been examined in the context of coach–athlete inter-

personal interaction. Furthermore, fear of failure might influence how athletes inter-

pret their coaches’ reactions when they lose competitions and make mistakes in

training. It is also possible that athletes’ fears of failure can influence how coaches

relate and interact with them. We, therefore, encourage future research to investigate

fear of failure within the context of coach–athlete communicative acts of interaction.

Coaches’ messages and feedback is an overt communicative facet of the coach–

athlete relationship. The type and nature of these messages and feedback can influ-

ence athletes’ motivation, satisfaction, learning and developing, and perception of self

(Smith & Smoll, 1990; Turman, 2005; Turman & Schrodt, 2004). Research has shown

that some coaches rated prosocial forms of feedback (e.g., reward statements, encour-

aging self-talk) as more effective than antisocial or less supportive forms of feedback

(e.g., threats, punishments; Gould, Hodge, Peterson, & Giannini, 1989), but

used antisocial rather than prosocial forms as competition frequency increased

(Liukkonen et al., 1996). Experienced coaches were found to use less antisocial

instructional strategies than less experienced coaches (Turman, 2003a). Further,

the nature of coaches’ feedback and interaction with their athletes can impact team

cohesion. Turman (2003b) reported decreased team cohesion when coaches embar-

rassed and ridiculed players, and increased cohesion when they praised players.

Accordingly, the nature of coaches’ messages and feedback, and interaction with their

athletes seem to be influenced by the coach’s levels of experience and expertise and

competition frequency, and to affect athletes’ overall well-being and performance.

Western Journal of Communication 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Coaches may use less supportive forms of messages and feedback in an effort to

focus athletes’ attention on the need to succeed and win. The nature of sport com-

petition, which demands winning as an outcome, can lead some coaches to be overly

focused on winning. This tendency may be difficult for some coaches to modify given

that sport coaching effectiveness and success is often measured by winning percen-

tages rather than learning experiences (Kozub & Button, 2000; Matheson, Mathes,

& Murray, 1997). Moreover, the typical assumption within the sport environment

is that coaches are responsible to ensure the success of their athletes. As such, some

coaches may be more focused on winning than on creating a learning environment

for their athletes (cf. Naylor, 2007). Nonetheless, it is imperative to encourage

coaches to instill and promote, through their messages and communication with ath-

letes, the value of learning from sport participation that goes beyond the sport

environment (e.g., life lessons and skills, teamwork, value of physical activity,

relationships and self-esteem building).

Study Implications and Recommendations

The present study offers theoretical and practical implications from an instructional

communication perspective. From a theoretical perspective, it enhances knowledge

about athletes’ perceptions of coaches’ communicative acts of interaction in two dis-

tinct situations—when athletes lose competitions and when they make mistakes in

training—and the impact these have on the athletes. While theory and research have

focused on the importance of interpersonal situations on coach behavior and athlete

evaluation, and on coach–athlete relationship quality, the present study focused on

specific features of situations, and their impact on communications, interactions,

and relations, and thereby extends knowledge and understanding. From a practical

perspective, the study highlights interpersonal problems in coach–athlete interactions

in these two specific situations and helps identify how coaches should adapt their

reactions and communication in order to be more effective when placed in such

situations. Thus, the findings underline what constitutes effective and appropriate

(i.e., ‘‘personally effective and socially appropriate’’; Trenholm & Jensen, 1996, p. 11)

coach communication and, thereby, have valuable implications for competent

communication.

It is important to understand and identify effective and appropriate coach reaction

and interaction with athletes, especially in situations when athletes lose competitions

and make mistakes in training, as they have the potential to negatively impact

athletes’ experiences and overall well-being (e.g., affect, self-esteem, physical self-

concept, motivation, learning). Effective and appropriate coach reaction that is

characterized by affirming messages that are supportive, positive, encouraging, and

motivating are likely to benefit both the athlete and the coach–athlete interaction

in these situations. When coaches react in this way and avoid negative communi-

cation, athletes are likely to feel a greater degree of satisfaction and to experience

positive affect towards their coaches and their sport. Echoing Infante’s (1995) con-

tention that ‘‘aggressiveness is destructive and should be eradicated in the learning

168 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

context’’ (p. 62), we advise that aggression should be avoided within the sport learn-

ing context (as well as within other performance-oriented learning contexts).

The sport context offers an environment for children and young athletes to learn

about teamwork and sportsmanship, and to develop character, confidence, and integ-

rity (McGuire & Cooks, 1985; Power & Manire, 1992). Young athletes often view

their coaches as having a major influence on the direction of their lives (Parrot &

Duggan, 1999). As such, coaches are placed in a valuable and responsible position

whereby their behavior, the nature of the messages they provide, and their communi-

cation with their athletes can have a significant effect on the athletes. By providing

athletes with supportive forms of feedback and prosocial communication, coaches

can enhance athletes’ overall sporting experience, satisfaction, participation, and per-

ceptions toward competition; specifically coaches can reduce the levels of regret their

athletes may experience after losing competitions or making mistakes in training

(Turman, 2005). It is important that coaches (especially those coaching children

and young athletes) move away their focus from winning and losing competition

by emphasizing and focusing their messages and communication on other important

qualities that sport offers (e.g., life lessons and skills, value of physical activity, rela-

tionships and self-esteem building), thereby, enhancing athletes’ learning and devel-

oping, motivation, satisfaction, and coach–athlete relationships, as well as reducing

athletes’ performance anxiety and fear of failure (Baker et al., 2000; Sagar et al.,

2010; Smith et al., 1995). Furthermore, to enhance athletes’ motivation and sport

participation after losing competitions and making mistakes in training, coaches

should adopt a democratic leadership style that encourages their athletes to express

their views and interpretation of their losing a competition or making mistakes in

training, and to reflect on what the sport experience (both of competing and train-

ing) means to them in the short and long term.

The athletes’ recommendations for coaches’ reaction when athletes lose competi-

tions andmake mistakes in training seem to agree on the following. Overall, the athletes

viewed the technical aspect of sport performance in these situations to be important

and asserted that coaches should provide analyses, feedback, and guidance (e.g., correct

and teach the athlete). Equally, they viewed the relational aspect to be important, advo-

cating the importance of coaches creating a positive social environment (e.g., assure,

motivate, encourage) rather than a hostile (e.g., be verbally aggressive), distant (e.g.,

relational aggressive), or negatively controlling (e.g., punish, criticize, intimidate)

environment. They viewed such an approach to enhance athletes’ affect, motivation,

physical self-concept, learning and improving, and to contribute to positive experi-

ences (e.g., satisfaction) in these situations. These recommendations highlight that

coaches’ liking and supporting their athletes should not be contingent on the athlete’s

winning and not making mistakes (cf. Smith & Smoll, 2007).

Study Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Although the study revealed a number of valuable findings, its limitations must be

noted. First, we examined the athletes’ perceptions and not those of the coaches.

Western Journal of Communication 169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Some of the information the athletes provided were retrospective and relied upon

recall of past experiences of coach reactions (e.g., childhood experiences), which were

subject to memory bias. Second, the negative impact of coach reaction that the ath-

letes reported to have experienced could have resulted from a combination of their

negative emotions, which often accompany losing a competition, and coach reac-

tions. Thus, the precise causation cannot be inferred from a survey method. Finally,

data were collected through a survey, which somewhat limited the amount of data

generated in comparison to what can be generated through interviews, where parti-

cipants are probed to elicit deeper data. As such, research that employs an interview

method in data collection can extend the findings of the present study and show how

the relational dynamics enacted. Nevertheless, the study’s strengths include the use of

a large sample size of male and female athletes, the variety of sports examined, and

the examination of coaches’ reactions in these two situations from the athletes’

perceptions as opposed to those of an outside observer (e.g., a researcher).

Instructional communication scholars should extend knowledge and understand-

ing of sport coaching as an instructional communication context and, thereby,

expand the educational contexts that they investigate (cf. Sprague, 2002). They can

broaden knowledge on coach behavior and communication by investigating, through

in-depth interviews with coaches, how coaches perceive their own reactions when

their athletes lose competitions and make mistakes in training, and how they perceive

the impact of these reactions on the athletes. Research should also examine the rea-

sons behind coaches’ hostile, aggressive and distant behaviors towards their athletes

in these situations; because coaches’ interpersonal behaviors are affected by person-

ality, social, cognitive, and motivational variables (Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007;

Smith & Smoll, 2007). In addition, observing coaches’ responses in the naturalistic

competitive environment and training sessions, and at different times during the

course of a competition season where different competitions (e.g., a championship

final vs. early-season competition) have different values and outcomes, can further

deepen findings. It can also establish whether athletes’ perceptions and interpreta-

tions capture the essence of what actually occurs in these situations or are biased

by ‘‘the heat of the moment’’ (see Burton & Raedeke, 2008).

Conclusions

The study has theoretical and practical implications for understanding, explaining,

and improving communication practices and processes in distinct situations within

the performance context. Specifically, it highlights the salient role of sport coaches’

competent communication when athletes lose competitions and when they make

mistakes in training. Competent coach communication that is effective, appropriate,

and adaptable, especially in important interpersonal situations such as losing a sport

competition and making mistakes in training, can play a vital role in promoting ath-

letes’ motivation, physical self-concept, skill development, and ultimately their sport-

ing success. Coaches can create an optimal learning environment for their athletes by

enacting a democratic leadership style that offers supportive forms of messages and

170 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

feedback, and prosocial communication, when their athletes lose competitions and

make mistakes in training. The present study provides evidence for the role and

the significance of examining specific interpersonal situations that are relevant to

both coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship literature and thereby extends

knowledge. It also emphasizes the importance of understanding communication in

applied performance-oriented learning contexts, and paves the way for future

research that will address communication in different situations, offer practical solu-

tions, and inform existing theories. Given the important role of organized sport in

children’s and young people’s lives, and the significant role of the coach in their lives,

it is important for communication scholars to continue further to examine sport

coaches’ instructional communication.

References

Adie, J., & Jowett, S. (2010). Athletes’ meta-perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship, multiple

achievement goals and intrinsic motivation among track and field athletes. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 40, 2750–2773. doi:10.1111=j.1559-1816.2010.00679.xAnderson, C. M., & Martin, M. M. (1999). The relationship of argumentativeness and verbal

aggressiveness to cohesion, consensus, and satisfaction in small groups. Communication

Reports, 12, 21–32. doi:10.1080=08934219909367705Baker, J., Cote, J., & Hawes, R. (2000). The relationships between coaching behaviours and sport

anxiety in athletes. Journal of Science and Medicine, 3, 110–119. doi:10.1016=S1440-2440(00)80073–0

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Beatty, M. J., Valencic, K. M., Rudd, J., Dobos, J. (1999). A ‘‘dark side’’ of communication avoid-

ance: Indirect interpersonal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 16, 103–109.

doi:10.1080=08824099909388707Bringer, J. D., Johnston, L. H., & Brackenridge, C. H. (2004). Maximizing transparency in a doc-

toral thesis: The complexities of writing about the use of QSR Nvivo within a grounded

theory study. Qualitative Research, 4, 247–265. doi:10.1177=1468794104044434Burton, D., & Raedeke, T. D. (2008). Sport psychology for coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Chelladurai, P. (2001). Managing organization for sport and physical activity: A systems perspective.

Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb-Hathaway.

Conroy, D. E., Willow, J. P., & Metzler, J. N. (2002). Multidimensional fear of failure measurement:

The Performance Failure Appraisal Inventory (PFAI). Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14,

76–90. doi:10.1080=10413200252907752Cote, J., & Gilbert, W. (2009). An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise.

International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 4, 307–323. doi:10.1260=174795409789623892

D’Arripe-Longueville, F., Fournier, J. F., & Dubois, A. (1998). Perceived effectiveness of interactions

between expert French judo coaches and elite female athletes. The Sport Psychologist, 12,

317–332.

Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Giannini, J. (1989). Examination of strategies used by elite

coaches to enhance self-efficacy in athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11,

128–140.

Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression. Communi-

cation Education, 44, 51–63. doi:10.1080=03634529509378997Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. A. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression in construc-

tive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal of Communi-

cation, 58, 73–84. doi:10.1080=10570319409374488

Western Journal of Communication 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review of

recent theory and research. In B. R. Burleson & A. W. Kunkel (Eds.), Communication

yearbook 19 (pp. 319–352). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jowett, S. (2007). Interdependence analysis and the 3þ 1Cs in the coach-athlete relationship. In

S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 15–27). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Jowett, S. (2009). Validating coach-athlete relationship measures with the nomological network.

Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 13, 1–18. doi:10.1080=10913670802609136

Jowett, S., & Cramer, D. (2010). The prediction of young athletes’ physical self from perceptions of

relationships with parents and coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 140–147.

doi:10.1016=j.psychsport.2009.10.001Jowett, S., & Nezlek, J. (in press). Relationship interdependence and satisfaction with important

outcomes in coach-athlete dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2007). Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett

& D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 3–14). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kassing, J. W., & Infante, D. A. (1999). Aggressive communication in the coach-athlete relation-

ship. Communication Research Reports, 16, 110–120. doi:10.1080=08824099909388708Keyton, J., Beck, S. J., Messersmith, A. S., & Bisel, R. S. (2010). Ensuring communication research

makes a difference. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 306–309. doi:10.1080=00909882.2010.490844

Kozub, S. A., & Button, C. J. (2000). The influence of competitive outcome on perceptions of

cohesion in rugby and swimming teams. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 82–95.

Lafreniere, M. A., Jowett, S., Vallerand, R. J., Donahue, E. G., & Lorimer, R. (2008). Passion in

sport: Quality of coach-athlete relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30,

541–560.

Liukkonen, J., Laakso, L., & Telama, R. (1996). Educational perspectives of youth sport coaches:

Analysis of observed coaching behaviors. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27,

439–453.

Malacrida, C. (2007). Reflexive journaling on emotional research topics: Ethical issues for team

researchers. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1329–1339. doi:10.1177=1049732307308948Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1995). Roommate similarity: Are roommates who are similar in

their communication traits more satisfied? Communication Research Reports, 12, 46–52.

doi:10.1080=08824099509362038Martin, M. M., & Anderson, C. M. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 547–554.

Martin, M. M., Rocca, K. A., Cayanus, J., & Weber, K. (2009). Relationships between coaches’ use

of behavior alteration techniques and verbal aggression on athletes’ motivation and affect.

Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 227–241.

Matheson, H., Mathes, S., & Murray, M. (1997). The effect of winning and losing on female inter-

active and coactive team cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 284–299.

McGuire, R. T., & Cook, D. L. (1985). The influence of others and the decision to participate in

youth sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6, 9–16.

Miles, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate social loafing effects

among swimmers. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 246–265.

doi:10.1006=obhd.1993.1054Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressive-

ness and student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 17, 299–309. doi:10.1080=08824090009388777

Naylor, A. H. (2007). The coach’s dilemma: Balancing playing to win and player development. The

Journal of Education, 187, 31–48.

172 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Parrott, R., & Duggan, A. (1999). Using coaches as role models of sun protection for youth:

Georgia’s ‘‘Got Youth Covered’’ project. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27,

107–119. doi:10.1080=00909889909365529Power, T. G., & Manire, S. H. (1992). Child-rearing and internalization: A developmental perspec-

tive. In J. Janssen & J. Gerris (Eds.), Child-rearing, moral, and prosocial development (pp. 101–

123). Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

QSR NUDIST N6 [Qualitative computer software]. (2002). Melbourne, Australia: QSR.

Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need

satisfaction and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and

Emotion, 28, 297–313. doi:10.1023=B:MOEM.0000040156.81924.b8

Sagar, S. S., Bush, B. K., & Jowett, S. (2010). Success and failure, fear of failure, and coping

responses of adolescent academy football players. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22,

213–232. doi:10.1080=10413201003664962Sagar, S. S., & Lavallee, D. (2010). The developmental origins of fear of failure in adolescent

athletes: Examining parental practices. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 177–187.

doi:10.1016=j.psychsport.2010.01.004Sagar, S. S., Lavallee, D., & Spray, C. M. (2007). Why young elite athletes fear failure: Consequences

of failure. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1171–1184. doi:10.1080=02640410601040093Sagar, S. S., Lavallee, D., & Spray, C. M. (2009). Coping with the effects of fear of failure: A pre-

liminary investigation of young athletes. Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 3, 73–98.

Seefeldt, V. D., & Ewing, M. E. (2000). Youth sports in America: An overview. President’s Council on

Physical and Sports Research Digest, 2, 1–10.

Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Hare, &

L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London, UK: Sage.

Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1990). Self-esteem and children’s reactions to youth sport coaching

behaviors: A field study of self-enhancement processes. Developmental Psychology, 26,

987–993. doi:10.1037=0012-1649.26.6.987Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (2002). Youth sports as a behavior setting for psychological interven-

tions. In J. L. Van Raalte & B. W. Brewer (Eds.), Exploring sport and exercise psychology

(2nd ed., pp. 341–371). Washington, DC: APA.

Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (2007). Social-cognitive approach to coaching behaviors. In S. Jowett &

D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 75–90). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Barnett, N. (1995). Reduction in children’s sport anxiety through social

support and stress-reduction training for coaches. Journal of Applied Developmental

Psychology, 16, 125–142. doi:10.1016=0193-3973(95)90020-9Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N., & Everett, J. (1993). Enhancement of children’s self-esteem

through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,

602–610. doi:10.1037=0021-9010.78.4.602Sprague, J. (2002). Communication education: The spiral continues. Communication Education, 51,

337–354. doi:10.1080=03634520216532Storch, E. A., Werner, N. E., & Storch, J. B. (2003). Relational aggression and psychological

adjustment in intercollegiate athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 155–167.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and

techniques (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (1996). Interpersonal communication (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Turman, P. D. (2003a). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective:

The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences and perceptions

of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education, 52, 73–86. doi:10.1080=03634520302465

Turman, P. D. (2003b). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team

cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 86–104.

Western Journal of Communication 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013

Turman, P. D. (2005). Coaches’ use of anticipatory and counterfactual regret messages during

competition. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 116–138. doi:10.1080=00909880500045072

Turman, P. D. (2006). Athletes’ perception of coach power use and the association between playing

status and sport satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23, 273–282. doi:10.1080=08824090600962540

Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2004). New avenues for instructional communication research:

Relationships among coaches’ leadership behaviors and athletes’ affective learning.

Communication Research Reports, 21, 130–143. doi:10.1080=08824090409359975

Appendix

The Survey Questions

Part 1—Your coach’s reaction after you lose a competition

1. Describe how your coach usually reacts after you lose a competition. Please give

examples of how s=he behaves, what s=he says, etc.2. Describe how it makes you feel when your coach reacts to your losing a

competition in the way that you described above in question 1.

3. Describe the worst reaction, from any coach, that you’ve ever experienced when

you lost a competition. Please give examples of how that coach behaved, what s=he said, etc. Also state what the sport was, whether the coach was male or female,

and your age at that time.

4. Describe how it made you feel when that coach reacted to you losing that

competition in the way that you described above in question 3.

5. In your opinion, and based on your experience with coaches, explain what you

consider to be a good and appropriate way for coaches to react after their athletes

lose a competition.

Part 2—Your coach’s reaction after you make mistakes in training

6. Describe your coach’s worst reaction after you’ve made a mistake in training, and

how this reaction made you feel.

7. Explain how you would like, or prefer, your coach to react after you’ve made a

mistake in training.

174 S. S. Sagar and S. Jowett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Cle

mso

n U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

59 1

9 Se

ptem

ber

2013