Journal of Coaching Education

Transcription

1 Athletes Perceptions of a Coach Who Faked Confidence Barrett Wilson University of North Dakota Sandra E. Short University of North Dakota Martin W. Short University of North Dakota Abstract This experimental study examined differences in athletes' perceptions of a coach who faked confidence. The participants (n = 29) were elite hockey players from the Dallas Stars organization and North Dakota men's hockey program. They completed a questionnaire after watching a video of a coach draw up a neutral zone forecheck. Participants then read a short scenario that explained that the coach was faking his confidence regarding his knowledge about the strategy he presented. The athletes then completed the same set of questions again. Paired-sample t-tests compared the athletes ratings before and after they were told that the coach was faking his confidence. The questions were about coach's confidence (in general), the coach's confidence in the strategy he presented, and the athlete s perception that the coach would be confident in his ability to explain a different strategy. All values significantly decreased (p =.00) after the participants were told that the coach was faking confidence. From the qualitative data, three dimensions (i.e., confidence, knowledge, and presentation style) were prominent. These qualitative results provide insight as to why the athletes perceptions of the coach changed from positive (e.g., athletes perceived the coach was confident) to negative (e.g., athletes perceived that the coach was not confident) after finding out the coach was faking his confidence. Coaches should be aware that they can effectively fake confidence. However, if a coach were to fake it and get caught, then they should know that the athletes perceptions of them may become negative quickly. KEYWORDS: Confidence, coaching, faking Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 83 of 101

2 Athletes Perceptions of a Coach Who Faked Confidence This article examines athletes perceptions of a coach who faked confidence. Although in his Pyramid of Success, Coach Wooden considered Confidence to be one of the two building blocks upon which Competitive Greatness rested (along with Poise ) he also understood that true confidence must be earned, not given, even by a well-intentioned coach: Confidence cannot be grafted on artificially. Real abiding Confidence, like Poise, is earned only by tenaciously pursuing and attaining those assets that allow you to reach your own level of competency the potential you have within. -Coach John Wooden Introduction Many people view confidence as one of the best qualities a person can have. In the sports world, success (i.e., winning) is valued and when coaches and athletes are confident they are more likely to be successful (Feltz, Short, & Sullivan, 2008). The study of coaches confidence in sport has been grounded in efficacy theory (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999). Coaching efficacy is defined as the extent to which coaches believe they have the capacity to affect the learning and performance of their athletes (Feltz et al., 1999). In their coaching efficacy model, Feltz et al. proposed that coaches efficacy beliefs are influenced by their past performances and experiences, the perceived ability of their athletes, and perceived social support. In turn, coaching efficacy influences how one coaches, how players perform, how confident and motivated the players are, and how satisfied one is with one s coaching. 1 One of the predictions in Feltz et al. s (1999) coaching efficacy model is that coaches who are highly efficacious will have highly efficacious athletes. Given this effect that coaches efficacy levels can potentially have on athletes, it is generally recommended that coaches act confident (Vargas-Tonsing, Myers, & Feltz, 2004). In fact, researchers have examined how often coaches used certain efficacy-enhancing techniques and the effectiveness of these techniques. Results showed that athletes (Vargas-Tonsing et al., 2004) and coaches (Gould, Hodge, Peterson, & Giannini, 1989; Vargas-Tonsing et al., 2004; Weinberg, Grove, & Jackson, 1992; Weinberg & Jackson, 1990) perceived the technique of a coach acting confident as one of the most popular and effective efficacy-enhancing techniques. Thus, it is important for a coach to act confident because of the effects it has on his/her players (Vargas-Tonsing et al., 2004) Athletes perceptions are extremely important to consider in coach-athlete interactions. For example, the efficacy-enhancing technique of the coach acting confident would not be beneficial if athletes did not 1 Confidence and efficacy are often used as synonyms. We use the word "efficacy" in theoretical contexts, but consider both words to have the same meaning. Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 84 of 101

3 perceive the coach being confident. The importance of athletes perceptions of coaching behaviors is a part of Horn s (2002) model of coaching effectiveness. This model emphasizes that: 1) coaches behaviors are affected by identifiable antecedent factors that can lead up to, or explain, the types of behaviors that coaches will exhibit in sport settings; 2) coaches behaviors have a direct and indirect effect on athletes performances and behavior; and 3) the effectiveness of different types of coaching behaviors will be mediated by both situations and individual difference variables. It is within this last area where athletes' perceptions, interpretations, and evaluations of their coaches behavior are shown to effect athletes' own self-perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes. Related to this study, the implications are that athletes who perceive their coaches as confident may also have high confidence levels. However, if athletes do not perceive their coaches as confident, then the desired effect of increasing the athletes feelings of efficacy would not be possible. Coaching efficacy levels have been shown to fluctuate/vary along a variety of coaching characteristics and environmental circumstances (e.g., Ross-Stewart, Short, & Short, 2005; Short, Smiley, & Ross-Stewart, 2005). Thus, there are likely to be times when a coach is not confident. What should he/she do in these situations? Fake it? How would the athletes perceive their coach if they found out he/she was faking? To date, little research has been conducted on the notion of faking confidence in sport. In an exploratory study to see if the phenomenon existed, Shelanski, Wilson and Short (2007) surveyed a convenience sample of 28 retired college and professional athletes asking them if they could recall a time when a coach was confident in them and if they could recall a time when a coach faked confidence in them. The participants responded yes (n = 25, 93%) that they could recall a time when their coach was confident in them. Subsequent qualitative analyses showed that knowing the coach was confident in them gave the athletes more confidence (n = 29 text units, 37.2% of responses for this question), effected their psychological states (e.g., it gave me a tougher mental attitude, n = 20, 25.6%), relaxed them (n = 13, 16.7%), resulted in better physical play (n = 12, 15.4%), and gave them the feeling that they could be a leader (n = 4, 5.1%). When asked if they could recall a time when their coach faked their confidence in them, the participants responded yes (n = 10, 37% of the responses for this question), no (n = 8, 30%), and not sure (n = 9, 33%). Regarding the effects of knowing that their coach faked confidence in them, a subsequent qualitative analysis showed that it increased their stress level (n = 14 text units, 38.9% of the responses for this question), decreased their confidence (n = 7, 19.4%), and gave them negative expectations of their own abilities (n = 6, 16.7%). In some cases, however, the athletes reported that knowing their coach was faking their confidence in him/her had no effect on their feelings or behavior (n = 5, 13.9%), and some athletes even reported positive effects (e.g., I wanted to do everything in my power to prove him wrong, n = 4, 11.1%). Overall, the coach faking confidence in the athletes had some negative and positive effects. These results show that faking confidence may not be a completely negative strategy coaches may have faked but the athletes didn't know, and even if coaches faked and the athletes knew, some athletes used that to their advantage. In summary, research has shown that when athletes believe that their coaches have high efficacy beliefs, they are also more likely to have high efficacy beliefs. Furthermore, the coach acting confident has been shown to be a popular and effective efficacy-enhancing technique for athletes and coaches. From a theoretical Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 85 of 101

4 perspective, athletes perceptions of coaches are very important which means that if the athletes do not perceive the coach to be confident then these desired positive effects will not be achieved. Furthermore, faking confidence may be a viable solution when coaches lack confidence, but there is little research in this area. The purpose of this study was to explore this notion of coaches faking confidence. In particular, this study was designed to see if athletes perceptions of a coach changed after they found out the coach was faking his confidence in a particular, strategic, part of a hockey system. The hypothesis was that the athletes would have less confidence in the coach if they were told that the coach was faking confidence. Method Participants This study had a total of 29 participants from the sport of ice hockey. At the time of the study the participants were currently playing in the National Hockey League (n = 8, 28.6%), the American Hockey League (n = 8, 28.6%), at the college level (n = 8, 28.6%), and in juniors or major junior (n = 4, 14.2%). In total, the participants had played hockey for an average of 17 years (SD = 4.34, range: 11-31) and they had played an average of 2.76 years (SD = 3.54) at their current level. The average age of the participants was years (SD = 4.42, range: 18-35). The majority of the participants were Caucasian (n = 25, 86.2%), the remaining four participants chose other (n = 4, 13.8%). With respect to nationality, 57.1% (n = 16) of the participants were Canadian and 32.0% (n = 9) were American. The other two countries represented were from Finland (n = 2, 7.2%) and Sweden (n = 1, 3.7%). When asked if any of the participants had any coaching experience, 24 of the 29 participants indicated yes. The main type of coaching experience was hockey school (n = 14, 58.3%), followed by coaching some sort of youth hockey (n = 9, 37.5%). One participant indicated that he coached in the United States Hockey League (USHL). Although these participants were a convenience sample, they were purposely selected because of their high level of participation in hockey. This expertise was necessary because we wanted the athletes to understand the strategy and not be distracted by the terminology used by the coach so they could better tune into the manipulation. In addition, that the majority of participants had coaching experience was considered extremely positive as it would help them critique another coach. Measure One computer based questionnaire was used. The demographic section of the survey included questions related to age, ethnicity, nationality, how many years they had played hockey including this year, at what level they were currently playing, how long they had been playing at that level, and if they had ever coached before. This information was used to describe the sample. The other questions were related to the athletes' perceptions of the coach. The first questions were openended and asked the athletes about their overall impression of the coach and the sources of information that they used to form their impression. The next questions related to the athletes perceptions of the coach s confidence ( How confident do you feel the coach was (in general)? and How confident do you feel the coach was in the strategy he presented? ) and participants answered these questions using a Likert type scale from 0 10 (0 = Not confident at all, 1 = Low confidence, 5 = Average confidence, and 10 = High confidence). Following those questions participants were given an opportunity to write in answers for an open ended question: Why did you Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 86 of 101

5 rate the coach s confidence the way you did? The next question asked the athletes how confident they believe the coach would be in his ability to explain a forecheck in the offensive zone (i.e., a different strategy from the one explained on the video clip). This question used the same scale as the confidence questions and participants were also asked another open ended question which read: referring to your responses for the above question, please explain the reasons why you gave the rating that you did. After the manipulation, the same questions described above were asked again but this time they all had Now that you know the coach was faking his confidence in the stems. Procedure Approval to conduct this research was given by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Participants were contacted through or in person and they completed the experiment online. The participants completed the demographic section of the questionnaire first. Then they were shown a video where there was a coach talking and drawing on a board. In the video, a male coach described and drew a neutral zone forecheck to a group of players in a locker room. The coach was explaining the neutral zone forecheck system to players who appeared to be in a college or professional organization. The coach was wearing a dark (black) track suit that was appropriate for the coaching situation that he was in. The players appeared to be engaged in what the coach was explaining. The coach used a scripted scenario; more specifically he said: When the puck goes from D1 to D2, F1 will cut off the lane back to D1. F2 will hold the red line and F3 will hold the middle of the rink. F1 will continue to pressure D2 and force, using his stick to cut off the D to D pass, up the wall into F2. Our D1 will have the support behind F2 and if the puck gets chipped past F2, our D1 will pressure their forward. Our D2 is holding the middle of the rink at the blue line and is a safety for anything that gets thrown to the wide lane, through our F3. This system was realistic and may have been familiar to the participants as it is unlikely that any hockey player under the age of 16 years would not have heard some variation of it. The video was 39 seconds long. Participants were then instructed to complete two multiple-choice questions ( what type of strategy did the coach show, and where was the coach ) that were used as a manipulation check to ensure that they watched the video (all responses were correct). Participants then completed the confidence and transfer questions. The experimental manipulation occurred next. The participants were instructed to read the following scenario: The coach you just watched was faking his confidence in his understanding about the strategy he just presented. When I interviewed him, he told me that he faked his confidence because he had just read about the strategy the night before and added to this by saying that reading it the night before was not enough time to understand the system completely. He also said that if any player had asked him a question about what happens if the puck moves to the other defenseman; he would not know how to answer it. He continued by saying that he probably could not recognize it if another team was using it in a game. When I asked him why he would use a system he was not confident in his understanding of, he told me that he read that the system worked well for other teams. He also told me that he thought faking it was the only way for him to get his players to believe in the system. Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 87 of 101

6 Participants then completed the confidence and transfer questions again only this time the stem: now that you know the coach was faking was used. After completing the questionnaire, athletes were thanked for their responses and time. Results Quantitative data were analyzed using paired-samples t-tests. These tests compared the athletes perceptions of: (a) the coach's confidence (in general), (b) the coach's confidence in the strategy he presented, and (c) the transferability of confidence from one system to another (i.e., athletes perceptions that the coach would be confident in his ability to explain and understand a different strategy) with how they answered the same questions after finding out he was faking his confidence. The results, effect sizes and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. The means for all of the before questions were above average (i.e., above 5 on the scale 0 10). After the manipulation, the mean ratings decreased (all were below 5). The results of all of the t-tests were statistically significant. Table 1. Descriptive results for how athletes perceptions changed once finding out the coach was faking his confidence. Note: All comparisons were significant at p<.001. Before being told the coach was faking Mean SD After being told the coach was faking Mean SD df t p Cohen s d Athletes perception of coach's confidence (in general) Athletes perception of coach's confidence in the strategy 7.34 (SD = 1.90) 4.45 (SD = 2.89) (SD = 2.43) 4.28 (SD = 2 88) Athletes perception of the 7.48 (SD = 2.49) 2.79 (SD = 2.76) coach's confidence in teaching a different strategy For the qualitative questions, content analyses were completed where the quotes/raw data were broken down to single quotes or text units. For example, the response seems very knowledgeable of the game and has his own system that he uses effectively was broken down into two text units: (1) "seems very knowledgeable Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 88 of 101

7 of the game" and (2) "has his own system that he uses effectively." These text units were then categorized into higher order themes and then the themes were categorized into dimensions. As a reliability check, all analysis were coded by two independent persons, and checked by a third. Agreement rates were greater than 95% and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. When asked what sources influenced their formation of their general impression of the coach (this question was asked only once - before the faking confidence scenario manipulation), there were 66 responses. First, responses were coded as positive, negative, or neutral. A positive comment implied the coach did something the participant thought was good. A negative comment implied the coach did something the participant thought was not up to the standard they expected. Finally, a comment was coded as neutral because the participant implied that the information being given was neither poor nor beneficial. For this particular question, all of the comments were coded as positive except for one and it was coded as negative (i.e., didn't go into great detail of different situations that could happen ). The responses were then sorted and categorized into three main dimensions: knowledge, body language, and presentation style. The knowledge dimension (n = 7, 10.6%) was made up of responses like he knew what he was talking about and used hockey technical words. The body language dimension (n = 11, 16.7%) contained one higher order theme related to eye contact (n = 3, 27.3%; "he looked at his players"). The dimension coach s presentation style (n = 48, 72.7%) was composed of comments like "got message across successfully" and "knows how to diagram drill." This dimension contained four higher order themes related to voice (n = 21, 43.8%; loud and way he communicated ), clarity of voice (n = 10, 20.8%; clear and communicated clearly ), tone of voice (n = 3, 6.3%; communicated firm ) and player roles (n = 6, 12.5%; "explained everyone s role clearly"). When asked about their overall impression of the coach before the manipulation, all 29 participants responded (resulting in 67 text units). These results are summarized in Table 2. The most common responses were positive (n = 55, 82.1%); an example being coach seemed to know what he wanted from his players. There were only nine comments (13.4%) coded as negative; for example, "could have portrayed more presence when speaking. Three comments (4.5%) were coded as neutral (e.g., kept it simple for younger kids ). Then, the text units were categorized according to their content (reported separately for the positive and negative comments). For the positive comments, most of the responses (n = 19, 34.5%) were about the coach s presentation style. For example, easy to follow, and he seemed like a professional were included in this category. The other comments were specifically about the coach s knowledge (n = 20, 36.4%) and confidence (n = 16, 29.1%) The knowledge category contained responses like: seemed like he knew what he was talking about and knowledgeable. Representative quotes from the confidence category were the coach seemed to be confident, and he seemed like a confident coach. For the negative responses, all nine (13.4% of total responses) were related to the coach s presentation style. Representative quotes were: amount of lines drawn and amount of commentary could be confusing, and could have portrayed more presence when speaking. The participants were asked to give their overall impressions of the coach after they had found out that he was faking his confidence in his knowledge of this particular strategic area (see also Table 2). The comments (n = 56) were categorized into three general responses (positive, negative, and neutral). The most common Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 89 of 101

8 reaction was negative (n = 32, 57.1%) followed by positive (n = 19, 33.9%) and neutral (n = 4, 7.1%). Based on the dimensions from the positive quotes/raw data, the athletes indicated that the coach was confident (n = 6, 31.6%; he looked so confident ), that he did a good job faking (n = 9, 47.3%; that's a pretty impressive job at faking it ), and that he was knowledgeable (n = 4, 21.1%; knew what he was doing ). From the dimensions that came out of the negative quotes/raw data, the results showed that that athletes thought the coach lacked knowledge (n = 13, 40.6%; I'm not too impressed that he didn't know what he was talking about ), questioned his personal characteristics (n = 9, 28.1%; I feel that he is not taking his job serious enough ) and had problems with his presentation style (n = 4, 12.5%; he didn't check for understanding ). In addition, the results showed that some of the athletes lost confidence in the coach immediately (n = 6, 18.8%; lost confidence with him ). The one higher order theme that was part of the knowledge dimension was strategic criticisms (n = 5, 38.5%; there were a lot of holes in the forecheck ). Table 2. Summary Table for Overall Impression of the Coach. Before Manipulation (number of text units = 67) After Manipulation (number of text units = 56) Positive Responses (n = 55, # % Positive Responses (n = 19, 33.9%) # % 82.1%) Presentation Style Did a good job faking Knowledge Knowledge Confidence Confidence Negative Responses (n = 9, 13.4%) Negative Responses (n = 32, 57.1%) Presentation Style Presentation Style Lacked Knowledge Personal Characteristics Athletes lost confidence in him Neutral Responses (n = 3, 4.5%) Neutral Responses (n = 4, 7.1%) The participants responded with 63 comments when asked why they rated the coach s confidence the way they did before the manipulation. Of these comments, 54 (85.7%) of them were coded as positive, six (9.5%) were coded as negative and three (4.8%) were coded as neutral (see Table 3). The positively coded comments contained three dimensions whereby athletes commented on the coach s presentation style (n = 35, 64.8%), knowledge (n = 12, 22.2%), and confidence level (n = 7, 13.0%). An example of presentation style was it was easy to understand what he was trying to teach and demonstrate and by drawing it. Comments related to the coach s presentation style were broken down into three higher order themes: tempo (n = 14, 40%; he was not hesitant on anything ), communication style (n = 5, 14.3%; that showed through the way he spoke ), and clarity (n = 3, 8.6%; clear to understand what he was trying to teach and demonstrate ). Many participants Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 90 of 101

9 commented that the coach never questioned himself which was coded as knowledge. One higher order theme in the knowledge category was created specifically for the coach s knowledge of the strategy (n = 6, 50.0%; he knew his system inside and out ). An example of a confidence comment was: he seemed confident in what he was saying. Two dimensions came out of the negative comments and they were also related to the coach s presentation style (n = 5, 83.3%; seemed a little jittery ) and lack of knowledge (n = 1, 16.7%; he didn't give any specific details about the forecheck ). Table 3. Summary Table for the question: "Why did you rate the coach's confidence the way you did?" Before Manipulation (number of text units = 54) After Manipulation (number of text units = 45) Positive Responses (n = 54, 85.7%) # % Positive Responses (n = 17, 34.7%) # % Presentation Style Presentation Style Knowledge Knowledge Confidence Confidence Did it for the team Still a good coach Negative Responses (n = 6, 9.50%) Negative Responses (n = 28, 57.1%) Presentation Style Presentation Style Lack of Knowledge Lacked Knowledge Coach lacked confidence "Manipulation" related comments Neutral Responses (n = 3, 4.8%) Neutral Responses (0) When asked why did you rate the coach s confidence the way you did? after the faking confidence manipulation the responses were more negative (n = 28; 57.1%) than positive (n =17; 34.7%). The positive responses were sorted and categorized into five dimensions (see Table 3) related to the coach s presentation style (n = 6, 35.3%; explained the basic of it well to his players ), knowledge (n = 4, 23.5%; it still seemed like he knew what he was talking about ), and confidence (n = 3, 17.6%; I do believe he was confident with the part that he knew ). Two of the athletes (11.8%) indicated that they understood that the coach faked his confidence for the good of the team. For example, one athlete responded with: I think he has a lot of confidence to fake something so his team can benefit. The last dimension was for those comments where the athletes (n = 2, 11.8%) indicated that he was still a good coach even though they knew he was faking his confidence. The negative responses were grouped into four dimensions. The first dimension was related to the Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 91 of 101

10 coach s lack of knowledge (n = 11, 39.3%; it usually does not work on the ice the same way it is showed on the board ). There was one higher order theme within this dimension that was specific to the athletes perceptions that coach would not be able to answer player s questions (n = 3, 27.3%; wasn't pressured by any of the players about his understanding on the topic ). The second dimension reflected the coach s lack of confidence (n = 5, 17.9%; I could tell he didn't believe in what he was saying ). The third dimension was related to the coach s presentation style (n = 2, 7.1%; spit it out as fast as he could ). The fourth dimension was for those comments where the athletes that they rated the coach s confidence based on the manipulation (n = 10, 35.7%). This dimension was labeled as told he faked it and contained comments like now that I know it is a fake it s hard to be totally confident in his work. The final pair of qualitative questions was for the question asking the athletes why they rated the coach the way they did for the question that dealt with the confidence they would have in coach if he was presenting a different strategy. Related to the before question, there were 65 responses. The participants showed a positive view towards the coach with 47 of the 65 responses (72.3%) being coded as positive; the remaining responses were coded as negative (n = 12; 18.5%) and neutral (n = 6; 9.2%). The positive responses were categorized into four dimensions related to the coach s presentation style (n = 16, 34.0%), knowledge (n = 18, 38.4%), confidence (n = 7, 15.0%), and status (n = 6, 12.6%). The presentation style dimension included one higher order theme related to the coach s voice ("not sounding tired talking to them"). An example of the knowledge dimension was "seemed like he knew what he was talking about." For confidence, one participant wrote that: "he was confident in his system." Status was used for those comments where the athletes did not question the coach simply because he was the coach. For example, one athlete responded that: "you always have to respect a coach, even if his abilities are not the best. Many athletes (n = 6) indicated that they did not have enough information about the coach to make the judgments we were asking for. For example, one athlete wrote: "I'd probably trust him more as I see him and get to know him." These responses were coded as neutral. Eleven of the 12 (91.7%) negative comments were categorized into one presentation dimension. Within this dimension was the higher order theme that the coach was uninterested (e.g., the coach seemed uninterested ). Other examples representative of the presentation style dimension were: he did not command them like he should and he seemed to rush through it. The other negative comment was related to the coach s confidence; one athlete indicated that: he did not seem like he believed what he was trying to coach to the players. When responding to the question "why did you give the ratings that you did?" after the participants had found out the coach was faking his confidence, the athletes responded more negatively. Forty-two (79.2%) of the 53 responses were coded as negative. Only nine (17.0%) responses were coded as positive and two (3.8%) were coded as neutral. The positive responses were coded into four dimensions relating to athletes perceptions that faking confidence was a good strategy for the coach (n = 3, 33.3%; faking confidence is not all that bad ), the coach s knowledge (n = 2, 22.2%; I still think if he were to come up with a forecheck he would be able to explain it well enough to understand what he wants ), the coach s presentation style (n = 2, 22.2%; completely understood it ), and the coach s status (n = 2, 22.2%; he is the one who is teaching those systems ). The negative responses were coded into five dimensions relating to the athletes perceptions of the coach lacking knowledge (n = 28, 65.1%; he doesn't know what he's talking about ), that faking confidence was not a good Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 92 of 101

11 strategy (n = 7, 16.3%; refuse to change because he's so confident he believes he is always right ), the coach s presentation style (n = 4, 9.3%; I didn't like how he didn't check to make sure that his players knew the system ), the athletes lack of confidence in the coach (n = 3, 7.0%; I personally would not have confidence in him ), and the coach s status (n = 1, 2.3%; needs to gain trust and respect just like players do from him ). The dimension related to the coach s lack of knowledge contained three higher order themes: lacks knowledge in system ( I don't respect that he running a system he doesn't know ), the coach had poor preparation ( you can't respect or trust someone who doesn't care enough to prepare to win the proper way ), and the athletes beliefs that he could not answer questions if they asked him ( one that you can't ask questions to and know their response is confident ). Table 4. Summary Table for the question: "Why did you give the ratings you did for how confident the coach would be in his ability to explain a different strategy. Before Manipulation (number of text units = 65) After Manipulation (number of text units = 53) Positive Responses (n = 47, 72.3%) # % Positive Responses (n = 9, 17.0%) # % Presentation Style Presentation Style Knowledge Knowledge Confidence Faking was a good strategy Status Status Negative Responses (n = 12, 18.5%) Negative Responses (n = 42, 79.2%) Presentation Style Presentation Style Lacked Knowledge Lacked confidence in coach Faking was not a good strategy Status Neutral Responses (n = 6, 9.2%) Neutral Responses (n = 2, 3.8%) Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 93 of 101

12 Discussion Journal of Coaching Education The purpose of this study was to see if athletes perceptions of a coach changed after they found out the coach was faking his confidence in a particular, strategic, part of a hockey system. It was hypothesized that the athletes would have less confidence in the coach if they were told that the coach was faking confidence The quantitative results confirmed this hypothesis by showing that the athletes perceptions of the coach's confidence (in general) and their perceptions of the coach s confidence in the strategy significantly decreased. Furthermore, athletes perceptions of the coach's confidence in teaching a different strategy also significantly decreased after they found out he was faking his confidence. These quantitative results show that athletes perceptions of a coach can change quickly just by finding out that a coach was not confident. The qualitative results provide insight as to why the athletes perceptions changed. Overall, across the qualitative questions, the results showed trends towards three main dimensions: confidence, knowledge, and presentation style. In total, 39 dimensions were created across the six questions and these three dimensions were mentioned 29 times (confidence = 8; knowledge = 10; presentation style = 11). Thus, these dimensions made up approximately 75% of the results. The confidence the coach portrayed was very important. The athletes indicated that they thought the coach was confident and that he was confident in his strategy before they found out the coach was faking his confidence. The manipulation highlighted that the coach had no confidence in his knowledge of the particular strategy. The athletes picked up on this, but also perceived that the coach had no confidence in himself and indicated that they lost confidence in the coach. It is interesting that although the faking confidence manipulation focused on the coaches lack of knowledge and confidence in one particular strategy, the athletes generalized his lack of confidence to other areas. These results support other research in the coaching efficacy literature. For example, Feltz et al. (1999) found that athletes were more satisfied and more confident when they had more efficacious coaches. In this study, when the athletes found out that their coach faked confidence, they did not seem to be as satisfied with him (e.g., I couldn't play for a coach who was not himself at all times ). A good follow-up study would be to examine if athletes confidence levels change if they find out their coach is faking confidence. The present study did not ask the athletes any questions about how their confidence in themselves was affected by the coach faking confidence. The focus on how athletes viewed the coach and the reasons for their change in perceptions is what makes the present study unique. Another interesting finding related to confidence was that some athletes seemed to acknowledge that the coach faking confidence was beneficial because they perceived that he was doing it for the benefit of the team. These findings show that athletes recognize that the coach s confidence is vital to the team s functioning. A coach acting confident is important because of the positive effects that the coach s confidence could have on their athletes (Vargas-Tonsing et al., 2004). It seems as though the athletes knew how important it was for the coach to act confident, not only for the team, but likely also for the coach and the athletes. Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 94 of 101

13 The second most common dimension that came out of the qualitative results was how important the coach s knowledge was to the athletes. Specifically, athletes perceptions of the coach were influenced by their beliefs that the coach lacked essential knowledge regarding this strategy and that he would not be able to answer any questions related to the strategy or be able to explain a different strategy. The knowledge that a coach has is important to how an athlete is going to respond to that coach. A proposition in Horn s (2002) model of coaching effectiveness is that a coach will have a hard time getting across valuable information if the athletes do not perceive the coach to be competent. The necessity for the coach to have knowledge shines through in the present study. More specifically, if athletes perceive that their coach has the correct knowledge about the strategy or game, then their perceptions are more positive (e.g., knows what he was talking about ). The opposite is also true if athletes perceive that the coach does not have the knowledge they expect. In this study, the athletes had a more negative view of the coach under these circumstances (e.g., I believe if players would have had questions on how to execute he would not be able to answer them ). It is important to point out that the scenario was based on the coach faking his knowledge in this strategy so the findings related to the coach s knowledge are not necessarily surprising. More specifically, the manipulation included prompts related to the coach s lack of knowledge. However, it is important to point out that many of the athletes responses were related to the coach s knowledge before the manipulation took place. Thus, despite the limitation if using knowledge as a prompt, its importance is not negated. Researchers may want to use different scenarios where the need to fake is based on things such as the coach s inability to motivate players or the coach s lack of ability to demonstrate the proper technique when teaching a skill. It is likely that knowledge will still emerge as an important dimension in these circumstances as well. The results of this study also showed that there are times when an athlete can dislike a coach or have a negative view of the coach but still respect them because of their knowledge about the game and how to win at it. This finding was evident when athletes commented about the coach s status. Anecdotally, we know situations like this exist. For example, Ken Hitchcock was not well liked by some of the players in the Dallas Stars organization but the players did respect his knowledge about the game (personal communication, January 19, 2007). The players performed the strategies that the coach wanted and were successful. In 1999, with Hitchcock as the head coach, they won the Stanley Cup (the highest award for an ice hockey team in the National Hockey League). The third dimension that was most often mentioned in the qualitative data analyses was related to the coach s presentation style. This dimension probably came up because of the nature of the information given to the athletes. More specifically, for the before questions, the athletes only had a 39 second video clip of the coach to use to form their impressions. When responding to the after questions, the athletes had the video clip and the scenario to use as information. The point is that there was not a lot of other personal or performance information available to the athletes. Regardless, past research has shown that a coach s presentation style is very important. A study done by Manley et al. (2008) on athletes perceived use of information sources when forming initial impressions and expectancies of a coach showed that out of 31 informational cues, the dynamic cues (e.g., eye contact, tone of voice, body language, clarity of voice, language, etc.) and third-party reports about a coach (e.g., coaching experience, qualifications, etc.) were viewed more influential than static cues Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 95 of 101

14 (e.g., gender, race or ethnicity, age, hairstyle, etc.). Many of the dynamic cues in the Manley et al. study were mentioned by the athletes in the present study. Furthermore, the results from this present study show that athletes perceptions of the coach were influenced both positively and negatively by the athletes perceptions of the coach s confidence. That is, when the athletes believed that the coach was confident in himself and in the strategy, the comments about his presentation style were more positive. However, after the participants found out he was faking, his presentation style was viewed more negatively. The video clip that the athletes watched did not change. Thus, the changes in the athletes perceptions were caused just by telling the athletes that the coach was not confident. It is important to note that some of the participants mentioned that there was not enough information for them to make, what they felt, were valid impressions of the coach. Future researchers interested in this area should consider providing the athletes with more information about the coach so that they have a deeper understanding of the coach. This study was the first to look at athletes perceptions of a coach who faked confidence and therefore the results need to be replicated. There were some limitations to this study. Unfortunately, the research design limits the generalizability of these findings. More specifically, this study used a video tape of a coach that none of the participants were familiar with. A related research question would be if athletes would have the same reaction if they found out that their coach was faking confidence. It is likely that there are many other factors (e.g., coping skills or attribution style) that could influence athletes reactions and these factors may not have been replicated in this type of experimental study but should be considered in subsequent research. Additional limitations are that only one sport was used. Within that sport (hockey), only one gender was looked at (male). Also, the participants in this study were mostly professional or division I hockey players. The sample used in this study was also a convenience sample, one of the researchers had personal contacts with both organizations. This sampling strategy was effective because it allowed us to question elite athletes, but it also limited the number of athletes. It would be interesting to replicate the study with lower level hockey players. Novice players might not know the game as well as advanced players and they might not generalize a coach s lack of confidence from one area to another. Furthermore, this study looked at only athletes from a team sport; other researchers could look at how a coach faking confidence would affect athletes in more individual sports. Faking confidence is a new area for research, and therefore, many future projects exist. There are many directions that researchers could go at this point. For example, a researcher could show participants two clips that are the same, except in one clip the coach stumbles during his presentation and says I m not so confident when describing the forecheck; comparing athlete s perceptions with another group who does not hear the comment I m not so confident in the presentation. This design could tell us if one comment about a coach s lack of confidence is enough to change an athlete s view from positive to negative. The findings from this study have many practical implications. To answer the old question of should a coach fake it til they make it? we would say that a coach should be careful if they fake their confidence. If a coach gets caught faking confidence, then most athletes are not likely to perceive him/her well. When coaches Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 96 of 101

15 do fake it, they need to act confident with what they are saying, have some knowledge of what they are talking about, and have a good presentation style. Having a commanding presence, speaking clearly with an upbeat tempo when delivering information and checking for understanding appear to be keys (based on the participant s responses). Using this type of presentation style will allow a coach a short window to acquire the knowledge they will need to continue their confident coaching style. Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 97 of 101

16 References Journal of Coaching Education 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, Feltz, D. L., Short. S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport: Research and strategies for working with athletes, teams, and coaches. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Gould, D., Hodge, K., Peterson, K., & Giannini, J. (1989). An exploratory examination of strategies used by elite coaches to enhance self-efficacy in athletes. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, Horn, T.S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sports domain. In T.S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (pp ). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Jones, R., Armour, K., & Potrac, P. (2003, October). Constructing expert knowledge: a case study of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport, Education & Society, 8(2), Manley, A., Greenlees, I., Graydon, J., Thelwell, R., Filby, W., & Smith, M. (2008). Athletes' perceived use of information sources when forming initial impressions and expectancies of a coach: An explorative study. The Sport Psychologist, 22, Ross-Stewart, L.C., Short, S.E., & Short, M.W. (2005). Characteristics associated with coaching efficacy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27, S128. Shelanski, B., Wilson, B., & Short, S.E. (2008). Fake it til you make it: Athletes perceptions of their coaches confidence. Abstract published in the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology 2008 Conference Proceedings, p. 47. Madison, WI: AAASP. Short, S.E., Smiley, M., & Ross-Stewart, L. (2005). The relationships among imagery use and efficacy beliefs in coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 19, Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., Myers, N.D., & Feltz, D.L. (2004). Coaches and athletes perceptions of efficacyenhancing techniques. The Sport Psychologist, 18, Weinberg, R., Grove, R., & Jackson, A. (1992). Strategies for building self-efficacy in tennis players: A comparative analysis of Australian and American coaches. The Sport Psychologist, 6, Weinberg, R.S., & Jackson, A. (1990). Building self-efficacy in tennis players: A coach's perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2, Volume 4, Issue 1, April 2011 Page 98 of 101