The Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Tripartite Efficacy Perspective

Transcription

1 The Sport Psychologist, 2009, 23, Human Kinetics, Inc. The Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Tripartite Efficacy Perspective Ben Jackson University of Western Australia Peter Knapp University of Leeds Mark R. Beauchamp University of British Columbia The purpose of the current study was to identify putative antecedents and consequences associated with self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy, within the context of elite coach-athlete dyads. Semistructured interviews were conducted with each member of six international-level coach-athlete partnerships, and data were analyzed using inductive and deductive content analytic techniques. Results for both athletes and coaches demonstrated that the above tripartite efficacy beliefs (cf. Lent & Lopez, 2002) were identified as originating from perceptions regarding oneself, inferences regarding the other dyad member (e.g., the athlete s coach), as well as the dyad as a whole. Results also revealed that the tripartite efficacy constructs were interrelated, and independently associated with a number of positive task-related and relationship-oriented consequences. Findings are considered in relation to developing and sustaining effective coach-athlete relationships at the elite level. Self-efficacy corresponds to a person s confidence in his or her own capabilities to perform specific tasks (Bandura, 1997), and in the context of sport this construct has been studied extensively across athlete and coach populations. Among athletes, self-efficacy has been found to be associated with improved athletic performance (Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000), enhanced effort and persistence (e.g., George, 1994), positive affective responses (Haney & Long, 1995; Treasure, Monson, & Lox, 1996), as well as the setting of more challenging personal goals (Kane, Marks, Zaccaro, & Blair, 1996). Among coaches, self-efficacy (also referred to as coaching-efficacy) has also been found to be associated with the use of more positive instructional/coaching behaviors (Feltz, Chase, Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999; Sullivan & Kent, 2003), as well as improved athlete Jackson is with the School of Sport Science, and Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. Knapp is with the School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. Beauchamp is with the School of Human Kinetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada. 203

2 204 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp performance and greater athlete satisfaction (Feltz et al., 1999; Myers, Vargas- Tonsing, & Feltz, 2005). Notwithstanding this body of knowledge, it is noteworthy that coaches and athletes are highly interdependent and in addition to developing self-efficacy beliefs, are also likely to develop a set of relational efficacy cognitions that correspond to the other member of the coach-athlete partnership. Lent and Lopez (2002) recently theorized that two specific forms of relational efficacy manifest themselves in close relationships, such as coach-athlete partnerships, each of which are conceptually distinct from, but also related to, self-efficacy beliefs. The first type of relational efficacy, other-efficacy, involves an individual s beliefs about his or her significant other s ability to perform particular behaviors (Lent & Lopez, 2002, p.264). The second form of relational efficacy, relation-inferred self-efficacy (or RISE) constitutes a metaperception (cf. Kenny & DePaulo, 1993) and is concerned with the question, How confident is my significant other in my abilities? Specifically, Lent and Lopez defined RISE as person B s appraisal of how his or her capabilities are viewed by person A (Lent & Lopez, 2002, p.268). Lent and Lopez theorized that other-efficacy and RISE represent important relationship-specific antecedents of self-efficacy that complement information provided by mastery enactments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and emotional states (cf. Bandura, 1997). In addition, Lent and Lopez theorized that while other-efficacy and RISE represent important antecedents of self-efficacy in close relationships, both relational constructs also play substantive roles in their own right in sustaining dyadic functioning. Recent investigations in both social psychology and sport psychology have provided preliminary support for the utility of Lent and Lopez s (2002) conceptual model. For example, in research involving romantic relationships, Lopez and Lent (1991) found that self-efficacy and other-efficacy beliefs associated with relationship management skills were independently able to explain unique variance in perceptions of relationship satisfaction and adjustment. In addition, RISE beliefs were able to explain additional variance in perceptions of relationship adjustment, and were also positively related to relationship persistence expectations. From the sporting domain, recent research by Jackson, Beauchamp, and Knapp (2007) with youth tennis pairs, examined the relationships between the tripartite efficacy constructs and athlete commitment and satisfaction. Jackson et al. found that other-efficacy and RISE beliefs were positively related to self-efficacy, and when athletes were highly confident in their own tennis-playing capabilities (self-efficacy) they were more likely to be committed to their relationships, and when they were confident in their partner s respective capabilities (other-efficacy) they were more likely to be satisfied with their relationships. Interestingly, through the use of actor-partner interdependence modeling, Jackson et al. also found that when athletes had elevated levels of self-efficacy then their partners were also more likely to be committed to the relationship as well (this is termed a partner effect; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). In another study, involving the dyad of horse-and-rider within equestrian eventing, Beauchamp and Whinton (2005) found that elevated levels of other-efficacy (i.e., riders confidence in their horses dressage capabilities) were able to augment the effects of self-efficacy (i.e., riders confidence in their own performance-related capabilities) with each efficacy construct able to explain unique variance in riding perfor-

3 Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 205 mance. Collectively, these studies suggest that while key indices of relationship health (e.g., satisfaction, adjustment, persistence, commitment) are associated with self-efficacy beliefs, it is also important that people demonstrate confidence in their partners capabilities (other-efficacy) and also believe that their partners are confident in them (RISE). In addition to investigating some of the potential consequences associated with the tripartite efficacy constructs, recent research has also begun to examine some of the antecedents of other-efficacy, RISE, and self-efficacy within sporting partnerships. Using interview-based methods with international-level athlete dyads, Jackson, Knapp and Beauchamp (2008) found that each of the tripartite constructs were reported by athletes to be supported by a range of cognitions and experiences that included perceptions regarding oneself, one s partner, the dyad/ relationship, as well as external factors. Specifically, in line with theorizing by Bandura (1997) self-efficacy was found to be supported by antecedents that included past individual mastery achievements, physiological and emotional states, and verbal persuasion. In line with theorizing by Lent and Lopez (2002), self-efficacy was also reported by athletes to derive from relationship-specific cognitions (i.e., other-efficacy and RISE), as well as dyadic mastery achievements. In their study, other-efficacy was aligned with rather different antecedents that included comparisons with previous athletic partners, comments from third parties (regarding the partner), the partner s past performances, as well as perceptions of the partners motivation, psychological state (e.g., being relaxed), and physiological factors (e.g., strength). Finally, RISE beliefs were reported to derive from a partner s verbal and nonverbal behavior, as well as one s own self-efficacy beliefs, insofar as athletes thought their partners would be confident in them if they were confident in themselves. In spite of this emerging body of evidence within the sport psychology literature, researchers have yet to examine the tripartite model of efficacy beliefs within the context of coach-athlete relationships. Coach-athlete dyads are conceptually quite different from athlete dyads. In athlete dyads members often share the same position and status; in which case Kenny et al. (2006) would refer to this as an example of an indistinguishable partnership. Coach-athlete partnerships, on the other hand, represent distinguishable dyads (Kenny et al., 2006), whereby members fulfill different roles and are subject to differential power (i.e., superordinatesubordinate) relations. Recent advances in the study of coach-athlete interactions in sport (see Jowett, 2007 for a review) have provided insightful information regarding the significance of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral ties that develop between dyad members. Nonetheless, little is currently known regarding the specific contribution of coaches and athletes relational efficacy beliefs in promoting these desirable ties, as well as how the tripartite perceptions are formed in these contexts. Given the importance of understanding the factors that may promote successful (i.e., high-performing) and effective (i.e., stable and satisfying) coach-athlete relationships (see Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007), the overall purpose of the current study was to examine the primary (i.e., most prominent) antecedents and consequences associated with other-efficacy, RISE, and self-efficacy within coach-athlete dyads. International-level dyads were selected, primarily because these types of dyads (vis à vis their level of performance) invest a considerable amount of time, effort, and personal resources in their relationships

4 206 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp and, as such, relational efficacy beliefs are likely to be salient. This study drew from a social constructionist perspective (Schwandt, 2000) to understand in coaches and athletes own words the antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE in such settings. Social constructionism is concerned with uncovering the subjective and unique perceptions that are manifested within social contexts (Gergen & Gergen, 2003), and acknowledges that individuals cognitions, and the meanings they attach to them, are shaped via their interactions with others (Cresswell, 2003). Participants Method Six international-level athletes (Mean age = 22.5, SD = 3.62) and their coaches (Mean age = 42.17, SD = 6.49) from the sports of tennis, triathlon, track and field (two dyads), figure skating, and bob skeleton were recruited to take part in the study. Dyads comprised one all-male, one female coach-male athlete, and four male coach-female athlete partnerships. Coaches reported an average of years coaching experience (SD = 5.13), and athletes had 10.5 years experience in their respective sports (SD = 5.32). The average relationship length was 3.45 years (SD = 3.04, range ), and athletes reported spending on average hr (SD = 4.96) training each week with their respective coaches. To protect participant anonymity, all participants were assigned a letter according to their role (A for athletes, C for coaches) and a number designating their dyad (1 6, e.g., A3, C5). Procedure Upon receiving approval from the human subjects ethics board at the lead author s institution, information letters were posted to national governing organizations (NGOs) of individual sports in the United Kingdom. Elite athletes and their coaches were subsequently contacted by respective NGOs, and those that wished to take part registered their interest with the lead author. Information letters were sent to coaches and athletes informing them of the nature of the study, that their involvement was entirely voluntary, and that their anonymity would be protected. Prospective interviewees were also informed that they could choose not to answer any question and/or to withdraw from the project at any time without suffering any negative repercussions. Interviews with coaches and athletes were conducted separately and consecutively, at a time and place of their choosing. Before each interview, coaches and athletes were (1) reminded of the assurances presented in the information sheet, (2) asked to give their permission for the conversation to be audio recorded, and (3) given the opportunity to provide an appropriate contact address for future correspondence. Finally, before commencing interviews, individuals were requested to provide their informed consent to take part in the research. At the completion of interviews, participants were invited to ask any questions related to the nature of the study, and were thanked for their time.

5 Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 207 Interview Guide A semistructured interview guide (available from the first author upon request) was developed and initially piloted with members of two university-level coachathlete dyads, to assess the breadth and depth of questions, as well as to identify any problematic wording or phrasing. Before conducting each interview, all participants were informed that the conversation would focus upon different types of confidence (the term confidence was used rather efficacy to facilitate participant comprehension) held by themselves and the other dyad member (i.e., coach or athlete), hereafter referred to as the other. Participants were first asked to provide information regarding the number of years experience in their respective sports, the amount of time spent together each week, as well as the origin and length of the relationship. Given the task-specific nature of each of the tripartite efficacy beliefs (cf. Bandura, 1997; Lent & Lopez, 2002), athletes and coaches were then asked to describe, and write down, the main skills required of both themselves and the other (i.e., Could you describe the main skills required of you as a coach [athlete] in your sport?, Could you describe the main skills required of your athlete [coach] in your sport? ). For both coaches and athletes, emergent skills included not only technical requirements (e.g., effective instruction, display correct technique), but also psychological (e.g., motivate the athlete, remain calm) and relationship-specific considerations (e.g., clear communication, providing social support, listening to advice). Once participants had outlined the requisite skills for themselves/ the other, the first question for each efficacy construct subsequently asked participants to describe their confidence in relation to the skills listed. For example, with respect to self-efficacy, coaches and athletes were first asked Could you describe your confidence in your own ability to carry out those skills listed for yourself? Similarly, in the section on other-efficacy beliefs, athletes were first asked, Could you describe your confidence in your coach s capabilities with respect to those skills listed for your coach?, and coaches were asked Could you describe your confidence in your athlete s capabilities with respect to those skills listed for your athlete? In relation to RISE perceptions, athletes were asked, Could you describe how confident you think your coach is in your capabilities, with respect to those skills listed for yourself?, and coaches were asked Could you describe how confident you think your athlete is in your capabilities, with respect to those skills listed for yourself? For self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE, this was followed by a second question designed to tap into the antecedents of that belief (e.g., Can you explain what gives you this confidence? ) and finally, a third question which explored the implications of each perception (e.g., Can you explain how your confidence in your coach s capabilities affects you and your relationship? ). Over the course of the interview, clarification and elaboration probes were used to maximize investigator understanding (Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001). All interviews were conducted by the first author and lasted for an average of 40 min for athletes and 48 min for coaches.

6 208 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp Data Analysis Interview recordings were transcribed in full and then data were initially content analyzed by the first author. Lent and Lopez (2002) proposed, within their conceptual model, a number of antecedents and consequences associated with self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE (see p. 262 for a summary table). Accordingly, meaning units (Tesch, 1990) that were consistent with this theoretical model, and reflected these antecedents and consequences, were initially deductively coded into themes (i.e., clusters of conceptually congruent meaning units). However, in instances where meaning units did not correspond directly with Lent and Lopez s a priori conceptualization, themes were created via an inductive process. For both the deductive and inductive approaches, conceptually similar meaning units were first assigned to themes and thereafter to subsequent higher-order categories that reflected either antecedents or consequences of each tripartite construct (See Tables 1 through 6 later in this article). During analysis, all data were organized and stored using the QSR NVIVO software program (see Bazeley, 2007). Figure 1 illustrates those themes that were derived deductively using Lent and Lopez s original model, as well as those themes that were inductively formed. Themes were only created in instances where more than one athlete or coach highlighted a particular phenomenon. This method of inclusion was selected as the purpose of the current study was to provide a general representation of the most prominent antecedents and consequences of efficacy beliefs in dyadic contexts. Trustworthiness Procedures A number of prominent qualitative researchers (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Marshall & Rossman, 1999) have highlighted the importance of ensuring trustworthiness within content analysis, and have recommended the use of a series of safeguards to ensure that the final results accurately reflect participants responses. In this study, athletes and coaches were first sent copies of their individual interview transcripts, and were asked to comment on the accuracy of their accounts. Specifically, they were provided the opportunity to add to and, where appropriate, edit information provided in the transcripts. Second, following data analysis, participants were sent a summary of the study findings and were asked to comment on the degree to which the analyses were concordant with their interpretations. In some instances, participants reported that certain themes did not apply to them (but may have done for others). Importantly, however, all respondents felt able to locate their experiences in the summarized findings. In addition, the second and third authors also conducted a peer review of meaning units, themes, and categories, to ascertain the degree to which all authors shared a mutual construction (Morrow, 2005) of the data provided by athletes and coaches. Specifically, the two coauthors were provided with descriptions of the preliminary themes and categories identified by the first author, and were subsequently invited to code all meaning units from four interviews (two with athletes and two with coaches) with respect to these themes. Where appropriate, the coauthors were also asked to highlight instances whereby the theme descriptors needed to be revised, or where themes needed to be further subdivided or even merged with other themes. Upon completion of this initial review process, a

7 Figure 1 Antecedent and consequent categories and themes for athlete and coach self-efficacy. Note. A & C = Theme emerged for athletes and coaches. A = Theme emerged for athletes only. C = Theme emerged for coaches only. Deductively formed themes. * Inductively formed themes. 209

8 210 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp consensus rate of 86% was found across the three researchers. In those instances of interrater disagreement, consensus was ultimately achieved through debate among the three coders regarding (1) lower- and higher-order theme conceptualization, and (2) intertheme distinctiveness and similarity. In light of this process, some meaning units were reassigned (from the first author s original coding), and some theme names/descriptions were revised to ensure all clusters of meaning units were conceptually distinct. At the end of this discussion process, all meaning units were appropriately assigned to conceptually distinct lower-order themes, and consensus had been reached on the allocation of all themes into higher-order categories. Results Interviews yielded 136 pages of 12-point, single-spaced text, which resulted in a total of 178, 253, and 165 meaning units for self-efficacy, other-efficacy and RISE, respectively. For each construct, themes that were highlighted by both athletes and coaches are presented first, followed by themes that were unique to either coaches or athletes. All themes and categories are displayed in Tables 1 through 6 later in this article, including examples and frequency counts of meaning units. Frequency counts are not intended to denote the particular importance of a given theme, rather they are provided to enable insight into the relative frequency with which athletes and coaches described specific themes and categories (Berg, 2007). The antecedent and consequent themes, as identified by coaches and athletes, corresponding to each of the tripartite efficacy beliefs are also presented Figures 1 3 Antecedents Themes that were described as antecedents of efficacy beliefs were categorized as (1) perceptions regarding oneself (e.g., one s own physiological and emotional factors), (2) perceptions regarding the other (e.g., the coach s experience), or (3) perceptions regarding the dyad (e.g., experience as a dyad). Self-Efficacy For self-efficacy, five themes emerged under perceptions regarding oneself (see Table 1). Two of these were highlighted by both athletes and coaches, two were unique to athletes, and one theme was identified solely by coaches. In addition, five themes emerged that related to perceptions regarding the other. Two of these themes were common to athletes and coaches, two applied only to athletes, and a single theme was unique to coaches. Perceptions Regarding Oneself. First, athletes and coaches discussed past mastery achievements (associated with enhanced self-efficacy) as well as an absence of mastery experiences (associated with lowered self-efficacy), which were collectively termed past performances. For example, athlete A5 commented, when you get [good] results that brings you confidence. In relation to past negative performances however, A1 explained that, if you re going from week to

9 Figure 2 Antecedent and consequent categories and themes for athlete and coach other-efficacy. Note. A & C = Theme emerged for athletes and coaches. A = Theme emerged for athletes only. C = Theme emerged for coaches only. Deductively formed themes. * Inductively formed themes. 211

10 212 Figure 3 Antecedent and consequent categories and themes for athlete and coach RISE Note. A & C = Theme emerged for athletes and coaches. A = Theme emerged for athletes only. C = Theme emerged for coaches only. Deductively formed themes. * Inductively formed themes.

11 Table 1 Antecedent Categories, Themes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Antecedents Higher-Order Lower-Order Theme Exemplar Meaning Unit Category Perceptions regarding oneself Past performances (Athletes = 11) (Coaches = 5) Experience (Athletes = 4) (Coaches = 17) Physiological & emotional factors (Athletes = 9) Precompetition preparation (Athletes = 11) Education & training (Coaches = 5) I d won every qualifying competition...i just thought you know, I can do this (athlete, mastery performance, A4), I ve had races where I ve been training really well and I ve had a bad race, and like it knocks your confidence (athlete, poor performance, A3) a lot of the confidence I have is from having success, (coach, mastery performance, C2), I don t have confidence in that I can really change someone into a top class performer at this point in time, because I ve not done that yet (coach lack of mastery, C4) a main part of confidence comes with your racing experience in the big championships (athlete, A6) given 15 years of coaching you feel fairly confident (coach, experience as coach, C3) the reason I ve got most confidence is looking at the amount of errors I made during my playing career, I actually look at the ability to take negatives and make positives. (coach, experience as athlete, C1) I think for me [my confidence] is mainly about my fitness, if I know that I m fit then I can run all day (A1) my confidence comes from training, you ve practiced it so you know you can do it (A6) I am now very confident in my ability as a coach, I know that I ve gone to quite a lot of seminars, I ve learnt quite a lot (C4) (continued) 213

12 Table 1 (continued) Self-Efficacy Antecedents Higher-Order Lower-Order Theme Exemplar Meaning Unit Category Perceptions regarding the other Other-efficacy (Athletes = 9) (Coaches = 7) RISE (Athletes = 23) (Coaches = 10) Compatible coaching style (Athletes = 3) Verbal persuasion (Athletes = 13) Athlete s past performances (Coaches = 5) If I wasn t confident in my coach obviously I wouldn t be confident in my own ability (A6) working with an athlete of that ability given what she s achieved, that s a confidence booster as well (C2) I think if a coach didn t believe in you that affects your confidence quite hugely you know (A5) that gives me [self-]confidence, her confidence in me (C3) my confidence has increased by fifty percent, going from [my former coach] to my current coach because my current coach lets me have my own input into training (A6) if a drill s not going so well then he will try and build me up and tell me that I can do it that builds your confidence and helps you (A1) to go to the world championships...where [my athlete s] performing at a very high level, that gives me confidence (C3) Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 9 athlete meaning units were classified as Physiological and emotional factors. 214

13 Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 215 week losing first round then... your confidence takes a bit of a knock. Second, athletes and coaches reported that their experience underpinned their self-efficacy perceptions. For athletes, this reflected their level of experience in their sport, however for coaches this incorporated their experience both as a coach and as an athlete (see Table 1). Athletes, but not coaches, also highlighted a number of physiological and emotional factors as antecedents of self-efficacy, including their level of fitness, speed, strength, injury status, as well as pain-related factors. For instance, athlete A6 identified the role of pain in relation to her self-efficacy, stating, if my coach said I want you to do them in 45 seconds, which is race pace... I d be like I m going to die, and it s the thought of the pain I think that kills your confidence. In addition, athletes reported that their precompetition preparation contributed to self-efficacy, and this included the time devoted to practice, as well as the rehearsal of specific skills before competition. Athlete A3 noted the impact of successful rehearsal, commenting, my coach has given me sessions, I ve done them and then it s stored away... you can take confidence from that, while A6 illustrated the effect of insufficient preparation, if you haven t done the work then you re not going to be confident. Finally, coaches reported that self-efficacy beliefs stemmed from their education and training, in particular, attending academic and vocational courses. For example, coach C2 highlighted formal coach background and coaching courses and degrees, stuff like that, all the education side of things as a contributor to his confidence in his own ability. Perceptions Regarding The Other. Coaches and athletes both reported that favorable self-efficacy perceptions developed from positive other-efficacy and RISE beliefs (see also the intrapersonal consequences for other-efficacy and RISE, Tables 5 and 6 later in this article). For example, in relation to other-efficacy, coach C4 noted, it s given me the confidence [in my own ability] knowing that he s got the ability... I ve coached him and now everyone can see that I can coach. Similarly, with respect to RISE perceptions, A1 said that, to help get that [self-]confidence I think you need your coach believing in you. Meanwhile, coach C3 felt, I think her confidence in you gives you the confidence [in your own ability]... and you just see it spiraling when that happens. The first group of meaning units cited solely by athletes reflected their coaches compatible coaching style (see Table 1), where athletes felt at ease with the coach, as well as being allowed input into decisions. This was evident in the way athlete A1 described his coach, He realizes what I m like... I think that gives me confidence knowing that I can just be myself around him and he s not going to judge me. The second perception highlighted solely by athletes reflected verbal persuasion from the coach. For instance, athlete A1 suggested, if things aren t going well... he ll say just the odd thing to get my confidence up and to get me feeling confident. Finally, analyses showed that athletes past performances were an antecedent of coaches self-efficacy perceptions. For example, coach C6 illustrated how his athlete s poor performances were associated with decreased confidence in his own ability, at the moment, when [my athlete] isn t doing as much as she could there are things that make you think well, should I be doing better, so... that makes you self-critical.

14 216 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp Other-Efficacy Participants reported (see Table 2) seven perceptions regarding the other in relation to other-efficacy, of which four were common to athletes and coaches, two were unique to athletes, and one was specific to coaches. For athletes, two further perceptions regarding the dyad were evident. Perceptions Regarding The Other. Athletes and coaches both noted that otherefficacy beliefs emerged out of comparisons with past others. For example, athlete A6 felt, I ve never seen [current coach] show me how to run properly, but [former coach] would... actually demonstrate how it would be done, so I don t know about [current coach s] ability to improve my technique, as much as I did with [former coach]. In addition, athletes and coaches also reported that the other s past achievements contributed to their other-efficacy beliefs. That is, prior successes for the other were associated with enhanced other-efficacy perceptions (see Table 2). The penultimate theme reported by both dyad members was termed third party comments. This contained meaning units that reflected the effects of receiving feedback from individuals outside the dyad regarding the other s ability. Specifically, individuals reported enhanced confidence in the other s ability when they received positive feedback from outside the dyad about that person (see Table 2). Finally, athletes and coaches identified that they were confident in the other when s/he displayed a high level of effort and determination, as well as a desire to succeed and improve; this theme was termed motivation. For example, athlete A5 suggested that her other-efficacy was due, in part, to the perception that her coach works really hard and puts a lot of energy and effort into everything. In addition, coach C4 recalled one particular practice session in relation to her favorable other-efficacy beliefs by stating there was no question of whether he would or wouldn t do it, and that session really was the one where I saw the determination. Unique to athletes, compatible coaching style emerged as an antecedent of other-efficacy, whereby athletes reported feeling at ease with their coaches, being able to communicate effectively, and contributing to decision-making. For instance, athlete A2 highlighted that her favorable other-efficacy beliefs resulted partly from her ability to communicate with her coach, saying, You can always talk to him, he doesn t care what you say. Conversely, athlete A6 noted how an inability to communicate had negatively affected a former relationship, and her other-efficacy, If... you can t talk to somebody then you re going to not have much confidence in their ability as a coach. Aside from communication issues, athlete A3 outlined that her positive other-efficacy resulted from his approach toward coaching, adding, He s really considerate, he understands and... he knows I run, but I have a life too. In addition, athletes reported favorable otherefficacy when coaches had greater coaching and competing experience. For example, athlete A5 described the effect of her coach s competing experience in her sport, he s obviously been... a top athlete so that gave me confidence really that he s been there. The single theme in this category that was unique to coaches illustrated that favorable other-efficacy beliefs stemmed from coaches perceptions of their athletes psychological state. Specifically, coach C4 s confidence in her athlete was reported to be due to her perception that he s very quick to learn, and C6 added, she s always switched on and focused, which is a good thing.

15 Table 2 Antecedent Categories, Themes, and Meaning Units for Other-Efficacy Other-Efficacy Antecedents Higher-Order Category Lower-Order Theme Exemplar Meaning Unit Perceptions regarding the other Perceptions regarding the dyad Comparisons with past others (Athletes = 12) (Coaches = 11) The other s past achievements (Athletes = 9) (Coaches = 22) Third party comments (Athletes = 3) (Coaches = 5) Motivation (Athletes = 9) (Coaches = 23) Compatible coaching style (Athletes = 21) Experience (Athletes = 13) Psychological state (Coaches = 4) Mastery achievements as a dyad (Athletes = 6) I would say that I set everybody against my first coach because he was the best coach ever (A6) he can remember things from years ago that I tell him, whereas some can t remember from a day or even five minutes ago (C4) I have every confidence in my coach because of what she s produced, a good coach does produce results, a bad coach has pupils, but not that many results (A4) the first couple of times I saw her run, I thought oh my goodness, this is quite a special, special athlete, so there s a confidence in her ability (C3) really good athletes that I know of are like yeah I used to train with [that coach], he s really good (A2) other people that know far more than I ever will, certainly believe that she has got that ability, so you know those things have certainly backed up what I thought (C2) I m sure it s really hard to design sessions but I just get confidence from the fact that he s willing to do those things for me (A5) she sets her sights high and the focus is there and she s totally driven by that, which is great, and reassuring (C2) I didn t have confidence in my previous coach, it was a bit of a personality clash he liked to be too powerful (A6) Although a title doesn t always make you confident in someone, the experience does (experience in coaching, A6) he used to do the sports and the weight lifting so I m sure he knows what he s talking about (coach s experience competing, A2) he s very clever, he s very sharp (C4) it took a couple of track races together before I thought yeah, this is working. Things were coming off and so as I ve improved I ve never doubted him since then (A3) Contact time (Athletes = 3) he hadn t seen me, the breakdown of contact time decreased the confidence in him (A6) Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 21 athlete meaning units were classified as Compatible coaching style. 217

16 218 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp Perceptions Regarding the Dyad. Athletes revealed that mastery achievements as a dyad contributed to their other-efficacy beliefs. This was encapsulated by athlete A4, who commented, I was so confident in [my last coach]... because he took me to international level... I was just so confident in him as a coach, because I d had success with him. In addition, athletes noted that the degree of face-toface contact time as a dyad underpinned their other-efficacy perceptions. For example, athlete A6 commented that, in the end [former coach] would only coach me one day a week... so I think not seeing him as much decreased my confidence in him. RISE RISE antecedents emerged across all three categories, namely in relation to oneself, the other, and the dyad (see Table 3). A single theme regarding oneself was common to athletes and coaches, while two themes were unique to athletes. Four themes regarding the other emerged that included one for athletes and coaches, one solely for athletes, and two that were unique to coaches. Finally, two perceptions regarding the dyad were identified, one of which was highlighted by athletes and coaches, and another that was reported solely by coaches. Perceptions Regarding Oneself. For athletes and coaches, RISE estimations developed most frequently from their own self-efficacy beliefs (this relationship is also highlighted as an interpersonal consequence of self-efficacy for athletes and coaches, Table 4). For instance, athlete A6 highlighted this assumption in relation to her present coach, I think that I m bad, so I think that he thinks that I m not too good. Athletes also reported that their past performances provided a basis to enhance RISE beliefs, whereas an absence of performance success contributed to weakened RISE appraisals (see Table 3). In addition, athletes also believed that their personal motivation affected their coaches confidence in their ability. In this theme, when athlete A4 was asked to explain the origins of his positive RISE appraisals, he noted, [my coach] knows the kind of strong will that I have, she knows the kind of personality that I have, she knows that I don t give up. Perceptions Regarding the Other. Athletes and coaches both described the impact of the other s verbal behavior, referring to the content of feedback, as well as the way in which messages were delivered (e.g., tone of voice, raising voice). With respect to the content of the other s feedback, athlete A6 stated that her previous coach had confidence in me because he always gave really positive feedback. Similarly, coach C1 recalled that the times where he says no to me in training is next to none, so that shows me that he has got confidence in what I do with him. The second perception regarding the other revealed that athletes estimated their coaches confidence in their ability via the goals set by the coach. For instance, A6 described, at the start [my coach] and I set goals that I would get down to 56 seconds this summer, which is pretty quick, whereas now he s not setting goals... I think that knocks my belief in his confidence in me. Two further themes emerged solely for coaches. First, in addition to verbal inferences, coaches also estimated RISE via athletes nonverbal behavior (i.e., body language, see Table 3). Second, coaches perceived that their athletes affective states contributed to coach RISE appraisals. That is, where coaches perceived their athletes were

17 Table 3 Antecedent Categories, Themes, and Meaning Units for RISE RISE Antecedents Higher-Order Category Lower-Order Theme Exemplar Meaning Unit Perceptions regarding oneself Perceptions regarding the other Perceptions regarding the dyad Self-efficacy (Athletes = 3) (Coaches = 8) Past performances (Athletes = 5) Motivation (Athletes = 3) Verbal behavior (Athletes = 25) (Coaches = 12) Goals set by coach (Athletes = 8) Nonverbal behavior (Coaches = 5) Athlete s affective state (Coaches = 5) Experience (Athletes = 4) (Coaches = 3) Athlete s achievements during time as a dyad (Coaches = 7) I thought I was good, so I think he thought I was good (A6) given that I ve got confidence in what I m doing, she s got confidence in me and that s important (C3) I m not sure whether he s that confident in my ability as much as my former coach was, because he saw me achieve quite a few things whereas [my current coach] hasn t seen me achieve anything (A6) knowing how hard I work, day in, day out...she can feel confident in what I m doing (A4) if someone s telling you bad things all the time...then you re going to think well, they re not that confident in me (A6) if he says no to me, I take that as he s not confident in what I m doing (C1) the long term plans and goals he has for me, I don t think he d have them [if he wasn t confident in me] (A3) I can tell how confident she is in me from the way she acts around me (C3) on the whole I think she s happy with her training and her running, and with everything that I ve put in place so my feelings are that she is confident in me (C3) I think by him getting to know me...it s obviously raised his confidence in me (A2) I think it s probably developed since the start because I didn t know her and she didn t know me (C3) when we started she actually had a very successful season so...i think her confidence in me grew as she thought, well, he s doing something right (C3) Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 5 athlete meaning units were classified as Past performances. 219

18 Table 4 Outcome Categories, Themes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Consequences Higher-Order Lower-Order Theme Exemplar Meaning Unit Category Intrapersonal Performance (Athletes = 8) Behavior during competition & training (Athletes = 4) Motivation (Athletes = 4) Affective responses (Athletes = 8) Complacency (Athletes = 4) Instruction (Coaches = 12) Interpersonal RISE (Athletes = 3) (Coaches = 8) Perception of athlete s selfefficacy(coaches = 3) Relationship termination (Coaches = 3) if you re not confident going into a race then you re going to do bad (A6) if you step on to a court knowing that you re feeling confident then you can go for a few more shots that you wouldn t necessarily do if your confidence was low (A1) I think it [my self-confidence] makes me work a lot harder (A2) if I ve got that confidence I m not worrying about anything else other than being ready to race (A3) I wouldn t say that I m over confident because then you get complacent and then you think ok, I don t have to work so hard (A4) by having confidence in what I do I can easily look at what he does and point him in the right direction, and say do this, do that, you know (C4) At the moment I m not too confident, so then I think that [my coach] thinks that I m bad as well (A2) with [my athlete] I feel that she s confident in me because I definitely have the [self-]confidence at the top level in triathlon (C5) if I m not confident and I don t know what I m doing, then she picks up on it and it has an impact on her, then she has [self-]doubts (C3) if you re not sure about things I suppose some of that will come out and will be reflected in terms of how long you work with your athlete (C2) Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 8 athlete meaning units were classified as Performance. 220

19 Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 221 happy they inferred positive RISE beliefs. For example, coach C2 s positive RISE beliefs were reported to stem from the fact she [the athlete] seems very happy, so you know, I think she s confident in what I m doing. Perceptions Regarding the Dyad. Athletes and coaches both reported that greater experience as a dyad was related to favorable RISE estimations. For example, athlete A6 commented, I m not sure that [coach] has much confidence in me... because we haven t worked with each other for so long. In the final theme, athlete s achievements during the time as a dyad, coaches estimated that athletes were confident in their ability as a result of their successes during the relationship. This was evident in one quote from coach C5, who thought, after we as a team have had a good race then their confidence in me would increase. Consequences All consequence themes were assigned to one of two categories. First, where meaning units related directly to a personal outcome (e.g., one s own motivation, performance, affective state) that did not refer to the other or the dyad, themes were categorized as intrapersonal. However, where meaning units involved thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed toward the other (e.g., responsiveness to the coach) or the dyad (e.g., relationship persistence intentions, closeness), these were termed interpersonal consequences. Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy beliefs were associated with six intrapersonal themes (five for athletes, one unique to coaches), and three interpersonal themes (one common to athletes and coaches, and two unique to coaches), as shown in Table 4. Intrapersonal. Athletes consistently described how self-efficacy beliefs were positively related to their own performance levels and, conversely, low levels of self-efficacy were associated with diminished performance. As one example, athlete A6 recalled, I stood on the start line and I was like I am... going to come last in this race, and I did. In the second theme, athletes identified a willingness to attempt difficult and novel skills as a result of their self-efficacy beliefs, and this theme was termed behavior during competition and training. For example, athlete A1 commented that during his tennis matches, I think that s the whole thing with confidence, you believe in yourself and you hit shots that you wouldn t hit if your confidence was low. Third, self-efficacy was reported to be related to elevated athlete motivation, in which athletes identified greater levels of effort and determination. For instance, athlete A1 said, If I m feeling confident, I m wanting to train. Fourth, athlete self-efficacy was associated with general affective responses, including elevated feelings of happiness and relaxation, as well as diminished perceptions of anxiety. For example, athlete A3 suggested that being confident... relaxes you and you can focus on being relaxed. Finally, athletes felt that complacency may result from over-estimating one s ability. Athlete A4 recalled a specific period of over-confidence, saying, throughout the preparation period for that competition my coach was saying you ve got to train properly and be focused, and that was going in one ear and out the other.

20 222 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp For coaches, in the theme instruction, meaning units illustrated that coaches felt a high degree of confidence in their own ability enabled them to provide decisive instruction, diagnose technical faults, and devise strategy for competition. For example, coach C4 highlighted that being self-efficacious enabled him to know just exactly what to say to [athlete]... and point him in the right direction. In relation to low self-efficacy however, coach C6 noted, when you re not so sure, you maybe don t have it clear in you mind where you should take their training, and you might, um and ah a bit on plans for racing. Interpersonal. Athletes and coaches both reported more positive RISE appraisals when they were highly self-efficacious (this relationship is also reflected in the antecedents of RISE beliefs in Table 3). For instance, when athletes were highly confident in their own abilities, this was associated with the assumption that their coaches would also be confident in their (i.e., the athlete s) abilities (see Table 4). For coaches, elevated levels of self-efficacy were also associated with elevated perceptions of their athlete s self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, coaches assumed that athletes self-efficacy beliefs would reflect coaches own self-efficacy beliefs. For instance, coach C6 noted how his confidence may transmit across to his athlete, If I wasn t [self-]confident... then that would affect the athlete psychologically, they d be thinking, this isn t normally how my coach is, and then that creates [self-] doubts, so I think the two reflect. Furthermore, results showed that coaches forecasted that their relationship may break down as a result of low selfefficacy beliefs; this theme was termed relationship termination. As an example, coach C1 suggested, It would be wrong to continue working with a player that you felt you couldn t help further... that would be taking that player down the wrong road. Other-Efficacy For other-efficacy (see Table 5), three intrapersonal (all common to athletes and coaches), and eight interpersonal themes emerged. One interpersonal theme was common to athletes and coaches, while four were unique to athletes and three were unique to coaches. Intrapersonal. The first theme illustrated how other-efficacy beliefs were related to self-efficacy (also indicated in antecedents of self-efficacy, Table 1), for both athletes and coaches. The majority of meaning units in this theme highlighted a positive relationship between other-efficacy and self-efficacy. For example, athlete A4 felt, being confident in my coach sort of inspires me to be confident in what I m doing. However, a second group of meaning units emerged in this theme where coaches identified that high other-efficacy may actually engender lowered self-efficacy. For example, coach C1 described how a high degree of confidence in his athlete s ability was related to personal self-doubt, whereby I wonder whether there s going to be a time when [my athlete] may need somebody who can deliver this... level of coaching better than I can. For both athletes and coaches other-efficacy beliefs were also reported to facilitate personal motivation. For example, coach C6 discussed, If you have massive confidence in your athlete, you will perhaps even give more time. On the other hand, athlete A2 documented the effects of low other-efficacy, I d have no