Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 ( 2014 ) 421 425 ERPA 2014 The relationship between perceived coaching behaviour and achievement motivation: a research in football players Fikret Soyer a a * -Gabriel Talaghir b a School of Physical Education and Sports, Sakarya University, Sakarya, 54187, Turkey b University Dunarea de Jos, Department of Individual Sports and Kinetoterapy, Galati, 800003, Romania Abstract The aim of this study was to discover the relationship between perceived coaching behavior and achievement motivation in football players. 123 male football players (Xage= 20.16±2.96) voluntarily participated to the research. As the data collection tools, personal information form, Leadership Scale for Sport and Achievement Motivation Scale for Sport were used. The data was analyzed by descriptive statistics, Spearman s correlation and Mann Whitney U test in SPSS 17 program. The results showed that level of education positively and significantly correlated with motive to approach success (r=.179, p<0.05). It was also found that power motive significantly correlated with training and instruction behavior (r=.198, p<0.05) and positive feedback behavior (r=.194, p<0.05).the score of perceived leadership behaviors was dived into two categories (low and high score groups) in order to discover whether there is a difference between the high and low score groups with regard to achievement motivation score. Results of Mann Whitney U test indicated a significant difference in motive to avoid failure between the high and low score groups of training and instruction behavior, democratic behavior and social support behavior. The results suggest that there is a relationship between coaching behaviors and achievement motivation in football players 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Selection (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the ERPA Congress 2014. Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the ERPA Congress 2014. Keywords:Coaching behaviour; achievement motivation; football; athletes 1. Introduction Athletes environments can alter their behaviours. Parents, teammates, sport fans, media, sport coaches etc. havean effective impact on athletes behaviours. According to Ehsani et al., (2012), one of the most important * Corresponding author. Tel.: +902642956671; fax: +902646956642. E-mail address: sariihsan@yahoo.com 1877-0428 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the ERPA Congress 2014. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.224
422 Fikret Soyer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 ( 2014 ) 421 425 factors that could affect athletes is sport coach. Athletes interact with their coach in every training session and competition. Moreover, a sport coach could be a role model for the athlete and is also one of the people who can affect athletes outside of the sport context too. Their behaviours and feedbacks to an athlete could also determine how the athlete will behave in his/her daily life. For example, it is stated that undesirable coaching behaviours could result in negative outcomes related to sport satisfaction and burnout (Fraser-Thomas &Côté, 2009; Gould, Udry, Tuffey, &Loehr, 1996). Researches in leadership field started in the 1930s and continued with behavioural approach in the 1950s. During the recent decades, leadership styles of coaches in sport environments have frequently applied leadership patterns and instruments to measure leadership styles in organizations. For example, some researchers such as Smoll and Smith (1989) and Chelladuraiand Saleh (1980) tried to explain leadership models in sport context (Ehsani et al., 2012). Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) developed Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS) for the purpose of measuring leadership in leadership research in sport. This scale measures five dimensions of sport coaches leadership behaviours which are training and instruction, social support, positive feedback, autocratic style and democratic style(ehsani et al., 2012). Most of the researchers tried to determine the important factors which could be related to these coaching behaviours. Some of the factors which were examined regarding their relationship with sport coaches, b al., 2012), intrinsic motivation (Amorose&Horn, 2000; Hollembeak&Amorose, 2005), need satisfaction (Reinboth, Duda& Ntoumanis, 2004), burnout and anxiety (Vealey et al., 1998; Baker, Côté, & Hawes, 2000), skill development (Alfermann, Lee &Würth, 2005), player satisfaction (Khalaj, Khabiri, &Sajjadi, 2011, Bahrami, Zardoshtian, &Jourkesh, 2011). Researchers also tried to determine effect of sports coaches feedback behaviourson intrinsic motivation and satisfaction in elite athletes (Minoo, Nasser and Misagh, 2014). Achievement motivation could be defined as individuals s need to meet realistic goals, receive positive feedback and experience the sense of accomplishment. However some individuals are motivated to avoid failure instead of trying to succeed in a given task. Achievement motivation is also one of the factors that can change depending on the behaviours of the sport coach. As it has been revealed by the relevant literature explained above that sport coaches leadership behaviours could have an effect on various factors which are the determinants of athletic performance. From this point of view, the aim of this study was to discover the relationship between perceived coaching behaviour and achievement motivation in Turkish football players. Especially we aimed to reveal whether athletes perception of their coaches leadership behaviours has an effect on their achievement motivation. 2. Method 2.1. Participants 123 male football players (X age = 20.16±2.96) voluntarily participated to the research. Convenience sampling method was used to select the participants. Participants football experience was 7,77±3,52 years and the length of working with their sport coach was 2,53±1,45 years. 2.2. Data collection tools Information regarding the athletes demographic characteristics were obtained by a personal information form with 7 questions. Also Leadership Scale for Sport and Achievement Motivation Scale for Sport were used. Leadership Scale for Sport was developed by Saleh s (1980). The scale assesses the athletes perceptions of their coaches leadership behaviours. This scale has 40 items with five dimensions of leadership behaviour. These subdimensions are; training and instruction behaviour (13 items), democratic behaviour (9 items), autocratic behaviour (5 items), social support behaviour (8 items), and positive feedback behaviour (5 items). Participants answer on a 5- point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The mean score for sub-dimension represents the relevant behaviour of sports coaches.languageadaptation of Leadership Scale for Sport into Turkish was made by Toros and Tiryaki (2006). Achievement Motivation Scale was developed by Willis (1982). Language adaptation of the scale into Turkish was made by Tiryaki and Gödelek (1997). The scale has three subscales which are; power motive (12 items), motive to approach success (17 items) and motive to avoid failure (11 items). There are 30 items with 3 subscales and each
Fikret Soyer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 ( 2014 ) 421 425 423 item is answered on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). 2.3. Data analysis The data was analysed by descriptive statistics, Spearman s correlation and Mann Whitney U test in SPSS 17 program. Level of significance was determined to be 0,05. Spearman s correlation was used to determine the relationship between achievement motivation and leadership behaviours. Mann Whitney U test was used to determine the differences between high score and lowscore groupscreated according to the scores of Leadership Scale for Sport. Minimum score that can be obtained from this scale is 1 and maximum score was 5. Therefore 0 to 2 points score was set as low score and 3 to 5 score was set as high score groups. Athletes who obtained 2,1 to 2,99 was evaluated as middle group, therefore they were not assigned to any group. 3. Results Correlation results between achievement motivation and leadership behaviours can be seen on Table 1. Table 1. Correlation results between achievement motivation and leadership behaviours Motive to Approach Success Motive Age r 0,012 0,109-0,06 p 0,899 0,232 0,513 r 0,081 0,1-0,166 Experience p 0,392 0,286 0,077 r 0,149,179 * -0,023 Level education p 0,099 0,047 0,805 r,198 * 0,106-0,102 Training and instruction p 0,028 0,243 0,26 r 0,098 0,086-0,066 Democratic behaviour P 0,281 0,343 0,465 r 0,028 0,051-0,018 Autocratic behaviour p 0,762 0,576 0,844 r 0,148 0,109-0,108 Social support p 0,103 0,23 0,235 r,194 * 0,13-0,052 Positive feedback P 0,031 0,151 0,568 *p<0,05 Results showed that athletes level of education positively and significantly correlated with motive to approach success (r=.179, p<0.05). It was also found that power motive significantly correlated with training and instruction behaviour (r=.198, p<0.05) and positive feedback behaviour (r=.194, p<0.05). Table 2. The difference between the athletes with high and low perception of democratic coaching behaviour Democratic Behaviour Groups N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z p Low score 18 44,94 809 -,360,719 High score 75 47,49 3562 Approach Success Low score 18 49,83 897 -,496,620 High score 75 46,32 3474 Low score 18 59,39 1069-2,170,030 Highscore 75 44,03 3302 Results showed that there was not a significant difference between high and low perception of democratic
424 Fikret Soyer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 ( 2014 ) 421 425 behaviour groups for power motive (Z= -,360; p>0,05), approach success (Z=-,496; p>0,05). There was a significant difference for avoid failure (Z=-2,170; p<0,05). Table 3. The difference between the athletes with high and low perception of training and instruction behaviour Training and N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z P Instruction Behaviour Low score 17 48 816 High score 83 51,01 4234 -,390,696 Aproach Success Low score 17 54,09 919,5 High score 83 49,77 4130,5 Low score 17 66,82 1136 High score 83 47,16 3914 -,560,575-2,550,011 Results showed that there was not a significant difference between high and low perception of training and instruction behaviours for power motive (Z=-,390; p>0,05), approach success (Z=,575; p>0,05). There was a significant difference for avoid failure (Z=-2,550; p<0,05). Table 4.The difference between the athletes with high and low perception of social support behaviour Social Support N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Z p Behaviour Low score 20 47,7 954 High score 81 51,81 4197 -,563,573 Approach Success Low score 20 52,43 1048,5 High score 81 50,65 4102,5 Low score 20 64,8 1296 High score 81 47,59 3855 -,243,808-2,354,019 Results showed that there was not a significant difference between high and low perception of social support behaviour for power motive (Z=-,563; p>0,05), approach success (Z=-,243; p>0,05). There was a significant difference for avoid failure (Z=-2,354; p<0,05). 4. Discussion Within the field of social psychology, many researches have been conducted in the last decades to reveal the dynamics that occur in a group structure (Keshtan et al., 2010). Leadership styles of sport coaches shape the environment in which athletes carry out their responsibilities, therefore, it could be said thatleadership styles could earchers tried to identify the socialpsychological factors that could affect athletes motivation (Ntoumanis, Vazou, &Duda, 2007; Mageau&Vallerand, 2003). For example coaching behaviour is as one of the social factors and it could lead to a change in the motivation of the athletes (Ryan, 1982). Coaches have great influence on their teams, and the coach s leadership styles and behaviours have a great effect on the performance of their athletes (Ramzaninezhad&Keshtan, 2009, s111). Our findings showed that that power motive significantly correlated with training and instruction behaviour and positive feedback behaviour. It could be said that power motive,which is a sub-dimension of achievement motivation, is related to training and instruction behaviour and positive feedback behaviour. Furthermore, results of Mann Whitney U test showed that athletes who perceived their coaches to show less
Fikret Soyer et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152 ( 2014 ) 421 425 425 democratic, training and instruction and social support behaviours reported higher avoid failure score. Considering this result it could be said that democratic behaviour, training and instruction behaviour and social support behaviour could be used more often by sport coaches. It seems that, in this way, athletes do not avoid failing and they could try to make more effort to be successful. Relevant literature also suggests that democratic behaviour, training and instruction behaviour and social support behaviour of the sport coaches are beneficial (Amorose& Horn, 2000; Hollembeak&Amorose, 2005; Vallerand, 2007; Amorose&Anderson- &Bucik 2009). References Alfermann, D., Lee, M. J., &Würth, S. (2005). Perceived leadership behavior and motivational climate as antecedents of adolescent athletes skill development. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of Sport Psychology, 7(2), 14-36. Amorose AJ., Horn, TS., (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes' gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of sport & exercise psychology, 22(1-4), 63-84. Amorose, A. J., Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and self-determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8(5), 654-670. Bahrami, S., Zardoshtian, S., &Jourkesh, M. (2011).The effect of leadership on the motivation and satisfaction of Iranian women premier basketball league.annals of Biological Research, 2(4), 321-329. Baker, J., Côté, J., & Hawes, R. (2000).The relationship between coaching behaviours and sport anxiety in athletes. Journal of science and medicine in sport, 3(2), 110-119. profiles. Kineziologija, 41(2), 181-194. Chelladurai P, Saleh S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: development a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology; (2): 34 45. Chelladurai P, Saleh S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: development a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology; (2): 34 45. Ehsani, M., Amiri, M., &NorouziSeyedHossini, R. (2012).The Relationship between Leadership Styles of Coaches with Coaching Efficacy among Elite Iranian Judokas. International Journal of Sport Studies, 2(8), 399-405. Fraser-Thomas, J., &Côté, J. (2009). Understanding adolescents positive and negative developmental experiences in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 23, 3 23. Gould, D., Udry, E., Tuffey, S., &Loehr, J. (1996). Burnout in competitive junior tennis play ers: I. A quantitative psychological assessment. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 322 340. Hollembeak, J., &Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviors and college athletes' intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of applied sport psychology, 17(1), 20-36. Keshtan, M. H., Ramzaninezhad, R., Kordshooli, S. S., &Panahi, P. M. (2010).The relationship between collective efficacy and coaching behaviors in professional volleyball league of Iran clubs. World Journal of Sport Sciences,3(1), 1-6. Khalaj, G., Khabiri, M., &Sajjadi, N. (2011). The relationship between coaches leadership styles & player satisfaction in women skate championship. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3596-3601. Mageau, G. A., &Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coacheathlete relationship: a motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883e904. Minoo, D., Nasser, B., &Misagh, H. (2014).The effect of coach s feedback behaviors on intrinsic motivation and satisfaction in elite athletes of Golestan province. European Journal of Experimental Biology, 4(1), 523-526. Ntoumanis, N., Vazou, S., &Duda, J. L. (2007).Peer-created motivational climate.in S. Jowett, & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social psychology in sport (pp. 145e156). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Ramzaninezhad, R., &Keshtan, M. H. (2009). The relationship between coach s leadership styles and team cohesion in Iran football clubs professional league.brazilian journal of Biomotricity, 3(2), 111-120. Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., &Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychological and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and emotion, 28(3), 297-313. Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the interpersonal sphere: an extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450e461 ommunication Skills And Satisfaction Of The Basic Psychological Needs. International Journal of Academic Research,4 (1): 112-119. Smoll F.L, Smith R.E, (1989). Leadership behaviors in sport: A theoretical model and research paradigm. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1522 1551. -141, Ankara. - - - Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 3, 59-83. Vealey, R. S., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C. A. (1998). Influence of perceived coaching behaviors on burnout and competitive anxiety in female college athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10(2), 297-318. Willis, J. D. (1982). Three scales to measure competition-related motives in sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4(5), 338-353.