This study examined how practitioners who provide sport psychology support use counseling principles and skills to develop practitioner-athlete relationships. Semistructured interviews were conducted with thirteen competent practitioners (Mean age = 41.2 ± 10.9 years old, five men, eight women). Thematic analysis revealed that the participants used a range of counseling principles to develop practitioner-athlete relationships including: the facilitative conditions, self-disclosure, counseling skills, the formation of working alliances, and awareness of the unreal relationship. The participants also described using noncounseling strategies (e.g., gaining an understanding of the athlete’s sporting environment) to build relationships with their athletes. There was considerable variation between the participants both in the training that they had received in counseling principles and skills, and how they applied them. It was concluded that counseling principles and skills play a significant role in the development of practitioner-athlete relationships.
Louise Davis and Sophia Jowett
The present preliminary study aimed to develop and examine the psychometric properties of a new sport-specific self-report instrument designed to assess athletes’ and coaches’ attachment styles. The development and initial validation comprised three main phases. In Phase 1, a pool of items was generated based on pre-existing self-report attachment instruments, modified to reflect a coach and an athlete’s style of attachment. In Phase 2, the content validity of the items was assessed by a panel of experts. A final scale was developed and administered to 405 coaches and 298 athletes (N = 703 participants). In Phase 3, confirmatory factor analysis of the obtained data was conducted to determine the final items of the Coach-Athlete Attachment Scale (CAAS). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed acceptable goodness of ft indexes for a 3-first order factor model as well as a 2-first order factor model for both the athlete and the coach data, respectively. A secure attachment style positively predicted relationship satisfaction, while an insecure attachment style was a negative predictor of relationship satisfaction. The CAAS revealed initial psychometric properties of content, factorial, and predictive validity, as well as reliability.
John B. Nezlek, Marzena Cypryańska, Piotr Cypryański, Karolina Chlebosz, Karolina Jenczylik, Joanna Sztachańska and Anna M. Zalewska
examine such relationships. Participants in this study were recreational runners. Each week for 3 months they described how often and how far they had run that week, and they provided measures of their well-being. The analyses focused on within-person relationships between how much a person ran each week
Victoria McGee and J.D. DeFreese
individuals through both good and bad sport-related experiences ( Jowett & Shanmugam, 2016 ; Jowett & Wylleman, 2006 ). Thus, a deeper understanding of the impact the coach-athlete relationship has on specific athlete psychological outcomes including athlete burnout and engagement has potential theoretical
Tammy Horne and Albert V. Carron
Three major issues were examined in the present study: (a) the variables discriminating between compatible and incompatible coach-athlete dyads; (b) the relationship between coach-athlete compatibility and athlete performance; and (c) the relationship between compatibility and athlete satisfaction. Subjects were 77 coach-athlete dyads from female intercollegiate teams. Compatibility was assessed using a sport-adapted version of Schutz's (1966) Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO-B) scale and Chelladurai and Saleh's (1980) Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS). Self-ratings of the quality of the coach-athlete relationship, athlete performance, and satisfaction with the coach's leadership were obtained. There were two variables that significantly discriminated between compatible and incompatible dyads. The sole variable predicting athletes' performance perceptions was the score reflecting discrepancy between athlete perceptions and preferences on the LSS reward dimension. Variables predicting athlete satisfaction were discrepancy between athlete perceptions and preferences on the LSS dimensions of training, reward, and social support. Recommendations for future research in this area are discussed.
Amy Baker, Mary A. Hums, Yoseph Mamo and Damon P.S. Andrew
between students and teachers or professors ( Eliasson, Berggren, & Bondestam, 2000 ; Schrodt, Cawyer, & Sanders, 2003 ; van Eck Peluchette & Jeanquart, 2000 ). However, mentoring in an educational setting is not limited to these relationships. Just as in business, people in academic settings move up
Christine M. Habeeb, Robert C. Eklund and Pete Coffee
In theory, the best performances occur when athletes have strong positive efficacy beliefs. For athletes performing in a team, however, evaluations of personal capabilities (i.e., self-efficacy; Bandura, 1977 ) can have weaker relationships to performance because personal success is partially
Gashaw Abeza, David Finch, Norm O’Reilly, Eric MacIntosh and John Nadeau
Emerging from its interdisciplinary roots into a distinct field in the early 1980s ( Berry, 1983 ), relationship marketing (RM) evolved as an important conceptual lens for both marketing scholars and practitioners ( Agariya & Singh, 2011 ). Since Berry’s ( 1983 ) first and formal description of the
Viviene A. Temple, Dawn L. Lefebvre, Stephanie C. Field, Jeff R. Crane, Beverly Smith and Patti-Jean Naylor
relationships between motor development and physical activity engagement was central to the development of Stodden and colleagues’ ( 2008 ) conceptual model. The model illustrates a developmentally dynamic and reciprocal relationship between motor skill competence and physical activity; where fundamental motor
Hitoshi Koda, Yoshihiro Kai, Shin Murata, Hironori Osugi, Kunihiko Anami, Takahiko Fukumoto and Hidetaka Imagita
also the concept of asymmetry without direction. This asymmetry is defined as “the absence of symmetries on neither spatial arrangement, mathematical nor logical relationships” ( Sadeghi, Allard, Prince, & Labelle, 2000 ). Taking strength as an example, regardless of the dominant hand or leg