The impact of humanistic coach training on youth athletes’ development through sport

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of humanistic coach training on athletes’ developmental outcomes. A sample of 148 high school student-athletes between 12 and 17 years old from low socio-economic communities completed questionnaires during their season. The student-athletes were divided into an experimental group composed of student-athletes of 11 head coaches who participated in a humanistic coach training session, and a comparison group composed of student-athletes of 8 untrained coaches. Four questionnaires were used to assess competence, confidence, connection to the coach, and character (prosocial and antisocial behaviours) of the participants. The effects of the humanistic coach training program were assessed using repeated measures analysis of variance models. Results showed that connection to the coach worsened for athletes of untrained coaches. Also, participants from both groups reported an increase in antisocial behaviours at the end of the season, but the athletes of trained coaches reported engaging less frequently in antisocial behaviours compared to athletes of untrained coaches. These findings suggest that teaching humanistic coaching may help practitioners foster positive developmental outcomes in youth sport participants and build positive coach-athlete relationships, while also raising awareness to the use of sport as a tool to promote personal growth and development.

Keywords

Athlete development coach-athlete relationship positive youth development youth sport

Sport is a highly desirable context to foster youth personal development.¹ It may be an intrinsically motivating activity that can engage young participants and be used by adult decision-makers advocating for youth development in various settings.² Researchers have shown that youth sport participation can help facilitate many positive outcomes such as increased enjoyment, self-esteem, emotional regulation, and ability to work with others.^3–5 Sport can also help youth athletes acquire life skills that are transferable to other settings, such as respect for others, perseverance, teamwork, and leadership.⁶ Although the developmental benefits of sport participation are widely accepted, some studies have also associated sport participation to risky behaviors, such as increased aggression, substance abuse, and gang affiliation.^7–9 Moreover, these outcomes can be influenced by the attitudes and behaviours of the coach.¹⁰ Coaches’ behaviours leading to positive developmental outcomes have been defined and conceptualized using various theoretical frameworks with underpinnings in leadership, life skills promotion, and coaching effectiveness.⁴,⁶,¹⁰ An overarching framework integrating many theoretical tenets is called Positive Youth Development (PYD).¹¹

PYD in sport

Originating from Lerner et al.’s seminal work in developmental psychology, PYD focuses on fostering positive experiences to promote youth’s strength, potential, and competency.¹¹ It describes desirable outcomes ensuing from youths’ social environments including their school, family, and community that lead them to becoming functioning members of society.¹¹ Côté et al. adapted this work to the sport domain describing four desirable outcomes that accrue from youth sport participation that became known as the 4Cs: competence (i.e., individuals’ perceptions of abilities in a specific sport), confidence (i.e., degree of certainty an individual possesses about his/her ability to succeed in general), connection (i.e., positive interpersonal relationships originating from the need to belong and feel cared for), and character (i.e., an individual’s moral development and sportspersonship).¹²

PYD in sport has been widely used as a theoretical framework guiding youth development through sport literature. A meta-study reviewing qualitative studies in PYD through sport examined 63 articles and found the most common outcomes of youth participation included improved competence and fundamental movement skills, motivation and self-perceptions, teamwork and communications skills, as well as leadership, autonomy, and respect for others – all of which relate to the 4Cs.¹³ These outcomes are particularly important among low-income youth, for whom PYD programs can help overcome limited social resources, lower academic achievement, and promote overall health.¹⁴,¹⁵ For example, a study examining the perceptions of parents and youth athletes from low-income families showed personal and social benefits of sport participation such as improved confidence, discipline, and academic performance, as well as improved relationships with coaches and peers.¹⁴ Furthermore, Hellison’s work has been influential in the development of successful PYD programs for low-income communities. In particular, the emphasis on commitment and engagement to the community, relationship building, and adaptability to the context has been highly valuable.¹⁵ These characteristics allow program leaders to improve interpersonal relationships and draw on local strengths and resources, which are essential for the successful implementation of sport programs in low-income communities specifically, and PYD more broadly.¹⁵

Another benefit of the PYD in sport framework is the set of clearly defined constructs (the 4Cs), which allow for the accurate measurement of PYD in athletes.¹⁶ Vierimaa et al. performed a literature review of quantitative instruments to develop a toolkit composed of previously validated questionnaires that measured each of the 4Cs.¹⁶ Studies have used the toolkit to measure desirable athlete outcomes and the effectiveness of coaches’ behaviours.¹⁷,¹⁸ For example, Erickson and Côté found that athletes demonstrated increased 4Cs scores when coaches interacted collaboratively with them by addressing matters outside of sport, and decreased 4Cs scores when coaches imposed solutions and addressed only sport-related matters.¹⁷ In addition, Allan and Côté found that athletes of even-tempered coaches who routinely asked for athlete input showed higher scores in character than athletes of impatient coaches who pressured their athletes to perform.¹⁸ These findings support the use of Vierimaa et al.’s toolkit as a way to measure PYD and highlight the importance of coaches’ behaviours in fostering youth development through sport.

Coach training

The impact of coaches’ behaviours on youth development is well documented in the sport coaching literature, especially among trained coaches.¹⁹,²⁰ It has been reported that coaches learn to foster youth development through sport mainly from non-formal training programs, such as workshops developed and delivered by other coaches or researchers.²⁰ Researchers have evaluated coach training programs by examining participants’ perceptions and measuring athletes’ outcomes.⁴,²¹

Smith, Smoll, and colleagues designed a training protocol to teach youth sport coaches to use positive feedback, engage athletes in decisions about the team, and focus on skill development.⁴ Using a quasi-experimental design, these researchers found that trained coaches lowered the anxiety levels of their athletes, while improving their self-esteem and enjoyment.⁴ These outcomes relate to the 4Cs of PYD, particularly competence, confidence, and connection. In addition, Koh et al. created a program designed to teach coaches and physical education teachers how to identify and transfer values to youth participants.²¹ They examined the effectiveness of this workshop using individual interviews with coaches and teachers, and focus group interviews with athletes and students. Findings showed trained coaches successfully transmitted important values such as integrity, respect, commitment, and resilience to their athletes, and continued doing so two years later after the program was completed.²¹,²² These outcomes fit the description of character as presented in the PYD framework. Finally, other non-formal training programs examined the outcomes of youth sport training workshops using individual interviews, which indicated their programs taught youth sport coaches how to build team cohesion or address the United Nations Millennium Development Goals through sport.²³,²⁴ These studies found trained coaches felt better prepared to deal with athletes’ needs and noticed improved leadership, cohesion, and communication skills among their athletes, which relates to the PYD outcome of connection.²³,²⁴

Taken together, studies evaluating coach training programs have used both quantitative and qualitative strategies to examine coaches’ behaviours or athletes’ development. Namely, research findings suggested that trained coaches taught athletes personal values and life skills, such as integrity, respect, leadership, and resilience, and fostered social interactions, enjoyment, and self-esteem.⁴,²¹ These positive developmental outcomes align with the 4Cs of PYD. The coaching behaviours used to promote these outcomes are associated with a coaching philosophy called humanistic coaching.²⁵

Humanistic coaching

Humanistic coaching focuses on promoting athletes’ personal growth and development by empowering participants and fostering positive coach-athlete relationships.²⁶ It was inspired by humanistic psychology and education emerging in response to traditional coach-centered approaches that employ an authoritarian style and emphasize winning over development.²⁷,²⁸ Instead, humanistic coaching promotes personal fulfilment, growth, and achievement using an athlete-centered approach that encourages individual autonomy.²⁹ This entails a change of attitude where the coach goes from making decisions to sharing responsibility, from being an information-giver to a facilitator of the learning process, from setting rules and standards to agreeing on them.²⁶,³⁰ As a result, humanistic coaching behaviours have been described as: (a) encouraging autonomy and gradually relinquishing control by using a facilitative coaching style; (b) providing problem-solving opportunities; (c) individualizing the coaching process by setting clear personal goals that address individual needs; and (d) building positive collaborative coach-athlete relationships by being understanding and supportive, as well as being open about thoughts, feelings, and emotions.²⁶,³¹

Researchers studying coaching practices have noted that those using humanistic coaching philosophy fostered development inside and outside of sport, used clear and transparent forms of coach-athlete communication, welcomed athlete input about team functions, adapted practices to meet athlete needs, and shared responsibility for team decisions.^32–35 Bennie and O’Connor interviewed six coaches and 25 of their athletes from professional sport leagues in Australia to learn about coaches’ philosophies and attitudes towards fostering athletes’ personal growth and development.³³ Findings suggested professional coaches who followed humanistic principles believed success on the field was a consequence of developing the individual as an athlete and a person by allowing their players to achieve a balance between sport and life.³³ In addition, Lara-Bercial and Mallett studied the personalities, practices, and developmental pathways of professional and Olympic coaches who had repeatedly achieved success.³⁴ The authors described a humanistic coach as someone who took an explicitly athlete-centered stance, showed high moral values, and emphasized positive balance between sport and other life domains.³⁴ Finally, Jones et al.’s case study investigation of a professional soccer coach found the coach used humanistic strategies to build positive relationships with players and to gain cooperation and collaboration from them.³⁵ These research findings suggest that coaches apply the humanistic coaching philosophy into their practices as a way to foster personal growth and development, improve autonomy, and decision-making skills that impact athletes’ lives beyond the sport context.

Although the conceptual definition and description of humanistic coaching has been discussed in the literature since the 1980s, researchers still point to a lack of practical implications to coaching practices.²⁹,³⁰ In fact, humanistic coaching has been described as an ideology or belief system, which is prevalent in youth sports with coaches adopting behaviours that reflect humanistic values without necessarily being aware of its principles.²⁵,³⁰,³⁶ As a result, there is a disconnect between theory and practice leading to inconsistencies and lack of clarity of the impact of humanistic coaching on athletes.^29–31 Moreover, many of the humanistic coaching behaviours share similarities with other well-known coaching approaches, such as the mastery approach to coaching, transformational leadership, and autonomy-supportive coaching.⁵,³⁷,³⁸ For example, both humanistic coaching and mastery approach to coaching emphasize personal growth and development over winning; similar to transformational leadership, humanistic coaching is concerned for the athlete beyond the sport context and seeks to intellectually inspire the athlete by asking questions and welcoming feedback; finally, autonomy-supportive coaching and humanistic coaching encourage problem solving and team decision-making.

The conceptual overlap between seemingly related coaching approaches has been examined.³⁹,⁴⁰ Vella and Perlman reviewed three common coaching approaches – mastery approach to coaching, autonomy supportive coaching, and the transformational leadership – finding similarities in coaching behaviours despite the different theoretical foundations guiding each approach.³⁹ They argued that despite the similar principles, having different theoretical foundations allows coaches to select an approach that aligns with their personal belief, context, and desired athlete outcomes.³⁹ Similarly, adopting a humanistic coaching philosophy appears to help guide coaching practices that foster athlete personal growth and development. Research also shows that integrating even some elements of a humanistic coaching philosophy may be sufficient to build trust and achieve positive athlete outcomes.⁴⁰,⁴¹

Taken together, PYD in sport describes the desirable outcomes of youth sport participation, non-formal coach training programs teach behaviours that foster these outcomes, and humanistic coaching provides the guiding principles of these coaching behaviours.⁴,²⁰,²⁵ Despite the close relationship between these elements, Nelson et al. noted that coach training programs designed to teach development through sport did not typically address humanistic coaching principles.³¹ They suggested that teaching humanistic principles in youth sport coach training programs could increase coaches’ knowledge, lead to more consistent practices, and foster development through sport. Despite these recommendations and suggestions from humanistic coaching proponents, there is limited empirical support that teaching the principles of humanistic coaching can impact youth development through sport, and even less focused on low-income youth. As such, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of humanistic coach training on athletes’ PYD outcomes.

Methods

Context of the study

The present study is part of a larger research project developed in collaboration with a not-for-profit organization that used sport as a tool to improve the personal development of youth living in low-socioeconomic settings. The partner organization was founded by a member of a low-income community who was motivated by his own experiences as a youth athlete and youth sport coach. As a community member, his goal was to engage other leaders in improving the lives of youth through basketball. To do so, this organization partnered with directors of local high schools and recruited individuals interested in coaching high school basketball. The organization trained selected candidates to promote development though sport. Following their training, the organization assigned each trainee a team in one of the partner local high schools where they coached basketball for an entire season. During the season, trainees continued to participate in professional development workshops and their progress was tracked by mentors who reinforced the information taught during the workshops by helping coaches apply it to their practices. The community aspect of this organization allowed members to join forces in supporting their youth. The relationship between the organization and our research team started when they contacted us with an invitation to collaborate in developing and delivering their coach training protocols. The role of our research team was to design, deliver, and evaluate a humanistic coach training program for the organization’s youth sport coaches.

Our participation in this program has led to three empirical studies. In the first study, the authors developed and delivered a humanistic coach training program and investigated coaches’ perceptions and experiences applying it to their practices.⁴⁰ Twelve youth sport basketball head coaches (10 male and 2 female) participated in a 2-hour training program delivered prior to the start of the school year. This training program addressed the principles of humanistic coaching and strategies on how to implement it in youth sport settings. Findings revealed coaches applied humanistic principles by building collaborative coach-athlete relationships, seeking athletes’ input about practices and games, providing athletes with problem solving opportunities, and including athletes in decisions about the team.⁴⁰

The second study investigated the perceptions of student-athletes who were coached by individuals using humanistic principles to foster personal development through sport.⁴¹ Three focus group interviews were conducted with 23 student-athletes (16 girls and 7 boys) whose coaches had participated in the humanistic coaching workshop (in study 1). Findings revealed that student-athletes described coaches’ values and behaviours in ways congruent to humanistic coaching, which suggested that coaches applied these principles to their practices confirming findings from study 1.⁴¹ Furthermore, participants reported learning life skills, such as confidence, perseverance, motivation, and responsibility.⁴¹ Although coaches’ and athletes’ experiences and perceptions of humanistic coaching provided valuable insight about the humanistic coaching training program, its application, and outcomes, the previous studies did not measure the developmental outcomes of youth athletes.

Building on the previous two studies, a proof-of-concept was needed to support the perceptions of coaches and student-athletes of the benefits of humanistic coaching. Proof-of-concept are small-scale studies that provide a cost-effective way to determine if a treatment can benefit a target population prior to costly large randomized trials.⁴² Differences in athletes’ reporting of competence, confidence, connection, and character (4Cs) were tested over time among athletes of coaches trained in humanistic coaching and coaches with no training. It was hypothesized that student-athletes would report improvements in 4Cs over time.

Participants

Participants in this study were 148 high school student-athletes between 12 and 17 years old from 19 teams in schools from low socio-economic communities in a large Canadian city. The participants were part of two groups: an experimental group (n = 98) composed of student-athletes of 11 head coaches who participated in a humanistic coach training program, and a comparison group (n = 50) composed of student-athletes of 8 untrained coaches. The comparison group members were purposefully recruited to match the school, gender, and age of the members in the experimental group. The experimental group was composed exclusively of basketball players because the partner organization only trained basketball coaches. The comparison group included athletes from other sports (i.e., soccer, volleyball, and ice hockey teams) because these schools only had one basketball team per gender and age category.

Procedures

Ethical approval was obtained from appropriate University and school boards. The primary investigator contacted the school principals for permission to recruit their student-athletes. Following this initial approval, the primary investigator contacted the head coaches of the school teams asking for permission to attend a practice and invite their student-athletes to participate. The primary investigator explained the purpose and procedures of the study to potential participants. Interested students provided assent and parental/guardian consent.

Participants completed the questionnaires measuring the 4Cs in sport twice during the season.¹⁶ The first collection period with student-athletes occurred approximately 3 months after coaches participated in the humanistic coach training program. This timeline was necessary for coaches to select players to their teams, student-athletes to be recruited to the study, and parents/guardians to sign consent forms. This time also allowed participants to get to know their coaches and form perceptions of their groups. The second collection period occurred within two weeks after the season ended, approximately 3 months after the first data collection. Participants completed the questionnaires before or after practice, in a classroom or in the school gymnasium. The primary investigator and research assistants supervised the data collection process while coaches left the premises to avoid influencing participants’ responses.

Measures

Four reliable and valid questionnaires were used to assess each of the 4Cs: competence, confidence, connection to the coach, and character.¹⁶

Competence

In the Athlete Sport Competence Inventory the youth athletes rated their peers’ athletic competence on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not at all competent to extremely competent in three different sport-related skills: technical, tactical, and physical.¹⁶ Consistent with other research, the inventory included the names of all members of the team so that student-athletes could rate each teammate.¹⁷ The final competence score was calculated averaging the ratings given by all teammates to the three skills for each individual student-athlete. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (α) were 0.91 and .93 for Time 1 and 2, respectively.

Confidence

The self-confidence subscale of the Revised Competitive State Anxiety Inventory – 2 was composed of five items scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from not at all to very much so.⁴³ The items referred to individuals’ general feelings of confidence that targeted respondents’ state sport confidence (e.g., I’m confident I can meet the challenge). The average of all items was used as the index for athlete’s confidence. For the current sample, the internal consistency reliability coefficients (α) were 0.83 and 0.84 for Time 1 and 2, respectively.

Connection to the coach

The Coach-Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) is an 11-item questionnaire scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all to extremely.⁴⁴ The items addressed three subscales: closeness (4 items; e.g., I like my coach), commitment (3 items; e.g., I feel committed to my coach), and complementarity (4 items; e.g., When I am coached by my coach, I feel at ease). Based on the findings from previous studies and the high correlations between the subscales, they were combined into a single dimension of connection to the coach.⁴⁵ For the current sample, the internal consistency reliability coefficients (α) were 0.92 and 0.91 for Time 1 and 2, respectively.

Character

The Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale is a 20-item questionnaire scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never to very often.⁴⁶ The items address prosocial behaviours (7 items; e.g., Helped an opponent off the floor) and antisocial behaviours (13 items; e.g., Tried to injure an opponent). Participants were scored in prosocial and antisocial constructs by averaging their responses to each item. For the current sample, α = 0.73 and 0.78 for the prosocial subscale and α = 0.82 and 0.90 for the antisocial subscale for Time 1 and 2, respectively.

Analysis

Descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations) and Pearson correlation coefficients between the study variables at Time 1 and Time 2 were computed. Data were screened for missing data, outliers, and assumptions of multivariate analyses. Missing data from participants who did not complete the toolkit in both Time 1 and Time 2 or who did not answer more than 5% of the items in the tool kit were excluded from the analysis. The outlying scores (z > 3.29) of four participants were transformed based on guidelines proposed by Tabachnick and Fidell such that these raw scores were assigned values one unit larger (or smaller) than the next more extreme score in the distribution.⁴⁷ Separate Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance (RM-ANOVA) models were conducted to explore the differences between the experimental and comparison groups over time on each of the dimensions of the 4Cs (competence, confidence, connection to the coach, and character – prosocial and antisocial behaviours). SPSS 20.0 was used to conduct all analyses.

Results

Of the 148 participants recruited to participate in the study, n = 110 met the inclusion criteria. A total of 36 participants were excluded for completing only one questionnaire time point and two participants were excluded for not answering more than 5% of the items in the questionnaires. These exclusions yielded no significant changes on age average or the age range. Comparisons between the analytical sample and those who were removed from the analyses showed a significant association between the cases that were excluded and their coach [χ² (18, N = 148) = 33.80, p = .01] and there were significant differences on confidence at time 1 [F(1,135) = 4.02, p = .04, ηp² = .022] as well as competence [F(1,147) = 4.22, p = .04, ηp² = .021] and antisocial behaviours [F(1,123) = 4.365, p = .04, ηp² = .027] at time 2. The final analytical sample was on average 13.6 (SD = 1.11) years old, and 60% male athletes. There were 74 athletes in the experimental group and 36 participants in the comparison condition. There were 10 coaches in the experimental condition (8 male and 2 female) and 7 coaches in the comparison condition (5 male and 2 female). There were no significant differences in the age and sex of the participants in both groups or in the percentage of male and female coaches.

Preliminary analyses

Descriptive data of the measures of 4Cs at Time 1 and Time 2 are presented in Table 1. In general, athletes reported moderate scores on competence and prosocial behaviours, high scores on confidence and connection to the coach, and low scores on antisocial behaviours. At Time 1, teammates’ perceptions of athletes’ competence were significantly related to antisocial behaviours (r = .22, p = .02) and self-perceptions of confidence and connection to the coach were positively correlated (r = .29, p = .002). There were no other significant correlations among the 4Cs facets.

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations for the PYD measures at Time 1 and Time 2.

Group	4Cs of PYD	Means T1 (SD)	Means T2 (SD)
Comparison	Competence	3.42 (0.81)	3.39 (0.96)
	Confidence	3.59 (0.46)	3.61 (0.41)
	Connection to the coach	6.05 (0.68)	5.70 (1.15)
	Character
	Prosocial	3.41 (0.82)	3.45 (0.89)
	Antisocial	1.78 (0.58)	2.04 (0.93)
Experimental	Competence	3.38 (0.62)	3.47 (0.59)
	Confidence	3.17 (0.59)	3.24 (0.60)
	Connection to the coach	5.85 (0.82)	5.88 (0.84)
	Character
	Prosocial	3.51 (0.68)	3.40 (0.70)
	Antisocial	1.70 (0.44)	1.76 (0.58)
Overall	Competence	3.39 (0.68)	3.45 (0.73)
	Confidence	3.31 (0.59)	3.36 (0.57)
	Connection to the coach	5.92 (0.78)	5.82 (0.95)
	Character
	Prosocial	3.48 (0.73)	3.42 (0.76)
	Antisocial	1.73 (0.49)	1.85 (0.72)

Main analyses

Competence

There were no significant changes in the teammates’ ratings of athletes’ competence over time or differences between experimental and comparison conditions [Time: F(1,108) = 0.46, p = .50, ηp² = .004; Group: F(1,108) = 0.03, p = .86, ηp² = .02; Time x Group: F(1,108) = 1.94, p = .17, ηp² = .02].

Confidence

There were no significant changes in confidence over time [F(1,108) = 1.01, p = .32, ηp² = .004] or Time x Group interaction [F(1,108) = .36, p = .55, ηp² = .002]. There was a significant difference in confidence between experimental and comparison conditions [F(1,108) = 14.81, p < .001, ηp² = .12]. Specifically, the comparison group had higher perceptions of confidence throughout the study period.

Connection to the coach

There was a significant time effect [F(1,108) = 4.68, p = .03, ηp² = .05] and Time x Group interaction [F(1,108) = 6.63, p = .01, ηp² = .06], and no significant group effect [F(1,108) = 0.01, p = .99, ηp² = .00]. The significant interaction is plotted in Figure 1(a). Based on these results, the comparison group participants reported significantly worse connection to the coach over time whereas the experimental group had consistent perceptions of their connection to the coach.

Figure 1.

Time X Group Interaction effects for athletes’ perceptions of their connection to the coach (a, left) and antisocial behaviours (b, right).

Character

There were no significant changes in prosocial behaviours over time or differences between experimental and comparison conditions [Time: F(1,108) = 0.31, p = .58, ηp² = .003; Group: F(1,108) = 0.03, p = .87, ηp² = .00; Time x Group: F(1,108) = 1.35, p = .25, ηp² = .02]. There was a significant time effect for antisocial behaviours [F(1,108) = 8.91, p = .004, ηp² = .08], no significant group effect [F(1,108) = 2.49, p = .12, ηp² = .02], and a significant Time x Group interaction [F(1,108) = 4.07, p = .05, ηp² = .04]. The significant interaction is plotted in Figure 1(b). Based on these results, both groups reported increases in the frequency of antisocial behaviours, yet the comparison group participants reported higher increases than the experimental group.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of humanistic coach training on athlete development. The results showed that athletes of coaches trained to use humanistic principles showed higher connection to their coaches. Also, participants from both groups reported an increase in antisocial behaviours at the end of the season; however, the athletes of trained coaches reported engaging less frequently in antisocial behaviours compared to athletes of untrained coaches. These findings provide evidence suggesting humanistic coaching can help foster some developmental outcomes in youth sport settings.

Connection to coaches did not change over time for athletes of trained coaches and worsened for athletes of untrained coaches. Researchers have found similar results showing that trained coaches may build better coach-athlete relationships, which in turn has positively impacted youth development.⁵,¹⁷,¹⁸,⁴⁸ In the present study, coaches placed particular emphasis on building connections with their athletes. The humanistic coach training program included information and discussions about being understanding, collaborative, supportive, and including athletes in team decisions.⁴⁰ In study 1 of this research project, Falcão et al. found that coaches built the coach-athlete relationship by frequently talking to athletes about matters outside of sport (e.g., school and family), and encouraged autonomy and collaboration within the sport domain by using thought-provoking questions, welcoming athletes’ input, and allowing athletes to make decision about the team.⁴⁰ Similar behaviours were found in study 2, in which student-athletes described their coaches as trusting individuals who were interested in their personal and academic lives.⁴¹ These findings combined with the results from the present study support the notion that humanistic behaviours improve coaches’ ability to build positive collaborative coach-athlete relationships. This is noteworthy because previous studies indicated this was important to fostering other positive outcomes such as respect for others and character.⁵,⁴⁸

Participants in the comparison condition reported higher perceptions of confidence throughout the study. Research on instructional feedback may help explain this unexpected finding. Carpentier and Mageau investigated how coaching strategies influenced the promotion of confidence among youth athletes.⁴⁹ Their findings showed youth athletes improved self-confidence when coaches reinforced or instructed skill execution, but not when they used general autonomy-supportive coaching style. Their description of autonomy-supportive coaching style shares similarities with humanistic coaching, namely encouraging autonomy, giving athletes choices, allowing opportunities to problem-solve, as well as engage in decision making about the team. This finding highlights a potential limitation in the humanistic coach training program.⁴⁰ In particular, the training session had four phases that focused on humanistic theory in psychology, education, and coaching with emphasis on how this coaching philosophy impacted interpersonal relationship and athlete autonomy.⁴⁰ Although findings from study 1 and 2 revealed that coaches learned and applied humanistic coaching behaviours to their practices, the training did not address how to provide sport-specific instructional feedback.⁴⁰,⁴¹

Athletes in both groups showed increased antisocial behaviours at the end of the season; however, the athletes of trained coaches showed a smaller increase on this undesirable outcome than athletes of untrained coaches. The perception of antisocial behaviours in a youth sport setting is not unique. Kavussanu et al. found that youth players engaged in antisocial behaviours more frequently than prosocial behaviours, and Martin et al. showed trying to win was the main reason youth athletes broke the rules.⁸,⁹ As such, the prevalence of antisocial behaviours can be attributed to the competitive nature of sport leading individuals to feeling pressured to win and gain an advantage over their opponent. Although previous studies reported the frequency and reasons for antisocial behaviours, they did not assess change during the season or the impact of coaches’ behaviours on this undesirable outcome.⁸,⁹ The present study adds to the literature by showing antisocial behaviours increased at the end of the season, yet humanistic coaching tempered this increase.

The overall increase in antisocial behaviours could be attributed to the fact that games become more competitive towards the end of the season. In fact, the current data were gathered right after playoffs finished. Future studies may investigate the relationship between antisocial behaviours and competition by observing athletes’ prosocial and antisocial behaviours at specific times during the season and accounting for the importance of games (e.g., playing against a rival team, playing a playoff elimination game). In turn, the smaller increase observed in athletes of trained coaches’ highlight the importance humanistic coaching places on mastery over winning, which reduces the emphasis and pressure to win. Youth sport coaches can benefit from these findings by implementing humanistic principles as a way of preventing an overemphasis on winning, as well as adjusting their feedback and coaching strategies according to the time of the season and importance of a game.

Finally, no significant changes were identified in competence and prosocial behaviours over time. These findings are unexpected contradicting findings from the literature and the previous studies in this research project.⁸,¹⁸,⁴⁰,⁴¹ Using qualitative methods in studies 1 and 2, Falcão et al. revealed that coaches and athletes noticed improvement in athletes’ sport knowledge and skills (competence), as well as respect for others and willingness to help their teammates (prosocial behaviours).⁴⁰,⁴¹ Potential reasons for the lack of significant change in the present study may be the lack of base-line data. These characteristics may develop early in a sport season and may have stabilized before the data collection began. The short 3-month time between data collection may have undermined the changes in competence and prosocial behaviours observed during the entire season. Another potential explanation may have been the peer-assessment measure, where the youth athletes may not have been qualified to adequately assess the skill level of their peers. Given the multitude of competence measures used in sport and physical activity, it would be valuable to add a measure of coach-reported competence to the toolkit.

Limitations and future directions

These findings should be considered in light of the limitations inherent to the study. This was not a random sample as participants were selected from the schools partnered with a local not-for-profit organization. The schools’ interest in associating with a not-for-profit organization may reflect an openness to using sport as a tool to develop student-athletes, which may not be representative of other school settings. The naturalistic nature of the study did not allow for base-line measures, the first data collection occurred near the middle of the season and reduced the time between the first and second data collections. The experimental group was composed exclusively of basketball players. Future studies can examine the use of humanistic coaching in other sports to examine whether different sporting cultures impact the adoption of humanistic behaviours and their effects on youth development. Another limiting factor in the present study was the lack of information from coaches of athletes in the comparison group. Future studies can use large randomized trials to control these independent variables and assess the impact of humanistic coaching in comparison to other coaching approaches. The group sizes were also different, and the analyses did not control for nesting of athletes within teams. Our sample included only four female teams, of which two coaches were women. The coach-athlete sex match-up may influence the study variables and should be explored in future research.⁵⁰ Based on the sample size, we were unable to explore the sex matching of athletes and coaches and the impact on humanistic training. Finally, we explored the concept of humanistic coaching and there are conceptual similarities to other well-known coaching approaches (e.g., mastery approach to coaching, transformational leadership, and autonomy-supportive coaching). As such, more research attention is warranted to disentangle the conceptual overlap and related measures and practical outcomes associated with these seemingly interrelated coaching approaches.

Conclusion

The present study extends the literature on humanistic coaching and youth development through sport by showing that training coaches on humanistic principles can effectively improve athletes’ connection to their coaches and reduce the increase in antisocial behaviors. As a proof-of-concept, the present study suggested learning humanistic principles may help coaches impact athletes’ PYD outcome (4Cs), which would support a larger randomized controlled trial testing the impact of humanistic coach training on the development of youth athletes. Findings from the present study can be used to inform coaching behaviours and coach training curriculum, especially those designed to foster youth development through sport in low-income communities. Though there is a strong body of literature investigating sport programs in low-income communities, there is a lack of examination of the unique experiences and behaviours of coaches in these contexts. Training coaches on humanistic principles can disseminate the coaching behaviours that empower athletes and build positive coach-athlete relationships while also raising awareness to the use of sport as a tool to promote personal growth and development.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the Pour 3 Points organization for their collaboration in this study. We would like to thank both the program executives and the coaches for their dedication and commitment to the application of humanistic coaching.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

William R Falcão

References

Fraser-Thomas

Côté

Understanding adolescents’ positive and negative developmental experiences in sport. Sport Psychol 2009; 23: 3–23.

Fraser-Thomas JL, Falcão WR and Wolman L. Understanding take-up, drop-out and drop-off in youth sport. In: Green K and Smith A (eds) The Routledge handbook of youth sport. New York: Routledge, 2016, pp.227–242.

Koh

Camiré

Bloom

, et al. Creation, implementation, and evaluation of a values-based intervention program for sport coaches and physical education teachers in Singapore. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2017; 12: 795–806.

Smith

Smoll

Cumming

SP.

Effects of a motivational climate intervention for coaches on young athletes’ sport performance anxiety. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2007; 29: 39–59.

Weiss

Bolter

Kipp

LE.

Evaluation of the first tee in promoting positive youth development: group comparisons and longitudinal trends. Res Q Exerc Sport 2016; 87: 271–283.

Gould

Carson

Life skills development through sport: current status and future directions. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2008; 1: 58–78.

Garry

Morrissey

SL.

Team sports participation and risk-taking behaviors among a biracial middle school population. Clin J Sport Med 2000; 10: 185–190.

Kavussanu

Seal

Phillips

DR.

Observed prosocial and antisocial behaviors in male soccer teams: age differences across adolescence and the role of motivational variables. J Appl Sport Psychol 2006; 18: 326–344.

Martin

Gould

Ewing

ME.

Youth’s perceptions of rule-breaking and antisocial behaviours: gender, developmental level, and competitive level differences. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2017; 15: 64–79.

10.

Côté

Gilbert

An integrative definition of coaching effectiveness and expertise. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009; 4: 307–323.

11.

Lerner

Almerigi

, et al. Positive youth development, participation in community youth development programs, and community contributions of fifth-grade adolescents: findings from the first wave of the 4-H study of positive youth development. J Early Adolesc 2005; 25: 17–71.

12.

Côté J, Bruner M, Erickson K, et al. Athlete development and coaching. In: Lyle J and Cushion C (eds) Sports coaching: professionalisation and practice. London: Elsevier, 2010, pp.63–84.

13.

Holt

Neely

Slater

, et al. A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2017; 10: 1–49.

14.

Holt

Kingsley

Tink

, et al. Benefits and challenges associated with sport participation by children and parents from low-income families. Psychol Sport Exerc 2011; 12: 490–499.

15.

Martinek

Hellison

Teaching personal and social responsibility: past, present and future. J Phys Edu Recreat Dance 2016; 87: 9–13.

16.

Vierimaa

Erickson

Côté

, et al. Positive youth development: a measurement framework for sport. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2012; 7: 601–614.

17.

Erickson

Côté

A season-long examination of the intervention tone of coach–athlete interactions and athlete development in youth sport. Psychol Sport Exerc 2016; 22: 264–272.

18.

Allan

Côté

A cross-sectional analysis of coaches’ observed emotion-behavior profiles and adolescent athletes’ self-reported developmental outcomes. J Appl Sport Psychol 2016; 28: 321–337.

19.

LaForge

Sullivan

Bloom

GA.

Coaching behaviors in Canadian youth sport. Athl Insight 2012; 4: 251–263.

20.

Nelson

Cushion

Potrac

Formal, nonformal and informal coach learning: a holistic conceptualisation. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2006; 1: 247–259.

21.

Koh

Ong

Camiré

Implementation of a values training program in physical education and sport: perspectives from teachers, coaches, students, and athletes. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2016; 21: 295–312.

22.

Koh

Camiré

Regina

SHL

, et al. Implementation of a values training program in physical education and sport: a follow-up study. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2017; 22: 197–211.

23.

Newin

Bloom

Loughead

TM.

Youth ice hockey coaches’ perceptions of a team-building intervention program. Sport Psychol 2008; 22: 54–72.

24.

Falcão

Bloom

Gilbert

WD.

Coaches’ perceptions of a coach training program designed to promote youth developmental outcomes. J Appl Sport Psychol 2012; 24: 429–444.

25.

Lyle

Sports coaching concepts: a framework for coaches’ behaviour. London: Routledge, 2002.

26.

Lombardo

BJ.

The humanistic coach: from theory to practice. Springfield: Charles C Thomas, 1987.

27.

Rogers

CR.

Freedom to learn. Columbus: Merrill, 1969.

28.

Maslow

AH.

Motivation and personality. New York: Harper, 1954.

29.

Lyle

Holism in sports coaching: beyond humanistic psychology: a commentary. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 449–452.

30.

Cassidy

TG.

Holism in sports coaching: beyond humanistic psychology. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 439–443.

31.

Nelson

Cushion

Potrac

, et al. Carl Rogers, learning and educational practice: critical considerations and applications in sports coaching. Sport Educ Soc 2014; 19: 513–531.

32.

Urquhart

Bloom

Loughead

TM.

The development, articulation, and implementation of a coaching vision of multiple championship-winning university ice hockey coaches. Int Sport Coach J. Epub ahead of print January 2020. DOI: 10.1123/iscj.2019-0096.

33.

Bennie

O’Connor

Coaching philosophies: perceptions from professional cricket, rugby league and rugby union players and coaches in Australia. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 309–320.

34.

Lara-Bercial

Mallett

CJ.

The practices and developmental pathways of professional and Olympic serial winning coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 3: 221–239.

35.

Jones

Armour

Potrac

Constructing expert knowledge: a case study of a top-level professional soccer coach. Sport Educ Soc 2003; 8: 213–229.

36.

Mallet

Rynne

SB.

Holism in sports coaching: beyond humanistic psychology: a commentary. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2010; 5: 453–457.

37.

Bass

Riggio

RE.

Transformational leadership. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Psychology Press, 2006.

38.

Mageau

Vallerand

RJ.

The coach–athlete relationship: a motivational model. J Sports Sci 2003; 21: 883–904.

39.

Vella

Perlman

Mastery, autonomy and transformational approaches to coaching: common features and applications. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2014; 1: 173–179.

40.

Falcão

Bloom

Bennie

Coaches’ experiences learning and applying the content of a humanistic coaching workshop in youth sport settings. Int Sport Coach J 2017; 4: 279–290.

41.

Falcão

Bloom

Caron

JG.

Youth athletes’ perceptions of humanistic coaching. Int J Sport Psychol 2019; 60: 523–547.

42.

Czajkowski

Powell

Adler

, et al. From ideas to efficacy: the ORBIT model for developing behavioral treatments for chronic diseases. Health Psychol 2015; 34: 971–982.

43.

Cox

Martens

Russell

WD.

Measuring anxiety in athletics: the revised competitive state anxiety inventory-2. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2003; 25: 519–533.

44.

Jowett

Ntoumanis

The coach-athlete relationship questionnaire (CART-Q): development and initial validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2004; 14: 245–257.

45.

Adie

Jowett

Meta-perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship, achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation among sport participants. J Appl Soc Psychol 2010; 40: 2750–2773.

46.

Kavussanu

Boardley

ID.

The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2009; 31: 97–117.

47.

Tabachnick

Fidell

LS.

Using multivariate statistics. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Pearson, 2013.

48.

Vella

Oades

Crowe

TP.

The relationship between coach leadership, the coach-athlete relationship, team success, and the positive developmental experiences of adolescent soccer players. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy 2013; 18: 549–561.

49.

Carpentier

Mageau

GA.

Predicting sport experience during training: the role of change-oriented feedback in athletes’ motivation, self-confidence and needs satisfaction fluctuations. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2016; 38: 45–58.

50.

Jowett

Clark-Carter

Perceptions of empathic accuracy and assumed similarity in the coach-athlete relationship. Br J Soc Psychol 2006; 45: 617–637.