Relationships between coach's leadership,group cohesion,affective states,sport satisfaction and goal attainment in competitive settings

Abstract

We examined whether a perceived coach's leadership predicted group cohesion and whether group cohesion predicted intensity and direction of positive affect and negative affect experienced during competition, sport satisfaction and goal attainment following the completion of a sports competition. A sample of 296 competitive athletes (Mage = 21.61; standard deviation = 6.32) participated in the study and completed a series of self-report questionnaires assessing the aforementioned constructs. A partial least square path modelling approach was used to examine the relationships between the study variables. Results of the structural partial least square path modelling model revealed that: (a) democratic coach behaviour negatively predicted Group Integration Task, (b) authoritarian coach positively predicted Individual Attractions to the Group-Social, and (c) reward positively predicted Group Integration Task. Moreover, partial least square path modelling results also revealed that (a) Individual Attraction to the Group-Task positively predicted the direction of negative affect during competition, (b) authoritarian coach marginally positively predicted Group Social Integration during competition, and (c) Group Social Integration marginally negatively predicted the direction of Negative Affects during competition. Thus, contradicting previous studies, results did not provide evidence of the empowering effect of democratic coach leadership on Group Integration Task. Finally, results provided evidence for the significant relationships between group cohesion and athletes’ competitive outcomes such as affective states experienced during competition.

Keywords

Achievement motivation team sport

The salient role of coach leadership, group cohesion, affective states, sport satisfaction and goal attainment has been proved in several previous studies.^1–3 Coach leadership is a key factor in group processes inherent to sport contexts, subsequently, it may impact the group cohesion of athletes.^4,5 Group cohesion revealed a salient impact on affective states, satisfaction and goal attainment.^6–9 As such, the present study aimed to clarify the relationships among the aforementioned variables in sporting contexts which may shed light to clarify their role in performance.

Figure 1.

Results of the structural model of the partial least square – path modelling.

Previous studies have provided empirical support of the relationships between coach leadership and athletes’ performance, well-being, burnout, motivation, or dropout.^2,10–12 The present study was grounded within the multidimensional model of coach leadership of Chelladurai and Saleh.¹ It was based on the rationale that this theoretical framework highlighted the pedagogical practices of coach leadership and focussed on the influence of its practices in training and competition. The multidimensional model of coach leadership¹ examines the different forms of leadership behaviours from the athletes’ perception: Democratic, autocratic, training and instruction, rewarding behaviour and social support.^1,13 The democratic coach enhances autonomy in decision-making for athletes. The autocratic coach disables the autonomy of athletes and empowers the coach's independence in decisions. The training and instruction dimension implies a coach motivated to improve athletes’ performance by teaching and assisting intense training. The rewarding behaviours talk about a coach that reinforces good performances through recognition/rewards. Finally, social support implies the existence of a coach that emphasizes positive social relationships among team members.^1,13 Hence, a coach might be characterized by a diverse range of coach leadership styles in sport settings.¹¹

The psychological underpinnings of the five dimensions of coach leadership could impact group processes such as group cohesion. Group cohesion in the sporting contexts might be defined as ‘a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective needs’.¹⁴ The theoretical framework of Carron¹⁵ has largely been used in the sporting context to explore the construct of group cohesion.⁴ In this perspective, the core four dimensions of group cohesion refer to: Individual Attractions to the Group-Social (ATGS), Individual Attractions to the Group-Task (ATGT), Group Integration Social (GIS) and Group Integration Task (GIT). ATGS refers to the degree of implication in which an athlete is in the group task whereas ATGT refers to the involvement of an athlete in the group carrying out the group tasks. GIS includes the perception of the integration and the unity of the group whereas GIT is the unity and integration of the goals to pursue achievement and to work for them. Subsequently, the aforementioned four core dimensions may play a crucial role in their relationship regarding affects, satisfaction and goal attainment.

Particularly, exploring the relationship between coach leadership and group cohesion could help to clarify the mediating role of those variables in affects, goal attainment and satisfaction. A few studies explored the relationship between coach leadership and group cohesion.^4,5,16,17 Training and instruction, democratic behaviours, positive feedback and social support have been related to athletes’ group cohesion.^4,5,16,17 In particular, task cohesion revealed a larger positive relationship than social group cohesion.^5,16 Otherwise, authoritarian coaches reported a negative relationship with group cohesion overall.⁵

Of particular importance within the context of the present study, group cohesion could impact a wide range of athletes’ outcomes related to sports performance such as athletes’ affective states, sport satisfaction, or attainment of achievement goals. The experience of affective states in sports refers to the valence (pleasant or unpleasant) experience within a certain sport situation such as sports competition.^17–20 Particularly, the experience of affects depends on the appraisal processes (the cognitive evaluation of a situation regarding the interrelation between the athlete and the environment).^19,21,22 Those appraisal processes, and thus the resulting athletes’ affective states experienced by athletes during competition, might be influenced by group environment (e.g. group cohesion) as group cohesion could assist athletes in interpreting the competitive environment in which they are immersed. The concept of affective states is made up of four core dimensions in sport settings: Intensity and direction of Positive Affects (PA) and Negative Affects (NA).^23,24 PA is the experience of positive states of energy, challenging situations and pleasurable engagement meanwhile NA includes the sensation of negative states of energy, discontent and unpleasant engagement.¹⁷ The directionality component is understood as the athletes’ perceived impact of their affective states on their performance (facilitating or debilitating)²⁴ and depends on the evaluation of the interrelation between the environment and the athlete's characteristics.²⁵

Goal attainment and sport satisfaction were also selected in the present study based on the connexions of such constructs with the intensity of PA.²⁶ However, little is known about the relationship between group cohesion and goal attainment. The examination of this relationship may clarify the key components to enhance the achievement of goals. Nevertheless, previous research has demonstrated that ATGS score, GIS score, and GIT score were found to have a significant correlation with group-focussed individual goal setting.^27,28 This means that the perception of more cohesion may impact having more goals which may result in the achievement. Moreover, striving for goals is a key factor to maintain happiness and life satisfaction.^26,29,30 This means that people may enhance their well-being by setting and attaining goals that they feel are of importance.^26,31 In this way, attainment of achievement goals is crucial to enhance well-being which means that both variables are mutually interrelated. In this sense, sport satisfaction could be conceptualized as the cognitive component of subjective well-being.^24,32,33

As previous works have mainly focussed on physical activity (rather than in the competitive sports context), little is known about the relationship between affective states and group cohesion in competitive settings.^34,35 Several studies revealed that ATGT is a mediator of the relationship between coach leadership and other factors such as exercise satisfaction, attendance, perceived exertion, or intensity of PA and NA.^34,35 Indirect preliminary evidence of the relationship between group cohesion and athletes’ affective states also come from the literature related to positive task environment.^6,34 In particular, this literature highlighted that enhancing a positive task environment fosters athletes’ PA.^6,8 Moreover, a former study suggested that athletes’ satisfaction was positively related to the four core dimensions of cohesion (ATGT, ATGS, GIT, GIS).⁷ Similarly, Ona and Tepeci⁹ showed that athletes’ satisfaction was positively related to team cohesion, team norms and intra team communication. Finally, another study by Brisimis, Bebetsos and Krommidas¹⁸ revealed that 42% of the variance in athletes’ satisfaction was explained by team cohesion variables. Thus, these preliminary results offered by the literature revealed the mutual interrelation between group cohesion (or group processes) and athletes’ sport satisfaction.

To conclude, studying the relationships between coach leadership, group cohesion, affective states, sport satisfaction, and attainment of achievement goals might reveal new insights on the relationships between social variables (e.g. coach leadership, group cohesion) and athletes’ competitive outcomes (affective states, sport satisfaction, attainment of achievement goals). As such, based on the aforementioned psychological underpinnings between the study variables, the present study examined whether coach's leadership predicted group cohesion and whether group cohesion predicted intensity and direction of PA and NA experienced during competition as well as sport satisfaction and goal attainment following the completion of a sports competition. Based on the aforementioned literature,^{4–8,16,36,37} we hypothesized that: (a) training and instruction, democratic behaviours, positive feedback and social support will be related with group cohesion variables (ATGT, ATGS, GIT, GIS); (b) ATGT will be positively related with intensity and direction of PA; (c) group cohesion variables (ATGT, ATGS, GIT, GIS) will be positively related with sport satisfaction and goal attainment.

Method

Participants

A number of 296 competitor athletes (Mage = 21.61; SD = 6.32; M time competing in sport = 9.25; SD = 4.06) participated in the study. As a whole, 33% were female and 67% were male. The types of competition in which athletes take part are regional (54.1%), national (40.2%) and international (5.7%). The average time of training was 6.45 h per week (SD = 4.58) and the coaches’ gender was mainly male (87.2% men and 12.8% women). The mean of the years of experience by athletes was 11.12 (SD = 6.31). The mean of the years of experience by coaches was 3.55 (SD = 3.32). Participants were recruited from sports clubs in the Burgundy region and the University of Burgundy. The sports practised by athletes are athletics (4.6%), badminton (9.2%), basketball (2.3%), cycling (5.9%), gymnastics (5.2%), handball (14.4%), soccer (33.3%), swimming (12.1%), tennis (2.3%) and others (10.7%). Independent of the type of sport, the target population was athletes from different sports due to all the clubs selected train in groups. This variety of modalities was selected to maximize the external validity of the results.

Measures

The Leadership Sport Scale (LSS)¹ consists of 40 items on a 5-step Likert scale (5 = always, 1 = never). The questionnaire is divided into three versions: the player's preferred version, the player's perception version and the coach's perception version. The player's preferred version reveals the behaviours of an ideal coach. The player's perception version shows the behaviours of how they perceive their coach. Finally, the coach's perception version is intended to reveal the coach's perception of their leadership behaviours. According to the goals of the present study, the player's perception version was used. This scale contains 5 dimensions: coach autocratic behaviour (α = 0.62), social support (α = 0.78), positive feedback (α = 0.72), democratic behaviour (α = 0.74) and training and instruction (α = 0.86).

The French version of the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)^38,39 contains 18 items which are divided into four subscales: Individual attractions to the group-social (ATGS; 5 items; α = 0.53), individual attractions to the group-task (ATGT; 4 items; α = 0.78), group integration – social (GIS; 4 items; α = 0.51), and group integration – task (GIT; 5 items; α = 0.70). The participants were asked to respond to the questionnaire from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 9 (‘strongly agree’).

The French version of the Positive and Negative Affects Schedule including a direction scale (PANAS-D)²⁴ was used to measure affects during competition. The scale is made up of 10 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all or very slightly) to 5 (extremely); and (b) the degree in which each symptom experienced was either facilitative or debilitative to subsequent performance (directional interpretation) on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from – 3 (very debilitative) to 3 (very facilitative). Thus, this self-report questionnaire assesses the intensity of PA (10 items; α = 0.80) and NA (10 items; α = 0.82) and direction of PA (10 items; α = 0.87) and NA (10 items; α = 0.80).

The Attainment of Sports Achievement Goals Scale (A-SAGS)⁴⁰ is made up of 12-item that assesses three theoretically driven criteria that are used by athletes to evaluate their level of goal attainment or subjective sports achievements: mastery goal achievement, self-referenced goal achievement and normative goal achievement. The competitors were asked to indicate the extent to which each item represented how they had performed during the competition on a 6-point Likert scale (ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree). Besides, according to Amiot et al.⁴⁰ a global score of goal attainment was computed by grouping the three subscales (α = .93).

The adaptation to sports context²⁴ of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)⁴¹ was utilized for the evaluation of sport satisfaction. The scale was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The Cronbach Alpha obtained in this scale was 0.80.

Procedure

The study followed international ethical guidelines and anonymity was preserved. Informed consent was required by researchers. The study followed a prospective design in which the participants firstly responded to the LSS and the GEQ two days before the competition. Secondly, the participants completed the PANAS-D, the Satisfaction in Sport and the attainment of achievement goals two hours after the competition in order to measure their scores during the competition (PANAS-D) or following the completion of the competition (A-SAGS and SWLS). The surveys with missing data were removed from the sample.

Data analysis

A PLS-PM approach was used to analyse the data with the PLS-PM package of the R software.⁴² The statistical package was selected to analyse the relationship between coach leadership, group environment, affects during the competition, satisfaction with sports and attainment of achievement goals following the completion of a competition. The salient characteristic of PLS-PM is that it is a variance-based structural equation modelling technique that is not constrained by distributional assumptions.^42–44 The significance of the parameter estimates is assessed by constructing a 95% bias-corrected percentile confidence interval based on a bootstrap procedure with 100 replications.⁴³

Concerning coach leadership and group cohesion, two or three parcels (depending on the number of items of the subscales)⁴⁵ were used using random aggregates of items. Regarding the intensity and direction of PA and NA, three or four parcels were constructed using random aggregates of items. In the case of satisfaction, the five items of the scale were used as manifest variables whereas four parcels were created for goal attainment.

A two-step modelling approach was used in the present study.⁴³ First, the psychometric properties of each of the constructs and parcels were checked using the outer model. Particularly, to examine the quality and reliability of the psychometric properties of the constructs assessed in the present study, a diverse range of parameters were used: Standardised factor loadings, composite reliability values (ρ), average variance extracted (AVE) values and eigenvalue analysis of the correlation matrix of each set of manifest variables.^43,44 Standardised factor loadings higher than 0.40, ρ values greater than 0.70, AVE values equal or greater than 0.50, the first eigenvalue larger than 1 and the second one smaller than 1 indicate acceptable reliability of latent and manifest scores.^31,42,43,46 Second, we tested the structural model to focus on conceptual connexions among the latent factors (inner model).

Results

The correlations and means of the variables examined in the study are presented in Table 1. Athletes reported below average levels of coach leadership (i.e. training and instruction, democratic, authoritarian, social support and reward) and group cohesion (i.e. Individual attractions to the group-social, individual attractions to the group-task, group integration – social and group integration – task). Concerning affects experienced during competition, descriptive statistics revealed: (a) high scores of PA intensity; (b) low scores of NA intensity; (c) low scores of NA direction; and (d) extremely low scores of PA direction. Regarding sports satisfaction and attainment of achievement goals, the results revealed moderate to high scores of such constructs. Finally, correlational analyses showed that there was no multicollinearity between the study variables (scores ranged from -0.20 to 0.61) and the confidence intervals were not close to 1.0 (i.e. r ± two standard errors).

Table 1.

Properties of the factors examined and correlations among the variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Training and instruction	–
2. Democratic	0.06	–
3. Authoritarian	-0.04	-0.17**	–
4. Social support	.39**	.38**	-0.13*	–
5. Reward	.45**	.25**	-0.13*	.53**	–
6. Group integration – task	-0.01	-0.08	.01	.10	.16**	–
7. Group social – integration	.03	-0.08	.15**	-0.11	.02	.13*	–
8. Individual attractions to the group -task	-0.03	-0.02	.10	-0.08	-0.11	-0.04	.44**	–
9. Individual attractions to the group – social	-0.01	-0.03	.15**	.02	-0.08	.07	.51**	.61**	–
10. Intensity of positive affects during competition	-0.15**	.06	-0.06	-0.02	-0.06	.02	-0.04	.04	.01	–
11. Direction of positive affects during competition	-0.14*	.03	-0.02	-0.03	-0.06	-0.05	-0.03	.02	.01	.60**	–
12. Intensity of negative affects during competition	-0.08	.03	-0.06	-0.03	.04	.03	-0.16**	-0.17**	-0.14*	.14*	–0.17**	–
13. Direction of negative affects during competition	-0.00	-0.05	-0.08	.08	.01	.00	.00	.08	-0.02	.12*	.36**	-0.19**	–
14. Satisfaction	-0.20**	.13*	-0.07	-0.03	-0.10	-0.07	-0.06	-0.09	-0.01	.21**	.17**	-0.00	.06	–
15. Goal attainment	-0.10	.16**	.03	.03	-0.06	-0.07	-0.09	-0.00	.00	.44**	.35**	-0.01	.04	.36**	–
Mean	2.08	3.10	3.33	2.97	2.30	5.51	4.48	4.23	4.65	3.17	1.01	2.02	-0.04	4.49	3.60
Standard deviation	.55	.60	.66	.73	.72	1.36	1.41	2.14	1.74	.68	.88	.68	.87	1.13	1.23
Skewness	.55	-0.20	-0.21	-0.20	.44	-0.67	-0.09	.07	.47	-0.45	-0.77	1.06	.30	-0.27	.01
Kurtosis	.53	.06	-0.61	-0.58	-0.14	.32	-0.73	-1.27	-0.42	-0.01	1.62	1.82	2.09	-0.04	-0.63

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Results of the inner PLS-PM model were presented in Table 2. In sum, the outcomes revealed reliability and validity evidence for all scores (i.e. manifest and latent variables), as indicated by the loadings, ρ values, AVE values, and first and second eigenvalues. Particularly, the standardised factor loadings ranged between 0.50 and 0.98 (M = 0.81; SD = 0.12), the ρ values ranged between 0.53 and 0.93 (M = 0.68; SD = 0.08), the AVE values ranged from 0.53 to 0.83 (M = 0.66; SD = 0.13) whereas the first eigenvalues ranged from 1.34 to 3.34 (M = 2.08; SD = 0.57) and the second eigenvalues ranged from 0.26 to 0.74 (M = 0.50; SD = 0.13).

Table 2.

Psychometric properties of the study variables.

Variables	Construct level statistics	Items/parcels	SFL
1. Training and instruction		1	.95
	ʎ1 = 2.35; ʎ2 = 0.36	2	.84
	ρ = 0.86; AVE = .76	3	.81
2. Democratic		1	.91
		2	.74
	ʎ1 = 1.98; ʎ2 = 0.58	3	.63
3. Authoritarian	ρ = 0.74; AVE = .60	1	.95
	ρ = 0.62; AVE = .70	2	.69
4. Social support		1	.82
	ʎ1 = 2.11; ʎ2 = 0.49	2	.86
	ρ = 0.78; AVE = .69	3	.82
5. Reward		1	.89
	ʎ1 = 1.95; ʎ2 = 0.74	2	.91
	ρ = 0.72; AVE = .64	3	.53
6. Group integration – task		1	.98
	ʎ1 = 1.54; ʎ2 = 0.46	2	.68
	ρ = 0.70; AVE = .71
7. Group social – integration	ʎ1 = 1.34; ʎ2 = 0.65	1	.52
	ρ = 0.50; AVE = .61	2	.98
8. Individual attractions to the group – task	ʎ1 = 1.64; ʎ2 = 0.35	1	.91
	ρ = 0.78; AVE = .82	2	.90

9. Individual attractions to the group – social	ʎ1 = 1.36; ʎ2 = 0.63	1	.50
	ρ = 0.53; AVE = .61	2	0.98
10. Intensity of positive affects during competition	ʎ1 = 2.15; ʎ2 = 0.52	1	.95
	ρ = 0.80; AVE = .69	2	.79
		3	.74
11. Direction of negative affects	ʎ1 = 2.39; ʎ2 = 0.35	1	.91
during competition	ρ = 0.87; AVE = .79	2	.91
		3	.91
		4	.84
12. Intensity of negative affects during competition		1	.90
	ʎ1 = 2.15; ʎ2 = 0.50	2	.85
	ρ = 0.80; AVE = .70	3	0.75
13. Direction of negative affects during competition		1	.74
	ʎ1 = 2.71; ʎ2 = 0.51	2	.71
	ρ = 0.84; AVE = .62	3	.76
		4	.91
14. Satisfaction		1	.53
		2	.70
	ʎ1 = 2.84; ʎ2 = 0.69	3	.81
	ρ = 0.80; AVE = .53	4	.84
		5	.70
15. Goal attainment		1	.88
		2	.93
	ʎ1 = 3.34; ʎ2 = .26	3	.90
	ρ = 0.93; AVE = .83	4	.92

ʎ1: ith eigenvalue of the item correlation matrix; ρ: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted; SFL: standardized factor loadings.

*All SFLs were significant at p < 0.001.

Results of the structural PLS-PM model were presented in Table 3 (i.e. relationships between the latent variables). Results revealed that democratic coach behaviour negatively predicted GIT (β = -0.17; p < 0.05), authoritarian coach positively predicted ATGS (β = 0.16; p < 0.05), reward positively predicted GIT (β = 0.19; p < 0.05) and ATGT positively predicted direction of NA during the competition (β = 0.15; p < 0.05). Besides, the authoritarian coach marginally positively predicted GIS during the competition (β = 0.14; p = 0.06). Finally, GIS marginally negatively predicted intensity of NA during the competition (β = -0.11; p = 0.07) (Figure 1).

Table 3.

Relationships among variables in the structural model.

Variables	Total sample (n = 295)
	BME	CI
ENTRO -> GIT	-0.10	-0.25	0.04
ENTRO -> GIS	.06	-0.13	0.22
ENTRO -> ATGT	.04	-0.09	0.19
ENTRO -> ATGS	.02	-0.11	0.16
DEMO -> GIT	-0.17*	-0.30	-0.03
DEMO -> GIS	-0.04	-0.19 0.16
DEMO -> ATGT	.02	-0.14 0.19
DEMO -> ATGS	-0.03	-0.24	0.19
AUTHO -> GIT	.03	-0.09 0.13
AUTHO -> GIS	.14**	-0.00 0.25
AUTHO -> ATGT	.08	-0.04	0.20
AUTHO -> ATGS	.16*	.05 0.28
SUPPORT -> GIT	.10	-0.06 0.25
SUPPORT -> GIS	-0.14	-0.30	0.05
SUPPORT -> ATGT	-0.05	-0.21 0.12
SUPPORT -> ATGS	.10	-0.08	0.25
REWARD -> GIT	.19*	0.03	0.33
REWARD -> GIS	.10	-0.04	0.25
REWARD -> ATGT	-0.09	-0.23 0.11
REWARD -> ATGS	-0.14	-0.28 0.12
GIT -> IAP	.02	-0.11 0.17
GIT -> DAP	-0.05	-0.17 0.09
GIT -> IAN	.02	-0.12 0.15
GIT -> DAN	.02	-0.09	0.14
GIT -> SATIS	-0.08	-0.23	0.12
GIT -> ATTBUT	-0.08	-0.20	0.07
GIS -> IAP	-0.10	-0.26 0.12
GIS -> DAP	-0.08	-0.24	0.09
GIS -> IAN	-0.11**	-0.22	0.01
GIS -> DAN	-0.02	-0.18 0.16
GIS -> SATIS	-0.06	-0.23	0.14
GIS -> ATTBUT	-0.12	-0.27 0.11
ATGT -> IAP	.05	-0.10 0.19
ATGT -> DAP	.01	-0.10	0.16
ATGT -> IAN	-0.12	-0.26 0.03
ATGT -> DAN	.15*	.01	0.27
ATGT -> SATIS	-0.16	-0.30	0.03
ATGT -> ATTBUT	.01	-0.15	0.15
ATGS -> IAP	.03	-0.24 0.26
ATGS -> DAP	.04	-0.18	0.24
ATGS -> IAN	-0.05	-0.20	0.06
ATGS -> DAN	-0.10	-0.28	0.07
ATGS -> SATIS	.13	-0.05	0.32
ATGS -> ATTBUT	.07	-0.14	0.26

BME: bootstrap mean estimates; ENTRO: coach training and instruction; DEMO: coach democratic behaviour; AUTHO: coach authoritarian; SUPPORT: coach social support; REWARD: coach reward; GIT: group integration task; GIS: group social integration; ATGT: individual attraction to the group-task; ATGS: individual attractions to the group-social; IAN: negative affects intensity during competition; DAN: direction of negative affects during competition; IPA: intensity of positive affects during competition; IPA: intensity of positive affects during competition; ATTBUT: goal attainment; SATIS: satisfaction; CI: confidence interval.

*p < 0.05; **p ≤ 0.09.

Discussion

The goal of the present study was to examine whether the coach's leadership predicted group cohesion and whether group cohesion predicted intensity and direction of PA and NA experienced during competition, sport satisfaction and goal attainment following the completion of a sports competition. Results revealed that democratic coach leadership negatively predicted GIT, authoritarian coach positively predicted ATGS and reward positively predicted GIT. These results contradicted previous studies that revealed a positive relationship between democratic coach leadership and ATGT and GIT.^5,16 Likewise, contradicting previous research,^5,16 authoritarian coach leadership revealed a positive relationship with ATGS and marginally positively predicted GIS. Even if at first glance, the results of the present study are surprising, it is noteworthy previous research revealed that athletes sometimes prefer more authoritarian coaches.² As such, the present outcomes might indicate that athletes of our sample preferred directive and demanding coaches.

According to previous research^2,5,16 reward was positively related to group cohesion. In particular, reward positively predicted ATGT. This means that coaches focussing on rewarding (e.g. reinforcing athletes with recognitions/rewards) were more prone to attract athletes due to the task of the group.

We also examined whether group cohesion predicted athletes’ competitive outcomes such as affective states, sport satisfaction and attainment of achievement goals. ATGT positively predicted the direction of NA during the competition. This result confirmed previous research that revealed a positive relationship between ATGT and affects.^8,34,35 However, previous research also reported a significant relationship between ATGT and PA whereas we did not observe this significant relationship within this study.^8,34,35 This difference might be because several variables might interact with PA (i.e. the athlete, their resources and the context). For instance, personal reaction to stress, the competition outcomes, the opponents’ tactics, the competition level, among others. Hence, the odds of experiencing PA during the competition might have been prevented by other variables not considered within the present study.

However, there was no significant relationship among group cohesion, satisfaction and attainment of achievement goals. This might be due to several variables that may intermediate the outcomes of the aforementioned variables, such as: the type of motivation, goal orientation, goal setting, basic psychological needs, coping, personality, among others.^26,40 This means that the phenomenon is more complex than to be explained directly by group cohesion variables. Subsequently, future studies may investigate that issue to clarify the most salient variables that may impact sport satisfaction and goal attainment.

Finally, the present study furthered the literature on the relationship between group cohesion and affective states in highlighting a relationship not identified within the previous studies^8,34,35: GIS marginally negatively predicted the direction of NA during competition. This outcome means that athletes reporting high scores of GIS might struggle with the handle of NA during competition and perceive such NA as debilitating for their performance. The existence of GIS in a group does not guarantee beneficial outcomes relating to a good social dynamic in the group during the competition. Nevertheless, it is not only the social environment of the group that is a crucial variable to perform, but also an excessive orientation to competition or excessive pressure might also impact the group dynamics.⁴⁷ Therefore, GIS might not be enough to guarantee the handle of NA during the competition.

The study has some limitations such as the variety of sports which can hinder the extent of the obtained results. The diversity of modalities (e.g. individual vs. team sports, contact vs. non-contact sports) might reveal some peculiarities in our results that could be due to the specificity of sports. Moreover, athletes’ gender is a variable that has been shown to covariate with leadership, satisfaction and cohesion.⁵ Thus, the generalization of the results should be taken cautiously. As such, it would be interesting to examine the possible implications of some sociodemographic variables such as coach gender, athlete's gender, or type of sport, that might moderate the results obtained in the present study. Although the instruments utilized in the study were the most suitable for the study and were all validated in the French language, the use of self-report measures has some limitations (i.e. social desirability, acquiescence). Moreover, the protocol of the measures taken in the present study may affect the outcomes obtained. Thus, it would be interesting to provide new insights into the coach's leadership and group cohesion in gathering data coming from other perspectives (e.g. coaches, parents). This would expand the knowledge of the examined variables and would allow comparisons within this study (and the existing literature on this topic).

As practical implications, it is noticed the possibility that democratic leadership is not likely to empower GIT which may distract athletes of the group to the daily task of training. Hence, a democratic coach needs to be more concise in the task of training, technical and tactical feedback and so on. Besides, the relationship of authoritarian leadership with GIS should be highlighted, which means that sometimes athletes prefer authoritarian coaches rather than democratic ones.⁵ In addition, group cohesion did not predict goal attainment and sport satisfaction. This result may reveal that there might be other variables that would play a more important role in goal attainment and sport satisfaction, such as the level of the athlete, the capacity to set goals or the personal characteristics of the athlete.⁴⁸ Finally, the relationship between ATGT and NA direction in the competition may reveal that athletes enrolled in the group for ATGT might have problems dealing with affects in competition. Thus, these implications should be followed by practitioners (e.g. coaches and sports psychologists) that work with groups to intervene among those athletes that might be particularly prone to experience maladaptive outcomes during competition.

In conclusion, contradicting previous sport studies, democratic coach leadership did not have an empowering effect on GIT in the present study. Moreover, the reward was positively related to GIT whereas authoritarian coaches were positively related to ATGS. As these outcomes differed from previous research, future research could explore the effects of moderator variables which could explain these contradictory results. In addition, authoritarian coach leadership marginally positively predicted GIS suggesting that some athletes may prefer authoritarian coaches. Finally, GIS marginally negatively predicted the direction of NA during the competition. Hence, not only is social group cohesion needed to handle NA properly, but it is also important that the group has suitable task goal orientation, respect to others, and achievable goals. Therefore, those outcomes should be considered by practitioners to enhance the group dynamics in sporting contexts.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Higinio González García

References

Chelladurai

Saleh

. Dimensions of leader behaviour in sports: development of a leadership scale. J Sport Psychol 1980; 2: 34–45.

Cruz

Kim

. Leadership preferences of adolescent players in sport: influence of coach gender. J Sports Sci Med 2017; 16: 172–179.

González-García

Martinent

. Relationships between perceived coach leadership, athletes’ use of coping and emotions among competitive table tennis players. Euro J Sport Sci 2020; 20: 1113–1123.

Carron

Eys

. Group dynamics in sport (4th ed.). Morgantown, WV. Fitness Information Technology, 2012.

Kim

Cruz

. The influence of coaches’ leadership styles on athletes’ satisfaction and team cohesion: a meta-analytic approach. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 900–909.

Al-Yaaribi

Kavussanu

. Teammate prosocial and antisocial behaviors predict task cohesion and burnout: the mediating role of affect. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2017; 39: 199–208.

Hope

. The relationships among role involvement, team cohesion, and athlete satisfaction . Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA, 2006.

Loughead

Patterson

Carron

. The impact of fitness leader behavior and cohesion on an exerciser's Affective state. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2011; 6: 53–68.

Ona

Tepeci

. Team effectiveness in sport teams: the effects of team cohesion, intra-team communication and team norms on team member satisfaction and intent to remain. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014; 150: 420–428.

10.

Ekstrand

Lundqvist

Lagerbäck

, et al. Is there a correlation between coaches’ leadership styles and injuries in elite football teams? A study of 36 elite teams in 17 countries. Br J Sports Med 2018; 52: 527–531.

11.

González-García

Martinent

Trinidad

. Perceived coach leadership profiles and relationship with burnout, coping, and emotions. Front Psychol 2019; 10: 1785. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01785

12.

Jiménez

Fernández-Navas

Alvero-Cruz

, et al. Differences in psychoneuroendocrine stress responses of high-level swimmers depending on autocratic and democratic coaching style. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019; 16: 5089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245089

13.

Fletcher

Roberts

. Longitudinal stability of the leadership scale for sports. Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 2013; 17: 104–189.

14.

Carron

Brawley

Widmeyer

. The measurement of cohesiveness in sport groups. In Duda

J. L.

(Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 213–226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, 1998.

15.

Carron

. Cohesiveness in sport groups: interpretations and considerations. J Sport Psychol 1982; 4:123–138.

16.

Huéscar

López-Mora

Cervelló

. Relationship of leadership styles, group cohesion, power equipment and performance in non-professional soccer players. Univ Psychol 2017; 16: 1–14.

17.

Ekkekakis

Petruzello

. (2000). Analysis of the affect measurement conundrum in exercise psychology I. Fundamental issues. Psychol Sport Exerc 2000; : 71–88.

18.

Lazarus

. Stress and emotion: a new synthesis. New York, NY: Springer, 1999.

19.

Lazarus

. How emotions influence performance in competitive sports. Sport Psychol 2000; 14: 229–252.

20.

Martinent

Nicolas

. Athletes’ affective profiles within competition situations: a two-wave study. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2017; 6: 143–157.

21.

Doron

Martinent

. Appraisal, coping, emotion and performance during elite fencing matches: a random coefficient regression model approach. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2017; 27: 1015–1025.

22.

Nicholls

Levy

Jones

, et al. Committed relationships and enhanced threat levels: perceptions of coach behavior, the coach–athlete relationship, stress appraisals, and coping among athletes. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 16–26.

23.

Jamieson

Mendes

Blackstock E, et al. Turning the knots in your stomach into bows: reappraising arousal improves performance on the GRE. J Exp Soc Psychol 2010; 46: 208–212.

24.

Nicolas

Martinent

Campo

. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of a modified positive and negative affect schedule including a direction scale (PANAS-D) among French athletes. Psychol Sport Exerc 2014; 15: 227–237.

25.

Hanton

Wagstaff

CRD

Fletcher

. Cognitive appraisals of stressors encountered in sport organizations. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 10: 276–289.

26.

Tóth

Wisse

Faragó

. The impact of goal attainment and goal importance on satisfaction with life – a polynomial regression and response surface analysis. Mentálhigiéné És Pszichoszomatika 2018; 19: 80–101.

27.

Brawley

Carron

Widmeyer

. The influence of the group and its cohesiveness on perceptions of group goal-related variables. J Sport Exerc Psychol 1993; 15: 245–260.

28.

Bullard

. The structure of a team: the influence of goal setting type on intrinsic motivation, group cohesion, and goal achievement orientation of division iii female athletes. Sport J 2014; 17.

29.

Gaudreau

Antl

. Athletes’ broad dimensions of dispositional perfectionism: examining changes in life satisfaction and the mediating role of sport-related motivation and coping. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2008; 30: 356–382.

30.

Wiese

. Successful pursuit of personal goals and subjective well-being. In Little

B. R.

Salmela-Aro

Phillips

S. D.

(Eds.), Personal project pursuit: goals, action, and human flourishing (p. 301–328). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2007.

31.

Fornell

Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981; 18: 39–50.

32.

Diener

. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol 2000; 55: 34–43.

33.

Dodge

Daly

Huyton J, et al. The challenge of defining wellbeing. Int J Wellbeing 2012; 2: 222–235.

34.

Loughead

Colman

Carron

. Investigating the mediational relationship of leadership, class cohesion, and adherence in an exercise setting. Small Group Res 2001; 32: 558–575.

35.

Loughead

Carron

. The mediating role of cohesion in the leader behavior satisfaction relationship. Psychol Sport Exerc 2004; 5: 355–371.

36.

Leo

Sánchez-Miguel

Sánchez-Oliva

, et al. Coach leadership and motivational climates as antecedents of cohesion and perceived roles in semi-professional football players. J Sport Psychol 2013; 22: 361–370.

37.

Brisimis

Bebetsos

Krommidas

. Does group cohesion predict team sport athletes’ satisfaction? Hell J Psychol 2018; 15: 108–124.

38.

Carron

Widmeyer

Brawley

. The development of an instrument to assess cohesion in sport teams: the group environment questionnaire. J Sport Psychol 1985; 7: 244–266.

39.

Heuzé

Fontayne

. Questionnaire sur l’Ambiance du groupe: a French-language. Instrument for measuring group cohesion. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012; 24: 42–67.

40.

Amiot

Gaudreau

Blanchard

. Self-determination coping and goal attainment in sport. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2004; 26: 396–411.

41.

Diener

Emmons

Larsen RJ, et al. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess 1985; 49: 71–75.

42.

Sánchez

. PLS Path modelling with R. Berkeley, CA: Trowchez Editions, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.gastonsanchez.com/PLS Path Modeling with R.pdf.

43.

Martinent

Ferrand

Humblot , et al. Role of need-supportive family behaviours on purpose in life and depressive feelings of French older people: a self-determination theory perspective. Appl Sci 2019; 9: 15.

44.

Nicolas

Drapeau

Martinent

. Reciprocal effects model of the temporal ordering of coping and defenses. Stress Health 2017; 33: 143–152.

45.

Coffman

McCallum

. Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behav Res 2005; 40: 235–259..

46.

Raykov

. Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2001; 54: 315–323.

47.

Heper

Yolacan

Kocaeksi

. The examine goal orientation and sports self confidence level of soccer players. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2014; 159: 197–200.

48.

Johnston

Wattie

Schorer

, et al. Talent identification in sport: a systematic review. Sports Med 2018; 48: 97–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0803-2