“Challenge Me!”

Abstract

Confirmation theory is a theoretical framework that forwards that the communication of acceptance and challenge to recipients promotes prosocial environments that foster positive affect, attitudes, and behaviors. This study utilized confirmation theory to better understand the influence of coaches’ use of confirmation on athletes’ satisfaction and motivation to play their sport. Data collected from 132 former high school athletes indicated that the challenge dimension of coach confirmation uniquely and strongly predicts athletes’ satisfaction with their sport experiences, satisfaction with their communication with head coaches, and their motivation to play. These findings emphasize sport as a unique context of confirmation in which athletes prioritize their development and constructive criticism and demonstrate that confirmation is an effective coaching behavior that should be integrated into coaches’ everyday practices.

Keywords

athlete–coach communication coach confirmation confirmation theory communication studies and sport disposition sport communication

Sport is recognized as a socializing force that influences the social, cognitive, and physical development of athletes (Camiré, Forneris, Trudel, & Bernard, 2011). As such, it is imperative that athletes are effectively coached to maximize their development. Effective coaching is that which creates positive social relationships with and between athletes, fosters affect and motivation, and assists in athletes’ physical, cognitive, and social development (Vella, Oades, & Crowe, 2011). Athlete–coach communication researchers are tasked with aiding in this pursuit by identifying communicative behaviors and the contexts that surround those behaviors that may increase coaches’ effectiveness (Turman, 2008). The efforts of athlete–coach communication scholars are greatly needed because, although well intentioned, many athletic coaches have little education in the practice of coaching and may lack extensive knowledge regarding behavioral approaches that increase their effectiveness (Camire et al., 2011). Recently, coach confirmation was introduced as one such communicative behavior that may increase coaches’ effectiveness (Cranmer & Brann, 2015; Cranmer, Brann, & Anzur, 2016; Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016).

Coach confirmation refers to the “transactional process by which coaches communicate to players in a manner that makes them feel endorsed, recognized, and acknowledged as valuable, significant individuals” (Cranmer & Brann, 2015, p. 195) but more specifically consists of the things that coaches do and say to accept or challenge their athletes (Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016). Cranmer, Brann, and Anzur (2016) theorized that the use of confirming behaviors by coaches may increase athletes’ affective states (e.g., satisfaction) and motivation to play their sport. Yet, neither substantial empirical support for this notion nor a theoretical framework for understanding how coaches’ use of acceptance and challenge may independently or jointly influence athletes have been forwarded within coach communication literature. In other words, the extent to which coaches’ use of confirmation is actually effective and how the dual nature of confirmation functions to lead to these effective outcomes remain unknown. This dearth of knowledge limits the prescriptive value of coach confirmation research for athletic coaches. The purpose of this article, therefore, is to utilize Dailey’s (2010) confirmation theory to understand the effectiveness of coach confirmation for predicting athletes’ affective and motivational outcomes.

Review of Literature

The concept of confirmation was first introduced by Buber (1957) who forwarded the construct as an interactional phenomenon that acknowledges and validates the existence of individuals. Confirmation has since been extended to encompass interactions that leave recipients feeling endorsed, recognized, and acknowledged (Sieburg, 1985) or make them feel unique, valuable, or connected with others (Dailey, 2010). Confirming interactions are immensely important in human development, as being confirmed assists in the process of learning (Ellis, 2000, 2004), forms healthy identities (Dailey, 2006), and aids in psychological and social adjustment (Dailey, 2009; Munz & Wilson, 2014). As such, many scholars have noted that confirmation may be the most meaningful type of interaction that an individual can have and that all individuals feel a basic need to be confirmed (Buber, 1957; Laing, 1961; Sieburg, 1985).

Despite the fact that a receiver’s sense of being confirmed is a psychological construct (Laing, 1961), confirmation is achieved through the communication of verbal and nonverbal messages. Given this communicative nature, it is not surprising that confirmation has received considerable attention from numerous communication scholars, who have explored the construct within the instructional (Ellis, 2000, 2004), family (Dailey, 2006, 2010; Wilson, Hall, Gettings, & Pastor, 2015), health (Dailey, McCracken, & Romo, 2011; Dailey, Richards, & Romo, 2010; Dailey, Romo, & McCracken, 2010; Dailey, Romo, & Thompson, 2011), and recently sport contexts (Cranmer & Brann, 2015; Cranmer, Brann, & Anzur, 2016; Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016). These distinctions between contexts are important because confirmation varies based on the circumstances that surround particular relationships (Ellis, 2000; Laing, 1961). With the exception of confirmation within instructional communication, which has a unique understanding of how the construct manifests, this body of scholarship has produced a coherent understanding of confirmation that is largely encompassed within Dailey’s (2010) confirmation theory.

Confirmation Theory

Confirmation theory focuses on how communication between two individuals engaged in a relationship can make those individuals feel regarded (Dailey, 2010). Traditionally, the theory has been applied to communication within parent–child and romantic relationships (Dailey, 2006, 2010; Dailey, McCracken, et al., 2011). Cranmer and Brann (2015) argued that the extension of the theory to athlete–coach relationships is possible because athletes and coaches form interpersonal relationships that feature support, respect, and appropriate forms of affection and have drawn comparisons to parent–child or student–teacher relationships. Further, coaches are salient authority figures within athletes’ lives and can be important sources of validation and identity (Cranmer & Brann, 2015). This potential influence is underscored as confirmation is particularly beneficial during childhood and into late adolescence, which makes sport a natural context to explore confirmation, given that in America there are 21.5 million athletes aged 6–17 years (Kelley & Carchia, 2013).

The application of confirmation theory is useful for understanding how receiving confirmation may influence one’s attitudes, affective states, and behaviors (Dailey, Crook, Glowacki, Prenger, & Winslow, 2016). For example, Dailey (2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2010) has demonstrated that receiving confirmation from parents influences the sociopsychological development and identity of children. Within romantic relationships, confirmation from partners shape individuals’ attitudes, motivations, and behaviors toward weight loss as well as their satisfaction with conversations about weight loss (Dailey, McCracken, et al., 2011; Dailey, Richards, et al., 2010; Dailey, Romo et al., 2010; Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011). The scope of confirmation theory is relevant for effective coaching because the assessment of athletes’ attitudes (e.g., motivation) and affective states (e.g., satisfaction) are commonly used to determine coach effectiveness (Vella et al., 2011). If coach confirmation proves effective, it may even help to correct antisocial patterns of athlete–coach interaction that have become prevalent in youth and high school sport (Cranmer, Brann, & Anzur, 2016) and may contribute to accomplishing the goals of prosocial coaching movements (e.g., positive coaching alliance), including increasing athletes’ self-efficacy, helping them to develop a sense of self, and connecting them with others (i.e., coaches and their teammates).

Within the framework of confirmation theory, the aforementioned beneficial outcomes are accomplished via the reception of communication that denotes either acceptance or challenge (Dailey, 2008b, 2009, 2010; Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011). These two dimensions have also been empirically confirmed within the context of sport (Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016). In other words, climates of validation and encouragement best facilitate functional behaviors and beneficial attitudes (Dailey et al., 2016)—a notion that is consistent with the assertions of seminal confirmation scholars (Buber, 1957; Laing, 1961). The acceptance dimension of confirmation refers to “behaviors showing positive regard, warmth, and attentiveness that denote that individuals are valued, cared for, and not judged” (Dailey et al., 2016, p. 1482). These types of behaviors denote validation and security to recipients, as acceptance communicates goodwill, recognizes efforts, and mitigates potential face threats during interaction (Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2015). As such, acceptance is an important source of identity, self-esteem, and affective outcomes for recipients. Within athletics, acceptance manifests in coaches’ attempts to acknowledge and recognize athletes’ past performances and efforts (Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016). Without acceptance, athletes likely develop negative emotional responses or lose confidence due to a lack of reassurance and recognition.

However, just because athletes are accepted in their current state does not remove the possibility that coaches would want them to change as well. The challenge dimension of confirmation addresses this possibility and refers to “behaviors that engage another in a competition or confrontation, call something into question, or test one’s abilities in a demanding but stimulating manner” (Dailey, 2010, p. 595). This dimension is a vital component of confirmation because it recognizes and endorses the potential of what another can become. As such, challenging interactions are crucial in the development of cognitive, social, affective, and behavioral skill or knowledge acquisition for recipients (Dailey, 2010). Within sport, challenge manifests in coaches’ attempts to encourage or help athletes improve their performances in the future (e.g., pointing out mistakes, holding athletes to high standards). Thus, this aspect of confirmation assists in the continual refinement of athletic skills and physical abilities and is germane to coaching (Becker, 2009).

Although acceptance and challenge are distinct dimensions of confirmation (Dailey, 2010; Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016), confirmation theory suggests that these dimensions may interact. In particular, it is asserted that environments that promote the combination of both acceptance and challenge produce the most significant outcomes for recipients. This notion is rooted in the belief that without acceptance, individuals may lose confidence, experience detrimental emotions, or feel invalidated as they perceive the communicator to be overly critical (Dailey et al., 2016). Further, without challenge, the receiver may not feel the need to continue to develop or improve themselves and may become complacent or unfulfilled (Dailey et al., 2016). As such, Dailey and colleagues have theorized that these dimensions produce the best outcomes when they are conjointly present. Collectively, confirmation theory offers a framework that is useful for understanding the nature and functionality of coach confirmation and how it may be effective for fostering beneficial relationships and experiences for athletes.

Effective Coaching

As previously mentioned, the effectiveness of a coach is determined by his or her ability to create positive social relationships with and between athletes, foster affect and motivation, and assist in athletes’ physical, cognitive, and social development. Within sport communication, effective coaching is often assessed through various types of athlete satisfaction and their motivation to play their sports (Cranmer & Goodboy, 2015; Cranmer & Myers, 2015; Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015; Kassing & Infante, 1999; Turman, 2006, 2008). Athlete satisfaction is a complex and multifaceted construct that refers to athletes’ affective evaluations of components of their sporting experiences (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Although satisfaction has been operationalized in numerous ways within sport studies (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998), sport communication scholars have primarily focused on athletes’ satisfaction with overall sport experiences and coaches. For instance, these researchers have found that high school athletes’ satisfaction with their coaches decreases when coaches use antisocial forms of communication (e.g., verbal aggression; Kassing & Infante, 1999), but increases when coaches cultivate supportive relationships, including those that feature high-quality leader–member exchanges (Cranmer & Myers, 2015; Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015). Similarly, athletes’ satisfaction with their sport experiences has been found to increase with their coaches’ use of reward and expert power (Cranmer & Goodboy, 2015; Turman, 2006), verbal immediacy (Turman, 2008), and supportive communication (Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015).

In addition to satisfaction, athletes’ motivation to play their sport is considered a primary outcome of sport studies and is critical for coaches to understand (Hanrahan & Andersen, 2013; Mazer, Barnes, Grevious, & Boger, 2013; Vallerand & Fortier, 1998). Athlete motivation is conceptualized as the desire to partake in sport and is important to examine because it reveals “the psychological processes underlying participation in sport and physical activity” (Vallerand & Fortier, 1998, p. 81). To date, communication with coaches is recognized as a central mechanism for increasing athlete motivation (Buning & Thompson, 2015; Turman, 2003). In particular, coaches’ use of prosocial behavior alteration techniques (Martin, Rocca, Cayanus, & Weber, 2009) and affirming communication styles (Mazer et al., 2013) are positively associated with athletes’ motivation to play sports. Further, environments that stimulate athletes through encouraging them to refine their skills or by emphasizing the quality of opponents or challenges are also recognized as motivating for athletes (Buning & Anderson, 2015; Turman, 2003). Collectively, sport communication researchers have firmly established positive relationships between coaches’ use of prosocial communication and various forms of athlete satisfaction and motivation.

Rationale

Although there is limited empirical research on confirmation within the context of athletic coaching, the influence of confirmation on recipients’ attitudes and affective states in other contexts cannot be ignored. In particular, receiving acceptance assists in receivers’ psychological adjustment (Dailey, 2009), builds their self-concepts (Dailey, 2010), fosters satisfaction with conversations about weight management (Dailey, McCracken, et al., 2011), and sometimes can even motivate individuals to enact healthy behaviors like diet or exercise (Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011; Dailey, Thompson, & Romo, 2014). In other words, it appears that when individuals are accepted, they gain the psychological and social resources to navigate difficulties within their surroundings and evaluate interactions with the source of their acceptance more positively. Likewise, coaches who create environments that are characterized by support, encouragement, and validation of athletes’ efforts and difficulties promote positive evaluations of coaches and sporting experiences as well as motivate athletes to continue their participation (Becker, 2009; Buning & Thompson, 2015; Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015; Sagar & Jowett, 2012; Turman, 2003). With this in mind, the following hypothesis was forwarded:

Hypothesis 1: Coaches’ use of acceptance will positively predict athletes’ satisfaction with sport experiences and communication with coaches as well as their motivation to play their sport.

In addition to acceptance, challenge fosters healthy identities in recipients (Dailey, 2008, 2010) and, under the right conditions, is associated with greater degrees of conversational satisfaction when discussing weight management (Dailey et al., 2014). Further, challenge is also associated with motivation to enact healthy behaviors (Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011; Dailey et al., 2014). Across contexts, challenging individuals to reach their potential can foster accountability, produce cognitive stimulation to perform, and promote satisfaction (Moneta & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). These interactions are especially vital in contexts of achievement (Dailey, 2008)—such as that of athletics. Within sport, corrective feedback encourages athletes to improve upon past performances, can create positive sporting experiences, and is motivating (Buning & Thompson, 2015; Cranmer & Brann, 2015; Turman, 2003). With this in mind, the following hypothesis was forwarded:

Hypothesis 2: Coaches’ use of challenge will positively predict athletes’ satisfaction with sport experiences and communication with coaches as well as their motivation to play their sport.

Finally, the dimensions of confirmation have been theorized to interact in a manner that produces positive outcomes when both acceptance and challenge are present (Dailey, 2008b, 2010; Dailey, Richards, et al., 2010). Preliminary research has provided mixed empirical support for this aspect of confirmation theory, as the predicted interaction effect has been observed in one study that examined the perceived effectiveness of weight loss messages from romantic partners (Dailey, Richards, et al., 2010). However, another study that considered similar messages about weight loss from romantic partners failed to find this interaction effect (Dailey, McCracken, et al., 2011). Dailey et al. (2016) attributed the inconsistent support for this aspect of confirmation theory partially to the unique dynamics of romantic relationships among college student populations who comprised most of the samples within confirmation research, and continue to assert that this part of their theory should not be discounted. It is logical to assume that this interaction effect would be apparent within coaches’ use of confirmation because of the abundance of evidence that suggests coaches who encourage and push their athletes to improve are most effective (Becker, 2009; Becker & Wrisberg, 2008; Cushion, 2010). Given the theoretical arguments of confirmation theory and the existing empirical evidence on effective coaching, the following hypothesis was forwarded:

Hypothesis 3: Coaches’ use of challenge and acceptance will interact to positively predict athletes’ satisfaction with sport experiences and communication with coaches as well as their motivation to play their sport.

Method

Sample

Participants were 132 former high school athletes (66 men and 66 women) from introductory communication courses at a mid-Atlantic university (n = 108), a Southeastern university (n = 20), and a Midwestern university (n = 4). Participants ranged in age from 18 to 19 years (M = 18.63, SD = .49), were racially homogenous (i.e., 79.5% White), and reported on 16 sports. See Table 1 for the demographics of this sample.

Table 1.

Participants’ Demographics.

Variables	n	Percentage
1. Age, years	M = 18.63	SD = 0.49
2. Team winning, %	M = 65.63	SD = 21.98
3. Role
Varsity starters	99	75.0
Nonstarters	21	15.9
Unreported	12	9.1
4. Sex
Male	66	50.0
Female	66	50.0
5. Race
White	105	79.5
Black	16	12.1
Other	9	6.9
Unreported	2	1.5
6. Sports
Football	17	12.9
Cheerleading	16	12.2
Basketball	14	10.6
Soccer	14	10.6
Track	13	9.8
Softball	9	6.8
Volleyball	9	6.8
Baseball	8	6.1
Wrestling	8	6.1
Lacrosse	7	5.3
Tennis	5	3.8
Swimming	4	3.0
Field hockey	3	2.3
Hockey	2	1.5
Crew	1	0.8
Gymnastics	1	0.8
Unreported	1	0.8

Note. N = 132. SD = standard deviation.

Procedures

After receiving the approval of institutional review boards (IRBs) at each participating university, participants were solicited with an IRB-approved script. To participate in this study, volunteers were required to (a) be at least 18 years old, (b) have participated in high school sports during their senior year, and (c) be no more than a year removed from the sporting experiences on which they reported. These requirements reduced the potential influence of rumination and misremembering interactions that are associated with longer retrospective sampling techniques that are commonly used within sport communication research.

Participants completed a questionnaire via two modes of delivery. The participants from the mid-Atlantic university completed paper questionnaires during class time, whereas participants from the Midwestern and Southeastern universities completed online questionnaires outside of class time. Both the paper and online versions of the questionnaire were identical—featuring the same directions, questions, and order. All participants were provided with written instructions to complete the questionnaires regarding a single team that they were a part of during their senior year of high school (secondary school) and the head coaches of their team. Participants received minimal course credit for participating in research.

Measurement

Participants completed questionnaires that consisted of demographic questions and measures that assessed their reports of coach confirmation, satisfaction, and motivation. See Table 2 for full descriptive statistics and internal reliabilities for the measures used within this study.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Matrix.

Variables	M	SD	α	1	2	3	4
Challenge	4.04	0.80	.93	—
Acceptance	4.10	0.82	.88	.67**	—
Satisfaction with sport experiences	7.06	1.72	.89	.66**	.44**	—
Satisfaction with communication	4.90	1.43	.95	.73**	.55**	.75**	—
Athlete motivation to play	5.72	1.14	.92	.36**	.33**	.45**	.36**

Note. SD = standard deviations.

**p < .001.

Coach confirmation was operationalized with the coach confirmation instrument (Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016). This 15-item measure assesses participants’ perceptions of coaches’ use of challenge (e.g., “my coach continually pushed me to get better”) and acceptance (e.g., “my coach acknowledged when I performed well”) behaviors of confirmation. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from never true (1) to always true (5). Previous Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for the factors of this scale ranged from .93 to .95 for challenge and from .89 to .92 for acceptance (Cranmer, Brann, & Weber, 2016).

Athletes’ satisfaction with their sport experience was operationalized with Turman’s (2006) athlete satisfaction measure. This 6-item measure assesses participants’ affective evaluations of their participation in a particular sport (e.g., “the recognition you received by being a member of your team”). Answers were recorded on a 9-point Likert-type scale that ranged from completely unsatisfied (1) to completely satisfied (9). Multiple researchers have reported a Cronbach’s α reliability coefficient of .84 with this scale (Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015; Turman, 2006, 2008).

Athlete communication satisfaction was operationalized with the abbreviated version of the Student Communication Satisfaction Scale (SCSS; Goodboy, Martin, & Bolkan, 2009), which was adapted for athletes (Cranmer & Goodboy, 2015). The SCSS consists of 8 items that measure the degree to which athletes are satisfied with their conversations involving their coach (e.g., “talking with my coach left me feeling like I accomplished something”). Responses were recorded using a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Previous Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients for this instrument have ranged from .83 to .98 (Cranmer & Goodboy, 2015; Goodboy et al., 2009).

Athletes’ motivation was operationalized with a revised version of Christophel’s (1990) measure of motivation (Martin et al., 2009; Mazer et al., 2013). This 12-item measure assesses participants’ motivation regarding their sport. Responses were recorded on a 7-point Semantic Differential Scale (e.g., “didn’t want to play/wanted to play”). Previous studies that have used this scale within the context of sport have yielded Cronbach’s α reliability coefficients that have ranged from .89 to .94 (Mazer et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2009).

Participants also completed demographic questions regarding their starting status on their teams (i.e., 0 = nonstarter or 1 = starter) and their team’s winning percentage (0–100%), which were used as covariates.

Data Analysis

Three hierarchical regressions were conducted to examine the three hypotheses. In each of these analyses, athletes’ starting status and their team’s winning percentage were entered into the first block of variables and treated as covariates because these contextual features can shape athletes’ sporting experiences, affective states, and interactions with coaches (Cranmer & Goodboy, 2015; Cranmer & Myers, 2015). Then, the dimensions of confirmation were entered into the second block, and an interaction term was entered into the third block. Athletes’ satisfaction with their sport experiences and communication with their coach as well as their motivation served as criterion variables, respectively. This three-block structure accounts for the variance within athletes’ satisfactions or motivation that could be explained by their role on their team or their team’s success prior to examining the influence of coaches’ use of confirmation. Prior to examining the results of each hierarchical regression, the data met all relevant assumptions, including the establishment of no perfect multicollinearity, independence of residuals, and homoscedasticity (Berry, 1993).

Results

Results of the first hierarchical regression provided a significant model for satisfaction with sport experiences, F(5, 126) = 23.46, R ² = .49, p < .001. In Block 1 (R ² = .10), winning percentage (β = .29, p < .001) was the only significant predictor. In Block 2 (ΔR ² = .39), coaches’ use of challenge emerged as a significant predictor (β = .63, p < .001), but neither acceptance nor the addition of the interaction term in Block 3 were significant predictors of athletes’ satisfaction with their sport experiences. All relevant hierarchical regression statistics are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Three Hierarchical Regression Analyses.

	Satisfaction With Sport Experiences		Communication Satisfaction		Athlete Motivation
Variables Entered	β	t	β	t	β	t
Block 1 (sport-related variables)	R ² = .10		R ² = .08		R ² = .01
Winning percentage	.29	3.37***	.29	3.34***	.06	0.62
Starting status	.10	1.23	.01	0.07	.07	0.83
Block 2 (coach confirmation)	ΔR ² = .39		ΔR ² = .47		ΔR ² = .13
Acceptance	.01	0.06	.08	0.93	.09	0.79
Challenge	.63	6.88***	.65	7.51***	.29	2.42**
Block 3 (interaction)	ΔR ² = .00		ΔR ² = .00		ΔR ² = .00
Interaction	.41	0.80	.03	0.06	−.28	–0.42

Note. Variables reported at entry.

**p < .01. ***p < .001.

Results of the second hierarchical regression provided a significant model for athlete communication satisfaction with coaches, F(5, 126) = 30.06, R ² = .55, p < .001. In Block 1 (R ² = .08), only winning percentage (β = .29, p < .001) was a significant predictor. In Block 2 (ΔR ² = .47), coaches’ use of challenge emerged as a significant predictor (β = .65, p < .001), but neither acceptance nor the addition of the interaction term in Block 3 were significant predictors of athletes’ communication satisfaction with their coaches.

Results of the third hierarchical regression provided a significant model for athlete motivation, F(5, 126) = 3.86, R ² = .14, p < .001. In Block 1 (R ² = .01), neither sport variable was a significant predictor. In Block 2 (ΔR ² = .13), coaches’ use of challenge emerged as a significant predictor (β = .31, p < .01), but neither acceptance nor the addition of the interaction term in Block 3 were significant predictors of athletes’ motivation.

In summary, the results indicated that coaches’ use of acceptance did not predict athletes’ satisfaction or motivation, Hypothesis 1 was not supported. However, coaches’ use of challenge did predict athletes’ satisfaction and motivation, Hypothesis 2 was supported. Finally, the interaction term between acceptance and challenge also did not predict athletes’ satisfaction or motivation, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to understand how coach confirmation influences athletes’ experiences of satisfaction and motivation to play their sport through the framework of confirmation theory, which recognizes the importance of acceptance, challenge, and the interplay of the two dimensions in fostering positive and enriching environments for receivers. However, within this study, only coaches’ use of challenge was predictive of athletes’ experiences of satisfaction (i.e., 39% of satisfaction with sport experience and 47% of communication satisfaction with a coach) and motivation to play their sport (i.e., 13%) after controlling for athletes’ starting status and their teams’ winning percentage. The lack of significance of acceptance, and to a lesser extent the interaction between acceptance and challenge, seemingly contradicts much of Dailey and colleagues’ research and theoretical assertions, which suggest that accepting messages from romantic partners predict individual’s weight management attitudes and behaviors (Dailey, McCracken, et al., 2011; Dailey, Romo, et al., 2010; Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011).

The findings regarding coaches’ use of challenge in this study emphasize the uniqueness of sport as a context for confirmation research. In particular, it should be noted that the athlete–coach relationship is vastly different than romantic or parent–child relationships (i.e., the contexts of previous confirmation theory research). For example, coaches are expected to prepare athletes for competition by pushing them to refine their physical skills, to teach them by pointing out their mistakes, and to cultivate an environment that is intense and competitive (Becker, 2009; Cushion, 2010), all of which parallel challenging athletes. Athletes are socialized throughout their lives to expect and value coaches’ critiques and, as such, often respond favorably to constructive criticism (Potrac, Jones, & Cushion, 2007). Cushion (2010) even asserted that “behaviors that relate to task accomplishment are generally speaking most preferred by athletes” (p. 46). Athletes value task accomplishment so much that multiple studies have recognized that coaches’ critiques can be deemed as supportive or validating by athletes (Cranmer, Anzur, & Sollitto, 2016; Cranmer & Brann, 2015). These scholars have argued that athletes operate under the assumption that coaches strategically invest resources in those who can help a team during competition and therefore view coaches’ constructive criticism and attention as a sign of their value and significance to their teams. Collectively, this literature indicates that athletes who are challenged view their coaches as fulfilling their roles (Cushion, 2010) and feel valued as contributors to their team (Cranmer & Brann, 2015). Thus, the salience of challenge within the current results is likely due to athletes being a unique population who often have a strong desire for constructive critiques that demonstrate a recognition of their potential and an effort to help them improve (Cranmer & Brann, 2015).

Although challenge was the only significant predictor of athletes’ satisfaction and motivation to play their sport, the results regarding acceptance and the interaction between the two dimensions of confirmation also warrant discussion. Previous athlete–coach communication research has demonstrated the importance of coaches’ use of a variety of prosocial behaviors that may be similar to acceptance. For example, the provision of social support from coaches has been noted as important for improving high school athlete–coach relationships (Cranmer, 2016), increasing athletes’ satisfaction with their sporting experiences (Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015), and giving enduring and meaningful life–lessons to athletes (Cranmer, Anzur, & Sollitto, 2016). Thus, the disparity between the current findings and previous literature needs further consideration.

There are three potential explanations for the lack of significant findings. First, acceptance is distinct from more readily studied prosocial behaviors. For example, social support is a behavior or message that athletes recognize as helpful and provides them with information (informational support), tangible assistance (instrumental support), confidence (esteem support), or feeling that others have concern for them (emotional support). On the other hand, acceptance is praise for when athletes meet coaches’ expectations, execute a game plan, or perform well (Cranmer, Brann, & Anzur, 2016). The difference between these two constructs is that acceptance does not have to serve the function of being helpful. Additionally, acceptance is received after periods of success, whereas recognized support is often received during times of tribulation or distress (Cranmer, Anzur, & Sollitto, 2016). These features may render acceptance as less salient to athletes than social support. However, additional research is needed to verify this notion and continue to distinguish between various prosocial coaching behaviors.

Second, the current findings may have been shaped by the sample. Specifically, the current sample was comprised of former high school athletes who were reporting on their senior year of sport participation. For most athletes, high school sport is the highest level of organized athletics that they will participate in, and, as such, the senior year offers a capstone to their athletic career (Wylleman & Lavellee, 2004). It is plausible then that the increased pressure to win gives further credence to the importance of a coach’s use of challenge. Further, by the time most high school athletes have become seniors, they have invested multiple years on their teams and with their coaches, which means that they have likely established relationships and are socialized into their teams. Therefore, senior athletes could be more focused on their performance and the achievement of individual and team goals and may need less affirmation—although continued reassurance could still likely be of value (Rhind & Jowett, 2010).

Third, the lack of significant findings may be the result of the multivariate nature of this study. In other words, it is possible that acceptance is associated with affective and motivational outcomes independently, but when considered with challenge the unique variance of acceptance disappears. This notion is supported by the significant bivariate correlations observed between acceptance and the dependent variables (see Table 2), but the lack of significance within the hierarchical regressions that also considered challenge. It must be noted that the lack of significant findings is not necessarily contradictory to previous research, given that much of that research has failed to simultaneously consider additional behaviors that are more task oriented. With this in mind, the potential exists that athletes place more value on coaches’ instructional, task-oriented behaviors in comparison to their relational behaviors. A similar pattern has been identified within the instructor–student relationship (Goldman, Cranmer, Sollitto, Labelle, & Lancaster, 2016), which has historically been a comparison point for athlete–coach communication researchers (Cranmer & Goodboy, 2015; Turman, 2008).

Implications

This study has heuristic implications for confirmation research because it answers Dailey, Romo, and Thompson’s (2011) call to extend confirmation to novel relationships. The extension of confirmation to the athlete–coach relationship is important, as it provides a context and relationship whereby confirmation can foster benefits for a new population of receivers. Sport offers promising avenues for future research, given the pervasiveness of participation within the United States. As previously noted, there are 21.5 million American youth and adolescents (aged 6–17 years) who participate in sport every year, with 8 million of those being high school athletes (Kelley & Carchia, 2013). For these millions of athletes, sport serves as a socializing force and coaches are important sources of social, psychological, cognitive, and physical development (Camiré et al., 2011). Because receiving confirmation is especially important during the development of youth and adolescents (Dailey, 2006, 2008b, 2009, 2010), sport and coaches must be recognized as potentially salient sources for confirmation who can have a profound influence on countless young athletes. However, it is important to note that this study also highlights how the unique features of athletics (e.g., competitive, achievement focused) may influence how athletes process confirmation.

Moreover, these distinct results contribute to scholarly understanding of confirmation theory. Specifically, the salience of a coach’s use of challenge for predicting athletes’ affective evaluations and motivation cannot be ignored. Although previous confirmation theory scholars have provided relatively consistent support that both acceptance and challenge are predictive of receivers’ attitudes and behaviors (Dailey, McCracken, et al., 2011; Dailey, Romo, et al., 2010; Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011), the current results indicate that the salience of these two dimensions may vary—a distinction that we attribute to context. In particular, this study provides empirical evidence for Dailey et al.’s (2016) assertion that challenge may be especially salient within environments of achievement. With this in mind, future confirmation theory research should consider the possibility that contextual variables (e.g., cultural norms; recipients’ traits, goals, and expectations) may moderate the effectiveness of the different dimensions of confirmation. Further, this study contributed to the understanding of the interaction, or lack thereof, between acceptance and challenge. The current results continue to support the notion that the interaction between accepting and challenging messages is either nonexistent or of little consequence (Dailey, Romo et al., 2010; Dailey, Romo, et al., 2011)—a finding that requires further investigations that employ various methodological approaches (Dailey et al., 2016).

Finally, this study has practical implications for sport practitioners and coaches because it provides empirical evidence that coach confirmation is a pedagogical tool that can increase coaching effectiveness. It is widely recognized that coaches who can satisfy and motivate their athletes are considered to be effective (Becker, 2009; Buning & Thompson, 2015; Vella et al., 2011). This study indicates that high school coaches can most readily increase these outcomes for their athletes by cultivating environments whereby athletes are pushed to refine their skills in a constructive manner. Such environments can be created by recognizing when athletes fail to meet reasonable expectations, instilling accountability, and identifying specific ways in which they can improve (Cranmer, Brann, & Anzur, 2016). These efforts may be assisted by scheduling times to routinely review athletes’ performances (e.g., film sessions, weekly progress meetings) and promoting cultures that emphasize the setting and meeting of goals (e.g., display individual and team goals in common areas). The prescriptive value of these results coincide with the fulfillment of the goals of societal sport movements like the positive coaching alliance, which advocate for coaches to use prosocial means (like confirmation) to instruct athletes (Sage & Eitzen, 2013).

It must be cautioned, however, that coaches should not abandon the use of acceptance altogether. In fact, there is an extensive amount of literature that suggests that the use of prosocial communication fosters higher quality athlete–coach relationships (Cranmer & Myers, 2015) and levels of athlete satisfaction (Cranmer & Sollitto, 2015). However, the effectiveness of these behaviors may be more situationally dependent, as multiple scholars have specifically highlighted the importance of positive reinforcement, validation, and support after errors, losses, or injuries (Sagar & Jowett, 2012; Smith & Smoll, 2002). As such, until further research can be conducted, coaches should rely on their interpersonal knowledge to determine when acceptance and challenge need to be individually and jointly utilized (Jowett, 2007).

Limitations

The results of this article should be considered with the acknowledgment of its limitations. First, the current data are retrospective in nature, which increases the susceptibility of participants’ self-reports to inaccuracies and rumination effects. More specifically, Dailey et al. (2016) attributed the lack of interaction effects within confirmation research to the use of retrospective data. However, participants were required to be no more than a year removed from their high school athletics career, which is far more conservative than the inclusion criteria of previous athlete–coach research (e.g., Cranmer & Myers, 2015; Kassing & Anderson, 2014; Martin et al., 2009). Second, only a single source (i.e., head coaches) of confirmation was considered in our analyses. This decision was purposive because head coaches are especially salient figures (Cranmer & Myers, 2015), but it fails to provide insight regarding how multiple sources may collectively influence athletes’ perceptions or experiences through confirmation (Dailey, 2009). The potential remains that confirmation may function differently coming from other sport stakeholders (e.g., parents, teammates, assistant coaches). Third, it is possible that the use of high school athletes (i.e., the highest level of athletics that most athletes will ever play) could have shaped the results of this study, as the focus on competition and winning are emphasized at this level of play. In other words, challenge would naturally seem to be more germane to varsity high school sports and, thus, might be valued more by these athletes. In other words, different populations of athletes may prioritize confirmation differently.

Future Research

Coach confirmation and its influence on athletes’ sport-related and nonsport experiences need to be more fully investigated. First, future studies can build upon the current findings by further investigating the influence of challenge on athlete motivation. Dailey et al. (2016) recognized that although challenge may motivate individuals to strive for better performance, this motivation can be extrinsic, as it may be derived solely from the attempt to satisfy a standard or please the sender. This is potentially problematic because extrinsic motivation is less enduring and productive in the long term for learning and development (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Historically, communication scholars have failed to consider the quality of athlete motivation in favor of a restricted understanding that focuses on the quantity (i.e., high to low) of motivation (Martin et al., 2009; Mazer et al., 2013). Buning and Thompson (2015) argued that the influence of athlete–coach interactions on intrinsic motivation may best be understood through self-determination theory, which recognizes that intrinsic motivation is accomplished through athletes’ experiences of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Coach confirmation can logically be integrated into this framework as this behavior naturally provides individuals with opportunities to apply their skills and connects them to others (Dailey, 2010). Future research should consider how these two theories intersect to form a better understanding of how to effectively motivate athletes.

Second, despite the current emphasis on challenge, the relationship between challenge and acceptance needs to be further explored. When enacting confirmation, coaches must consider a multitude of factors. For example, the level of competitiveness and the age of the athletes that are being coached likely shape the appropriate ratio between challenge and acceptance. Coaches of noncompetitive or youth sports teams, which are dedicated to providing social interaction and basic skill development (Mean, 2013), should probably use acceptance at a higher frequency to account for the purpose of the sporting activity and the maturity of their athletes. The determination of the proper ratio of challenge and acceptance and role of coach confirmation throughout the life span of athletes will need to continue to be investigated by scholars.

Third, the context of youth sport may be ripe for exploration, given the influence of confirmation on adolescents’ psychosocial development (Dailey, 2009) and identity (Dailey, 2006). With sport already being widely recognized as a mechanism of socialization (Sage & Eitzen, 2013), the potential for coach confirmation to influence athletes’ nonsporting identities, communication styles, and behaviors should be further explored. Other potential avenues for future confirmation research could include the continued investigation of the effectiveness of this behavior with additional athlete outcomes, such as learning, relationship quality, and performance; the use of confirmation by entire coaching staffs should also be considered; and theoretical mechanisms that may explain variations in athletes’ reception of confirmation should be identified.

Fourth, the importance of challenge warrants further investigation. Assuming that the current results are replicated in future research, it is important to understand the qualities that make challenging messages effective. Anecdotally, it should be apparent that not all messages that suggest athletes improve their performance are constructive. Therefore, there are a host of interactions and messages that may be similar to challenge in intention (i.e., to encourage athletes to meet their potential and improve) but are not viewed as confirming. With this in mind, the next step for researchers may be to identify the circumstances, nonverbal elements, and relational factors that may accompany the delivery of challenging messages. This information would allow coaches to customize their feedback in a manner that would lead to greater amounts of confirmation.

Conclusion

All humans have a basic need to feel endorsed, recognized, and acknowledged (Buber, 1957), including athletes. This article offers evidence that coach confirmation is an effective behavior at promoting positive affect and motivation for high school athletes. As such, sport practitioners should attempt to strategically integrate confirming behaviors within their daily practices and coaching philosophies in an effort to help promote more positive interactions with, and outcomes for, athletes.

Footnotes

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.

References

Becker

A. J.

(2009). It’s not what they do, it’s how they do it: Athlete experiences of great coaching. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 4, 93–119.

Becker

A. J.

Wrisberg

C. A.

(2008). Effective coaching in action: Observations of legendary collegiate basketball coach Pat Summitt. The Sport Psychologist, 22, 197–211.

Berry

W. D.

(1993). Understanding regression assumptions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Buber

(1957). Distance and relation. Psychiatry, 20, 97–104.

Buning

M. M.

Thompson

M. A.

(2015). Coaching behaviors and athlete motivation: Female softball athletes’ perspectives. Sport Science Review, 24, 345–370.

Camiré

Forneris

Trudel

Bernard

(2011). Strategies for helping coaches facilitate positive youth development through sport. Journal of Sport Psychology in Action, 2, 92–99. doi:10.1080/21520704.2011.584246

Chelladurai

Riemer

H. A.

(1998). Measurement of leadership in sport. In Duda

J. L.

(Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 227–253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Christophel

D. M.

(1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813

Cranmer

G. A.

Anzur

C. K.

Sollitto

(2016). Memorable messages of social support that former high school athletes received from their head coaches. Communication & Sport. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1080/2167479516641934

10.

Cranmer

G. A.

Brann

(2015). “It makes me feel like I am an important part of this team”: An exploratory study of coach confirmation. International Journal of Sport Communication, 8, 193–211. doi:10.1123/IJSC.2014-0078

11.

Cranmer

G. A.

Brann

Anzur

C. K.

(2016). Putting coach confirmation theory into practice: How to confirm youth and high school athletes and coach more effectively. Strategies: A Journal for Physical and Sport Educators, 29, 25–29.

12.

Cranmer

G. A.

Brann

Weber

K. D.

(2016). Quantifying coach confirmation: The development and preliminary validation of the coach confirmation instrument. Communication & Sport. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2167479516660037

13.

Cranmer

G. A.

Goodboy

A. K.

(2015). Power play: Coach power use and athletes’ communicative evaluations and responses. Western Journal of Communication, 79, 614–633. doi:10.1080/10570314.2015.1069389

14.

Cranmer

G. A.

Myers

S. A.

(2015). Sports teams as organizations: A leader-member exchange perspective of player communication with coaches and teammates. Communication & Sport, 3, 100–118. doi:10.1177/2167479513520487

15.

Cranmer

G. A.

Sollitto

(2015). Sport support: Received social support as a predictor of athlete satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 32, 253–264. doi:10.1080/08824096

16.

Cranmer

G. A.

(2016). A continuation of sport teams from an organizational perspective: Predictors of athlete-coach leader-member exchange. Communication & Sport, 4, 43–61. doi:10.1177/2167479514542151.

17.

Cushion

C. J.

(2010). Coach behavior. In Lyle

Cushion

C. J.

(Eds.), Sports coaching: Professionalisation and practice (pp. 43–61). Edinburgh, England: Churchill Livingstone.

18.

Dailey

R. M.

(2006). Confirmation in parent-adolescent relationships and adolescent openness: Toward extending confirmation theory. Communication Monographs, 73, 434–458. doi:10.1080/03637750601055432

19.

Dailey

R. M.

(2008a). Assessing the contribution of nonverbal behaviors in displays of confirmation during parent-adolescent interactions: An actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 62–91. doi:10.1080/15267430701573599

20.

Dailey

R. M.

(2008b). Parental challenge: Developing and validating a measure of how parents challenge their adolescents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 643–669. doi:10.1177/0265407508093784

21.

Dailey

R. M.

(2009). Confirmation from family members: Parent and sibling contributions to adolescent psychosocial adjustment. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 273–299. doi:10.1080/10570310903082032

22.

Dailey

R. M.

(2010). Testing components of confirmation: How acceptance and challenge from mothers, fathers, and siblings are related to adolescent self-concept. Communication Monographs, 77, 592–617. doi:10.1080/03637751.2010.499366

23.

Dailey

R. M.

Crook

Glowacki

Prenger

Winslow

A. A.

(2016). Meeting weight management goals: The role of partner confirmation. Health Communication, 31, 1482–1494. doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1089398

24.

Dailey

R. M.

McCracken

A. A.

Romo

L. K.

(2011). Confirmation and weight management: Predicting effective levels of acceptance and challenge in weight management messages. Communication Monographs, 78, 185–211. doi:10.1080/03637751.2011.564638

25.

Dailey

R. M.

Richards

A. A.

Romo

L. K.

(2010). Communication with significant others about weight management: The role of confirmation in weight management attitudes and behaviors. Communication Research, 37, 644–673. doi:10.1177/0093650210362688

26.

Dailey

R. M.

Romo

L. K.

McCracken

A. A.

(2010). Messages about weight management: An examination of how acceptance and challenge are related to message effectiveness. Western Journal of Communication, 74, 457–483. doi:10.1080/10570314.2010.512279

27.

Dailey

R. M.

Romo

L. K.

Thompson

C. M.

(2011). Confirmation in couples’ communication about weight management: An analysis of how both partners contribute to individuals’ health behaviors and conversational outcomes. Human Communication Research, 37, 553–582. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01414.x

28.

Dailey

R. M.

Thompson

C. M.

Romo

L. K.

(2014). Mother-teen communication about weight management. Health Communication, 29, 384–397. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.759052

29.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Self-determination theory. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–437). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

30.

Ellis

(2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication Research, 26, 264–291. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00758.x

31.

Ellis

(2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver apprehension, motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1–20. doi:10.1080/ 0363452032000135742

32.

Goldman

Z. W.

Cranmer

G. A.

Sollitto

Labelle

Lancaster

A. L.

(2016). The ‘ideal’ instructor: Examining college students’ effective teaching preferences. Communication Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/03634523.2016.1265135.

33.

Goodboy

A. K.

Martin

M. M.

Bolkan

(2009). The development and validation of the student communication satisfaction scale. Communication Education, 58, 372–396. doi:10.1080/03634520902755441

34.

Hanrahan

S. J.

Andersen

M. B.

(2013). Routledge handbook of applied sport psychology: A comprehensive guide for students and practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.

35.

Jowett

(2007). Interdependence analysis of the 3_1 C’s in coach-athlete relationship. In Jowett

Lavallee

(Eds.), Social psychology in sport. (pp. 15–28). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

36.

Kassing

J. W.

Anderson

R. L.

(2014). Contradicting coach or grumbling to teammates exploring dissent expression in the coach -athlete relationship. Communication & Sport, 2, 172–185. doi:10.1177/2167479512473988.

37.

Kassing

J. W.

Infante

D. A.

(1999). Aggressive communication in the coach-athlete relationship. Communication Research Reports, 16, 110–120. doi:10.1080/ 088224099909388708

38.

Kelley

Carchia

(2013, 07 11). Hey, data data—swing! The hidden demographics of youth sports. ESPN.com. Retrieved from http://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/9469252/hidden-demographics-youth-sports-espn-magazine

39.

Laing

R. D.

(1961). Confirmation and disconfirmation. In Self and others (pp. 98–107). London, England: Tavistock.

40.

Martin

M. M.

Rocca

K. A.

Cayanus

J. L.

Weber

(2009). Relationship between coaches’ use of behavior alteration techniques and verbal aggression on athletes’ motivation and affect. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 227–241.

41.

Mazer

J. P.

Barnes

Grevious

Boger

(2013). Coach verbal aggression: A case study examining effects on athlete motivation and perceptions of coach credibility. International Journal of Sport Communication, 6, 203–213.

42.

Mean

L. J.

(2013). The communicative complexity of youth sport: Maintaining benefits, managing discourses, and challenging identities. In Pedersen

P. M.

(Ed.), Routledge handbook of sport communication (pp. 338–349). New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Moneta

G. B.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1996). The effect of perceived challenges and skills on the quality of subjective experience. Journal of Personality, 64, 274–310.

44.

Munz

E. A.

Wilson

S. R.

(2014). Caregiver confirmation and children’s attachment security during the transition to kindergarten. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650214534966

45.

Potrac

Jones

R. L.

Cushion

C. J.

(2007). Understanding power and the coach’s role in professional English soccer: A preliminary investigation of coach behavior. Soccer and Society, 8, 33–49.

46.

Rhind

D. J.

Jowett

(2010). Relationship maintenance strategies in the coach-athlete relationship: The development of the COMPASS model. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 106–121.

47.

Sagar

S. S.

Jowett

(2012). Communicative acts in coach–athlete interactions: When losing competitions and when making mistakes in training. Western Journal of Communication, 76, 148–174. doi:10.1080/10570314.2011.651256

48.

Sage

G. H.

Eitzen

D. S.

(2013). Sociology of North American sport. New York, NY: Oxford.

49.

Sieburg

(1985). Confirming and disconfirming response in families. In Family communication: An integrated systems approach (pp. 189–219). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

50.

Smith

R. E.

Smoll

F. L.

(2002). Way to go coach! A scientifically proven approach to coaching effectiveness (2nd ed.). Portola Valley, CA: Warde.

51.

Turman

P. D.

(2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective: The influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preference and perception of coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education, 52, 73–86. doi:10.1080/03634520302465

52.

Turman

P. D.

(2006). Athletes’ perception of coach power use and the association between playing status and sport satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23, 273–282. doi:10.1080/08824090600962540

53.

Turman

P. D.

(2008). Coaches’ immediacy behaviors as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction and team cohesion. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 162–179. doi:10.108/10570310802038424

54.

Vallerand

R. J.

Fortier

M. S.

(1998). Measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: A review and critique. In Duda

J. L.

(Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 81–104). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

55.

Vella

Oades

Crowe

(2011). The role of coach in facilitating positive youth development: Moving from theory to practice. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 33–48. doi:10.1080/01413200.2010.511423

56.

Wilson

S. R.

Hall

E. D.

Gettings

P. E.

Pastor

R. G.

(2015). A multiple goals analysis of families attempting to encourage US service members to seek behavioral health care linking the GPA model and confirmation theory. Communication Research. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650215617507

57.

Wylleman

Lavallee

(2004). A developmental perspective on transitions faced by athletes. In Weiss

M. R.

(Ed.), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 507–527). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.