21.1: Introduction

Competition lies at the very heart of many sporting endeavours, with its specific nature often dictating that there will be winners and losers as an outcome. While it is clear that these absolutes are less relevant to some (as many engage at least partly to compete against themselves to extend their skills, conditioning, and knowledge, for example), it is the role of the leader, often the coach, to calibrate a positive and healthy definition of success for their athletes, one that will see them enjoy and thrive within the performance arena.

An athlete’s motivation sits at the core of their sporting experience, driving them towards their goals while being simultaneously moderated by the environments they act within (Ames, 1992). The specifics of the environment can be a powerful influencer of the athlete’s goal-directed behaviour, and when effectively structured, organised, and with appropriate personal support, can promote positive experiences that have meaningful psychological, cognitive, and affective benefits for the individual (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

21.1.1. Psychological Environments in Sport

According to social-cognitive theories of motivation, in any sport setting, the personal tendencies of an athlete will interact with the situational cues they experience (e.g., the coach, peers, activities, opposition) to prompt a range of both (potentially) positive and negative psychological outcomes (Maehr, 1983). Indeed, it is how these cues are subjectively perceived by the athlete that will, in turn, prompt their cognitive and affective responses (Ames, 1992; Maehr, 1983; Roberts, 2012). Coaches positively influence an athletes’ perceptions of the achievement environment through using language and behaviours that instil a pattern of adaptive cognitive responses (Ames, 1992, Roberts, 2012). More broadly, and to increase the likelihood of desirable cognitive and affective outcomes, the coach can aim to create an adaptive psychological climate for their athletes.

Psychological climate is a term used to describe the motivational features of an achievement setting and the subjective meaning given to those features from the individual participants who experience it(Maehr & Braeskamp, 1986). This general term will be used throughout this chapter to describe the psychological environment within an achievement setting; it is a phrase that will also serve to highlight many of the overlapping principles between theories and provide a coherent summary of knowledge to date. We now turn to address the two dominant theories associated with research into psychological climates within sport: achievement goal theory (AGT; Nicholls, 1984) and self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; 2002). Each theory has established efficacy in describing and explaining achievement environments, and thus represent appropriate theoretical anchors (Layder, 1998) to help support coaches in the development of adaptive psychological environments.

21.1.2. Achievement Goal Theory

AGT (Nicholls, 1984) is one of the most established theories of motivation within the sport and exercise psychology literature (Roberts, 2012). As a competence-based social-cognitive theory, AGT is grounded through the basic assumption that we, as human beings, are intentional, rational goal-directed organisms, and that achievement goals reflect and guide beliefs and decision-making in achievement contexts (Roberts, 2012). According to Nicholls’ theory, it is an individual’s perception of what competence means that drives behaviours. For example, those individuals who are primarily concerned with mastering tasks and who construe competence through self-referenced criteria can be regarded as task-involved, whereas those whose competence judgements are based on how they perform relative to others are described as ego-involved (Jaakkola et al., 2016; Roberts, 2012). At any given moment in an achievement context (e.g., after conceding a try in a rugby game, taking a free-throw shot in basketball) an individual’s state of involvement (or why) drives their thoughts, feelings, and behaviours. This is a dynamic state, and these motives sit on a continuum that extends from a strong ego- to a strong task-involvement (Gernigon et al., 2004). A person’s goal involvement is based on their moment-to-moment perception of the environment interacting with their predisposed goal involvement; the latter being referred to as a goal orientation (Nicholls, 1984; 1989).

As trait-like dispositions, goal orientations are more stable than their state-like goal-involvement (Duda & Whitehead, 1998). Within AGT, there are two orthogonal goal orientations: task- and ego- orientation (Kingston et al., 2020; Roberts & Kristiansen, 2012). The orthogonality of goal-orientations means that, as independent structures, a person can be simultaneously high or low in one or both orientations (Roberts, 2012). Research into these goal orientation profiles has indicated that the combination of a high task-, low ego-orientations are associated with a range of positive outcomes, whilst the reverse (low task-, high ego-) is linked to more maladaptive outcomes (Harwood & Thrower, 2020). In contrast, a high task-, high ego-orientation profile has been proposed to be the most beneficial combination, with the greatest motivational outcomes when associated with high levels of perceived competence (see Roberts, 2012). Though dispositional goal orientation(s) are relatively stable, they are moderated by situational cues; if these are particularly salient, then the environment may override the dispositional goal orientations of that individual (Roberts, 2012; Roberts et al., 1997). Consequently, it is possible for coaches to effectively influence and even manipulate goal perspectives through the psychological environment they facilitate. Situational cues are influenced by key social agents, and these impact how competence perceptions are derived within an achievement setting to subsequently create what is known as the motivational climate (Ames, 1992; Keegan et al.,2009).

Recognised as one of the most powerful elements of AGT, the motivational climate refers to the features of an achievement environment that influence how an individual’s competence is defined (Ames, 1992, Roberts, 2012). As such, there are two types of motivational climate that can be fostered, a mastery (task) climate, or an ego (performance) climate, distinguishable by how competence is perceived to be demonstrated (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). A mastery climate will promote learning, effort, persistence, and focus upon self-improvement with participants demonstrating competence through individual skill-development and progress (Roberts, 2012). Studies within sport have reported favourable outcomes from the fostering of mastery climates, for example: increased dedication; increased enjoyment (Balaguer et al., 1999; Jaakkola et al., 2016); improved cohesion (Eys et al., 2013); greater sportspersonship (Gano-Overway et al., 2005); enhanced mental toughness (Nicholls et al.,2016); reduced anxiety (Smith et al., 2007); and improved learning strategies (Treasure & Roberts, 2001). In contrast, an ego climate (or performance climate) promotes competence as being norm-referenced, and thus reflects a judgement based on comparison of standing to other participants (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Ego climates are characterised by the public comparison of ability, minimal participant authority, a focus upon a select few (often the more “talented”) athletes, and the use of disciplinary mechanisms following mistakes (Hassan & Morgan, 2015). Such environments have been found to have negative implications for participants, for example, in terms of reduced cohesion (Eys et al., 2013) or cheating (Ntoumanis et al., 2012). Although it has been recognised that ego climates can be of value to sport environment (d’Arripe-Longueville et al., 1998; Roberts & Kristiansen, 2012), researchers have espoused that the creation of mastery climates should be the priority for sport organisations and the coaching practitioner (Gill et al., 2017; Keegan et al., 2010).

21.1.3. Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) is the second of the two dominant theoretical frameworks that have helped to guide research and subsequently the development of adaptive psychological climates within sport settings (see Occhino et al., 2014). For more on SDT, see Chapter 3 (Quested et al., 2021).

SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is a macro-theory of motivation concerned with the development and functioning of personality within social contexts, and specifically the mechanisms through which self-determined behaviour is nurtured or impeded (Kingston et al., 2006). According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985), the social context, in which the coach is a key agent, is paramount to supporting an individual’s basic psychological needs (BPNs). Extending their premise, Deci and Ryan (2000) suggested that the satisfaction of a person’s innate psychological needs will provide the necessary conditions for effective motivational functioning and enhanced well-being of that individual; the needs are: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These fundamental psychological needs are the psychological mediators of the relationship between social/contextual factors and behavioural and affective responses; they are described within basic psychological needs theory (BPNT, Deci & Ryan, 2000), a sub-theory of the broader SDT. Specifically, an individual’s need for autonomy is met when they feel authentically responsible for their actions, while competence is promoted through a feeling of effectiveness when interacting with the environment, and relatedness refers to the extent that a person feels a sense of closeness, connectedness, and being cared for within a given social environment (Bartholomew et al.,2011; Ryan & Deci, 2020). As a consequence of the ease of application across contexts, attention has turned to the promotion of these three BPNs within sport settings (e.g., Sarrazin et al., 2002), with a burgeoning amount of research seeking to address the coaching behaviours that can influence them(e.g., Matosic et al., 2016; Reinboth et al., 2004; Stebbings et al., 2015).

Researchers have robustly supported the central tenet of SDT that environmental factors that can promote or thwart the development of the BPN (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2011; Matosic et al., 2016). An environment that has been found to support the BPN of an individual is termed an autonomy-supportive environment, while an environment antagonistic toward developing positive developmental tendencies is commonly known as a controlling-coach environment (Adie et al., 2008; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ntoumanis, 2012). Mageau and Vallerand (2003) outlined seven key features of an autonomy- supportive coaching environment, these included: provision of choice, providing a rationale for decisions, acknowledgment of feelings and perspectives, opportunities for problem solving, giving non-controlling feedback, avoiding controlling behaviours, and focusing on self-referenced rather than norm-referenced criteria. These pedagogical behaviours are also supported by providing structure and an empathetic and caring attitude towards athletes as people (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).

Reflecting on the consequences of such environments, Occhino et al. (2014) argued that a coach who can foster an autonomy-supportive environment can: (a) satisfy participant’s psychological needs;(b) maintain intrinsic motivation; (c) promote engagement in sport; and (d) enhance individual performance. More recently, Cronin and Allen (2018) suggested that the creation of autonomy-supportive climates is also positively associated with the promotion of life skill development in sport. The transfer of life skills is recognised as a crucial element of positive youth development, whereby young athletes will learn life skills and psychological competencies that will facilitate success in both sport and life (Bowley et al., 2018). In contrast, a controlling-coach environment is fostered when coaches use tangible rewards, controlling feedback, employ excessive control, engage in intimidating behaviours, encourage ego-involvement, and have conditional regard for individuals (Bartholomew et al., 2011). Similar to the widespread endorsement of mastery motivational climate through AGT (Nicholls, 1984), the promotion of autonomy-supportive climates (along with the de-emphasis of controlling behaviours) has been widely endorsed and thus appears an important objective (Stebbings et al., 2015). From a SDT perspective, methods to guide the creation of such adaptive psychological climates are of critical value to coaches and their athletes.