21.2: Frameworks Used to Support Adaptive Psychological Climates

For the last few decades, researchers have provided guiding principles and frameworks to support the coaching practitioner in promoting adaptive psychological climates. With a variation of theoretical approaches taken (e.g., AGT, Nicholls, 1984; SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985; or a composition of both) different frameworks have been espoused. Indeed, a growing recognition of the overlapping and complimentary features of AGT and SDT has led to an understanding that the theories are not mutually exclusive (Duda, 2013; Duda et al., 2018; Keegan et al., 2009; Ntoumanis, 2001). For example, using regression analysis, Ntoumanis (2001) indicated that the task orientation of university athletes positively predicted their self-determined motivation, which in turn was positively associated to their competence (SDT’s conceptualisation of competence). This section of the chapter will consider strategies that are informed by overlapping and sometime analogous principles of both theoretical frameworks to influence the psychological climate of sport environments, drawing attention to the most salient themes. Three frameworks will be reviewed: TARGET (Ames, 1992; Epstein, 1989), MAC (Smoll & Smith, 2009), and Empowering Coaching™ (Duda, 2013); theoretical and practical implications discussed for each framework.

21.2.1. TARGET

Initially conceived by Epstein (1989), and then later developed by Ames (1992), TARGET is an acronym used to identify salient features of teaching environments: task, authority, recognition, grouping, evaluation, and time. Underpinned by AGT (Nicholls, 1984), TARGET has been used successfully within classroom, physical education, and more recently in sport settings as a framework to understand the development of mastery motivational climates (e.g., Kingston et al., 2020). Each of the TARGET structures can be influenced by the leader of that given achievement environment to promote an adaptive psychological climate for the participants within it. Briefly, task refers to the design of activities (e.g., organisation of tasks) with the coach ensuring that they are varied, challenging, promote self-referenced goals, and differentiated for all participants (Ames, 1992; Morgan, 2017). Authority pertains to participants being active agents in their own development, with the coach creating the opportunity for them to make meaningful decisions within the environment (Roberts, 2001). Recognition relates to the focus of feedback; in a mastery climate, a coach would provide equitable feedback for individual progress, effort, and persistence (Morgan, 2017). The grouping structure refers to the sorting of participants into heterogenous groups, where overt perceptions of competence may diminish (Ames, 1992). Linked closely to recognition is evaluation, which refers to the manner in which feedback is provided. In a mastery-involving evaluation structure, a coach would provide meaningful, individualised, positive, and one to one feedback to players (Morgan, 2017). Finally, affording players flexibility to master the task at hand, catering for all levels of abilities in managing time are encapsulated within the time structure (Ames, 1992). It is important to note, converse behaviours (to those identified) may promote an ego climate (see Morgan & Kingston, 2010; Morgan et al., 2005).

Within sport settings, Cecchini et al. (2014) conducted a 12-week intervention study with student-athletes, examining the impact that the manipulation of the motivational climate could have upon their motivation, behaviours, and the social and psychological moderators of this relationship. The intervention programme, which was based upon the TARGET framework, was executed by trained coaches. Participants engaged in 20 hours of theoretical training, and 10 hours of practical training. As part of the training, one coaching session was video recorded each week with feedback being given to the coaches during the next training seminar. Their findings showed TARGET to be a useful mechanism to manipulate the motivational climate and to promote adaptive outcomes amongst their high-school sport participants, for example: performance improvement, decision making, competence, autonomy, self-determined motivation, social relations, persistence, effort, cooperative learning, and reduced boredom. Where Cecchini and colleagues explored the psychosocial impact upon participants, Hassan and Morgan (2015) shifted focus to the coaches in evaluating if a mastery climate coach education programme (based upon the TARGET structures) would modify coach behaviours and this be perceived by their athletes. Through guided video self-analysis, Hassan and Morgan (2015) found that over time, not only did coaches increase their mastery-involving behaviours across each of the TARGET structures, but that their athletes also perceived an increase in mastery and decrease in ego-involving features of the motivational climate.

Applying the TARGET framework into elite youth sport contexts, Kingston et al. (2020) conducted a longitudinal observational study with a Premier League soccer academy. Observing elite youth soccer coaches over a seven-month period they found that mastery climates dominated within the youth development phase of the academy (under 12–16 years), but ego climates were still prevalent. Kingston et al. suggested that features of the motivational climate demonstrated additive characteristics and surmised that some mastery-involving TARGET features (i.e., task, authority, recognition, and evaluation) could compensate for features aligned with promotion of social comparison (e.g., grouping and time elements). Although this assertion was also made by Ames (1992), more research is required to confirm compensatory effects as this could have significant practical implications. For example, in competitive situations (e.g., small-sided games) the coach could emphasise mastery criteria (e.g., cooperation, problem-solving, and providing opportunities for meaningful input by players). Given the challenge that some coaches have in promoting mastery or autonomy supportive climates during competition, knowledge of features that can compensate for ego-involving components may help them to effectively manage the climate even during the most “heated” of competitions(Delrue et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2017).

21.2.2. Mastery Approach to Coaching (MAC)

Originating from coaching effectiveness training (CET; Smith et al., 1979), MAC (Smoll & Smith, 2009) is a program that incorporates the mastery principles of AGT (Nicholls, 1984). MAC places an emphasis on two key themes: coaching behaviours; and maximal effort as the key criteria for defining success (Smith et al., 2007; Smoll & Smith, 2020). Firstly, MAC distinguishes between positive and aversive coaching behaviours, and provides a user-friendly list of coaching “dos and don’ts” to guide practitioners. Positive behaviours (the dos) include: positive reinforcement, mistake-contingent encouragement, corrective instruction delivered in an encouraging fashion, and technical instruction. Conversely, aversive coach behaviours (the don’ts) include: a lack of reinforcement of positive behaviours, punishing mistakes, and punitive technical instructions (Smith & Smoll, 2012; Smith et al., 2007; Smoll & Smith, 2020). The second key theme is the emphasis placed upon defining success around employing maximal effort. This theme is consistent with Epstein (1989) and Ames’ (1992) guidance within the TARGET framework (i.e., recognition), whereby the coach will recognise and reward athletes for high effort rather than their ability (Morgan, 2017). Therefore, both models promote competence as reflective of individual effort (Ames, 1992), highlighting the shared philosophies of each framework.

The MAC (Smoll & Smith, 2009) and CET (Smith et al., 1979) programmes have been successfully employed within different sport settings (e.g., basketball, soccer, swimming), reportedly enhancing the psychological climate and promoting adaptive motivational outcomes of participating athletes (e.g., Mclaren et al., 2015; Smoll et al., 2007). McLaren et al. (2015) used the MAC programme as a coaching intervention with the aim of exploring how a mastery climate would impact perceptions of task and social cohesion within their youth soccer teams. Twenty youth coaches were educated on the principles of MAC, while a further six coaches were spoken to about optimizing the athletic experience (but not about MAC). Players who participated under the MAC-trained coaches reported elevated perceptions of team cohesion by the end of the season in comparison to those who had participated under the non-MAC trained coaches, whose perceptions of cohesion declined significantly. In a similar study with basketball coaches, Smith et al. (2007) explored the effects of MAC on players’ somatic and cognitive anxiety. Twenty participating coaches received the MAC training whilst the remaining seventeen did not(no-treatment control condition). Basketball players of the MAC-trained coaches reported a reduction in both dimensions of anxiety and perceived higher levels of coach-initiated mastery climates than the control group.

Although MAC and TARGET are both grounded within AGT (Nicholls, 1984), and indeed MAC was designed in-part with Ames’ (1992) TARGET principles in mind (Smith et al., 2007), MAC differs in its aim to distinguish between positive and aversive coach behaviours (see Smoll & Smith, 2012), and thus arguably helps coaches to better calibrate their mastery actions. Moreover, the emphasis placed upon knowing aversive behaviours draws parallels to researchers of SDT who have examined the controlling-coach behaviours that thwart individual’s satisfaction of their basic psychological needs (e.g., Bartholomew et al., 2011).

Despite the user-friendly qualities of the MAC programme it is not readily available to coaches outside of research projects (e.g., Smith et al., 2007; Smoll et al., 2007). Participants were given a manual entitled Coaches Who Never Lose (Smoll & Smith, 2005) to support their employment of mastery approaches to coaching. This situation is by no means unique, and the availability of sport psychology resources for coaches has been raised previously (e.g., Bissett et al., 2020; Pope et al., 2015). Indeed, Empowering Coaching™, to which the section will shortly turn to, shares similar issues to the MAC programme in this sense. Limited access to resources carries practical implications with coaches unable to acquire or apply knowledge; a situation that broadens the theory to practice gap and risks the topic of psychological climates becoming more esoteric.

21.2.3. Empowering Coaching™

Empowering Coaching™ is a programme designed to enrich the experiences of participants and maintain their long-term participation in sport through the creation of adaptive motivational climates (Duda, 2013; Larsen et al., 2015). Utilising analogous concepts across AGT and SDT (see Ntoumanis, 2001), Duda (2013) designed the programme to help coach practitioners create empowering climates and discourage behaviours that disempower. An empowering climate is characterised as high in autonomy support, relatedness support, and task-involving, whereas a disempowering climate is recognised as controlling, relatedness compromising, and containing ego-involving coach behaviours (Duda, 2013; Tessier et al., 2013). In their sample of Finnish athletes, Into et al. (2020) found that disempowering coaching environments were positively associated with burnout, supporting previous research by Appleton and Duda (2016). They also examined the implications of coaching climates on school burnout amongst their participants; their findings indicated that student-athletes who experienced disempowering climates also suffered burnout in school. Given the drive towards early specialisation in some sports (e.g., association football in the UK; see Wixey et al., 2021), and the low odds that specialising early will lead to a professional career (Callender, 2010), the risk of a young adolescent suffering from burnout in both their sport and studies is a major concern as both have potentially serious ramifications for their well-being and future endeavours.

A key premise of the Empowering Coaching™ programme is that the psychological climate can be more-or-less empowering and disempowering. This has been demonstrated in recent research (e.g., Into et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2016), highlighting that features of the motivational climate may be neutral in their empowering or disempowering effect. Indeed, Into et al.’s (2020) study found that climates possessing both empowering and disempowering features were experienced by 42% of participants. Given that adaptive motivational and psychosocial outcomes are assumed to evolve as a result of empowering environments, the intermediate climates identified in Into et al.’s (2020) and Smith et al.’s (2016) studies highlight the importance of coaches possessing the knowledge and capabilities to effectively promote strong features of an empowering climate in order to positively influence the overall psychological climate.

Duda (2013) distinguishes the Empowering Coaching™ programme from other frameworks in its intention to educate coaches and increase their awareness of the what, why, and how of motivation, motivational processes, and their consequences with respect to the psychological climate they foster. This is important when considering the dynamic nature of the psychological climate (e.g., training versus competition; Delrue et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2017), and the premise that the extent to which an environment is autonomy-supportive or disempowering depends on the salient (yet changeable) features of that environment (Duda, 2013).

The Empowering Coaching™ program was used by Larsen et al. (2015) to explore how grassroots coaches from France and Norway reflected upon their coaching practices. Eighteen participant coaches were led through a six-hour workshop that focused on being an empowering coach. The workshop provided strategies for creating an empowering environment structured around the acronym CLIMATE (cooperative contribution, learning emphasised, intrinsic focus, mastery orientated, authority with autonomy, taking others’ perspective, evaluation of effort and improvement). Participant interviews revealed positive perceptions of the Empowering Coaching™ programme and its role in supporting them foster empowering environments for their players. The merits of the creating such empowering environments does not just stop with the players. For example, Solstad et al. (2018) found that coaches who promoted higher levels of empowering climates had higher levels of well-being at the end of the season than the disempowering coaches. This suggests that creating empowering environments is mutually beneficial for both the players and the coaches.

The frameworks discussed in this section have several overlapping features. Firstly, they all place an emphasis on recognising “effort” as a key mechanism for improving; TARGET and MAC are underpinned by AGT where effort is inextricably linked to learning in conceiving of ability in achievement setting (Nicholls, 1984; Ames, 1992). Although competence is described as a basic human need in SDT (Ntoumanis, 2001), the importance of effort still features as a characteristic of autonomy supportive coaching (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2007), and is utilised within the CLIMATE framework, which is a component of the Empowering Coaching™ programme (see Larsen et al., 2015). Second, and aligned closely to the promotion of effort, is the intention to shift participants’ view of how competence is defined from norm-referenced (social comparison-based) to self-referenced. To help do this, TARGET, MAC, and Empowering Coaching™ all advocate the employment of task-involving coach behaviours. Third, all frameworks prioritise athlete autonomy, with each providing similar means to enable athletes to have a sense of ownership and capital within their development. Fourth, Empowering Coaching™ and MAC present both adaptive and aversive coach behaviours; illustrating the acknowledgement that an environment can be more-or-less empowering based upon the coach’s actions (Duda, 2013, Into et al., 2020). Although not presented originally by Ames (1992), more recent TARGET literature has provided descriptors for ego involving features (e.g., Morgan & Kingston, 2010; Morgan et al., 2005), information that can help coaches to better predict the implications of their behaviours. Fifth, the interpersonal style of the coach was recognised as a key moderator of fostering autonomy supportive and mastery climates, a feature that was more recently suggested by Morgan (2017) as an important component that was missing from the TARGET framework. Finally, each approach gives a perspective on the content and manner of feedback with the frameworks recommending the use of positive and instructional feedback, and where possible, in a one-on-one situation.