21.3: Further Considerations When Creating Adaptive Psychological Climates

These frameworks each provide parameters for creating adaptive psychological climates. There are, however, several moderating factors that may need to be considered when trying to foster desirable climates and thus their athlete’s motivational outcomes. Emerging from the literature to date, a number have evolved, each of which should be considered and these include: coach’s capabilities, athlete level of participation, incongruence between coach and player perceptions intervention approaches, and the role of reflective practice.

21.3.1. Coach’s Capabilities to Foster Adaptive Psychological Climates

Coaches are well-positioned to significantly impact changes to an athlete’s motivation through their influence on the psychological environment. Pritchard and Deutsch (2015) suggested that “the motivational climate is remarkably controllable” (p. 210), and research indicates that across sports, through their organisation and behaviours, many coaches are already acting to foster positive psychological climates for their players (Smith et al.,2006; Tessier et al., 2013). Within soccer, Tessier et al. (2013) analysed the psychological climates created during training by coaches (n = 57) from England, Greece, and France; they noted that coaches fostered more autonomy supportive climates than controlling ones. However, despite the positive evidence, and Pritchard and Deutsch’s (2015) optimistic assertions, many coaches have described difficulties in managing the psychological climate during competition, where there is a tendency to promote (sometimes inadvertently) more controlling environments (e.g., Delrue et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2017). For example, Smith and colleagues analysed the coaching climates of 17 grassroot soccer coaches across both training and competition environments. Their analysis suggested that the coaches engaged in greater need-thwarting than autonomy-supportive behaviours during competition. Delrue et al. (2017), focusing on game-to-game variations in autonomy support and need-thwarting coaching behaviours, identified substantial differences across games indicating that coaches may promote both autonomy-supportive and need-thwarting behaviours; the latter leading to antisocial behaviours amongst the participants. In addition to supporting previous research (e.g., Hodge & Gucciardi, 2015) that portrayed the psychological climate as dynamic, Delrue et al.reasoned that this variation could be due to personal (e.g., coach’s need satisfaction) or situational factors (e.g., opponents). This emphasises some of the challenges to maintaining an autonomy-supportive climate within competition settings when there are often more significant consequences to the outcome.

Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko from Pexels

21.3.2. Level of Participation

Although winning is often no less important in non-elite sport, additional pressures (e.g., financial gain, media, rewards, career longevity) within the elite echelons creates a natural necessity to be the best. However, given the maladaptive motivational outcomes of norm-referenced criterion (Harwood & Thrower, 2020), which may occur readily (given the competitive nature of elite sport), it is important that the psychological climate of these environments are carefully considered.

Within some elite youth sport settings (e.g., academies and other professional development organizations), the sole aim might be to produce professional athletes (e.g., elite youth soccer, Adams & Carr, 2019). However, it is important to note that early-specialisation settings where individuals engage in focused training in a single sport from a young age (Baker et al., 2009) has been associated with reduced levels of intrinsic motivation and enjoyment, and a reduced likelihood of ongoing participation in sport (Russell & Symonds, 2015). Therefore, the psychological climates of early specialisation settings need be carefully considered and designed.

Within some organisations there is a belief that experience of ego-involving climates are necessary to increase the likelihood of progressing to elite adult sport (d’Arippe-Longueville et al., 1998; Ommundsen & Roberts, 1999). Despite this perceived need to expose young players to ego-involving, controlling, or disempowering structures (e.g., soccer, see Cushion & Jones, 2006; Manley et al., 2012), research within professional sport has maintained that mastery climates and autonomy supportive coaching are favoured (by athletes), and result in positive motivational and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Hoigaard et al., 2008; Keegan et al., 2014; Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002). Keegan et al. (2014) interviewed 28 elite athletes to discuss the behaviours from significant social agents that were regarded as being motivationally relevant. They found that all social agents (coaches, peers, and parents) provided feedback and pre-performance motivating behaviours, whilst coaches and peers provided relationships and social interactions. Keegan et al.’s participants also reported that their respective coaches further influenced motivation through one-to-one coaching, task design, equal treatment, selection (processes), and the criteria through which they were evaluated. Despite these findings, the authors highlighted that motivational outcomes are likely to be moderated by both contextual and interpersonal factors. It is, therefore, of considerable importance for the coach to know their athletes when determining the value and efficacy of exposure to arguably less constructive motivational climates (Becker, 2013; Keegan et al., 2014).

The value of positive coach-athlete relationships, and transparency in decision-making appears a similarly influential factor within elite sport settings. In one of the most successful international sport teams in recent history (the New Zealand All Blacks), an autonomy supportive environment was credited as being a central to their success in the lead up to their 2011 rugby union World Cup victory (Hodge et al., 2014). Hodge et al. (2014) examined the motivational climate of the All Blacks following a critical turning point (i.e., an incident at a social event) which led to players and coaches agreeing upon a dual-management leadership model; players were given more accountability, ownership, and became greater stakeholders in management responsibilities. Drawing parallels between their dual-management model and the principles of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2020), Hodge et al. (2014) suggested that the offering of choice, encouraging of initiative, and empowering performance feedback supported the transformation of the team and its culture, while simultaneously supporting of the player’s BPN. Despite the necessity to win, the research endorses the integration of autonomy supportive features within competitive elite sport settings (Hodges et al., 2014; Keegan et al., 2014).

21.3.3. Incongruence Between Coach and Athlete Perceptions of the Psychological Environment

One key tenet of AGT is that the subjective perceptions of the participants will determine their motivational outcomes (Ames, 1992); a premise that has been supported recently in literature (e.g., Gjesdal et al., 2018; Møllerløkken et al., 2017). Incongruence between coach and athlete perceptions can have a deleterious impact on motivational outcomes (Gjesdal et al., 2018), highlighting the value of congruence between the intended climate of the coach and how the climate is perceived by athletes. Møllerløkken et al. (2017), for example, found that grass-root soccer players (from 17 different teams in Norway) regarded the motivational climates they experienced to be more ego orientated and less mastery orientated than their respective coaches. Similarly, Gjesdal et al. (2018) examined the disparity in coach and soccer players’ perceptions of the climate, enjoyment, goal orientations, and anxiety and found that when perceptual agreement existed for mastery climates there was positive correlation to enjoyment and team-rated task goal orientation, whilst perceptual agreement on ego climates demonstrated a positive relationship with ego goal orientation and anxiety and negatively correlated with enjoyment. Crucially, Gjesdal et al. (2018) reported that when the coach perceived the climate to be more mastery involved than their players, it also led to deleterious psychological effects for the participants. Given that incongruence appears common (i.e., Møllerløkken et al., 2017), and that there are potentially maladaptive consequences for such incongruency (Gjesdal et al., 2018), it is imperative that the coach not only employs mastery involving behaviours, but also reflects upon the strength of these features (Ames, 1992) ensuring that task involving features of the environment are not undermined by ego involving discourse (see Kingston et al., 2020).

21.3.4. Intervention Approaches

It has been argued that approaches to ongoing support following education on creating adaptive motivational climates is crucial to promote change within coaching practices (Stodter & Cushion, 2019), and should, therefore, be integral to education around the psychological climate within sport settings. Traditional coaching orthodoxies (e.g., soccer, see Champ et al., 2020), may, however, create some inertia to change, with coaches potentially opting for the safer and more tested methods of coaching (Cushion et al., 2012). As alluded to previously, coaches have a primary influence upon the psychological climate, and the consequential cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes for athletes. Consequently, for acquired knowledge to be applied effectively, coaches should be fully supported through this process.

Most commonly, interventions in motivational climate are based around educational workshops; these communicate to coaches the principles and strategies for creating adaptive psychological climates. For example, the studies using the MAC (Smith & Smoll, 2009) frameworks utilised a one-off workshop that lasted for 75 minutes with a supporting piece of literature designed specifically to reinforce the workshop and encourage coaches to apply their knowledge to practice (Coaches Who Never Lose, Smoll & Smith, 2005). Research evaluating this approach reported successful outcomes from the intervention, indicating the efficacy of including educational workshops (e.g., McLaren et al., 2015; Smith et al., 2007). In contrast, Langdon et al. (2015) reported that the participating coaches in their study were not able to significantly modify their autonomy supportive behaviours. In this case, their approach was to conduct a one-hour workshop to youth soccer coaches on the principles of creating a mastery climate, supplemented by weekly online modules for the coaches to complete. Reflecting on their lack of impact, the authors suggested a number of potential reasons for this (e.g., coaches demonstrated moderate autonomy supportive behaviours anyway, data collection during competitive time of the season), but primarily they felt that the intervention was too short-lived.Langdon et al. (2015) suggested that an intervention over an extended period may have further supported the volunteer coaches to modify their autonomy-supportive behaviours, echoing sentiments from Thompson and Pascal (2012) who suggested prolonged interaction helps to embed changes within practice.

Video analysis of coaching sessions has also been widely, and successfully, employed in conjunction with educational workshops to support coaches and help embed principles in fostering adaptive psychological climates (e.g., Conde et al., 2009). Partington et al. (2015) advocated the use of video feedback after their longitudinal study with five coaches in an English Premier League soccer academy. Their systematic analysis of video footage using the coach analysis and intervention system (CAIS, Cushion et al., 2012) was not only well-received by the coaches, but also lead to positive changes in coaching practices (e.g., use of questioning, decrease in concurrent instructing). In their intervention study, Cecchini et al. (2014) also used video analysis as part of a combination of intervention strategies (e.g., workshops, pre-designed sessions, and video analysis) to successfully train the coaches on the principles and application of TARGET structures. The utilisation of video analysis aligns well with the day-to-day experiences of many coaches, and hence is likely to be an appealing approach. Regardless of the specific training model adopted, it appears that prolonged engagement, reviewing coaching in action, and ongoing support are important to embed the integration of autonomy-supportive behaviours into a coaching environment.

21.3.5. Reflective Practice

Reflective practice is an examination of self which transforms experiences into learning (Knowles et al., 2014). It can be defined temporally as reflection-in-action (reflecting during live coaching episodes), reflection-for-action (the critical consideration of prior learning and future targets to effectively plan for action), reflection-on-action (reflections that occur after a time the situation can be affected), and retrospective reflection-on-action (reflections on a specific period of multiple incidents such as a sporting season; see Cropley et al., 2018). As highlighted in the previous section on incongruence, when reflecting on the impact they have, coaches need to be aware that the climate they intend to foster may not transfer to the reality of the climate once they are in it (i.e., “the map is not the territory”; Andersen, 2006). Therefore, given the dynamic nature of psychological climates, coaches should be active (and reactive, see Smith & Smoll, 2012) to the evolving environment, and willing to shape the climate that they have agency to change (see Cropley et al., 2018). To support a coach’s readiness to adapt the psychological climate during training or competition, coaches can consider developing their reflective practice capabilities. For example, although challenging (Cropley et al., 2016), reflection-in-action is a valuable mechanism for a coach to be able to utilise and is integral to the contextualisation and application of knowledge in action, which may help to bridge the theory to practice gap. A mechanism to support reflection-in-action that has received recent attention is the Think Aloud protocol (for a more extensive overview, see Whitehead et al., 2016). Think Aloud is a method that promotes reflection whilst coaches are within live coaching sessions and will be discussed, briefly, later in the chapter. Reflection-on or -for-action can be supported through a range of approaches that occur outside of the performance environment, and methods may include journals, mind-maps, visual cues, recordings, critical friends, or use of online blogs (Knowles et al., 2014). According to Andersen et al. (2004), if a coach has a positive attitude towards engaging in reflective practice (e.g., open-mindedness; whole-heartedness; commitment to engage in a formal process of experiential learning), they will in turn develop as a reflective practitioner. Further, this ability to utilise reflection as a mode of practice will undoubtedly assist the coach in fostering the desired psychological climates for their athletes (Bowley et al., 2018).