The coach–athlete relationship: a motivational model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present a motivational model of the coach–athlete relationship that describes how coaches may influence athletes' motivation. In line with cognitive evaluation theory (Deci and Ryan, 1980 Deci EL Ryan RM 1980 The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 13 (edited by L. Berkowitz) pp. 39–80 New York: Academic Press [Google Scholar], 1985 Deci EL Ryan RM 1985 Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior New York: Plenum Press [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) and the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Vallerand, 1997 Vallerand RJ 1997 Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 29 271 360 [Google Scholar], 2000 Vallerand RJ 2000 Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory: a view from the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation Psychological Inquiry 11 312 318 [Google Scholar]), a motivational sequence is proposed where coaches' personal orientation towards coaching, the context within which they operate, and their perceptions of their athletes' behaviour and motivation influence coaches' behaviours. Also, coaches' behaviours in the form of autonomy-supportive behaviours, provision of structure and involvement have a beneficial impact on athletes' needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, which, in turn, nurture athletes' intrinsic motivation and self-determined types of extrinsic motivation. Here, we first review coaches' autonomy-supportive behaviours. We then describe the psychological processes through which coaching behaviours have a positive influence on athletes' intrinsic and self-determined extrinsic motivation. Finally, we identify social and personality processes that determine coaching behaviours.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".