Autonomy support from parents and coaches: Synergistic or compensatory effects on sport-related outcomes of adolescent-athletes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This study examined how autonomy support from parents and autonomy support from coaches are associated with sport-related outcomes of adolescent-athletes. Two alternative hypotheses were proposed: (a) a synergistic socialization interaction in which high levels of autonomy support provided by parents and coaches are both needed to obtain the most positive sport-related outcomes, (b) a compensatory-protective interaction in which coaching autonomy support is more important for sport-related outcomes in athletes perceiving lower levels of parental autonomy support. Design Two studies using prospective designs. Method Study 1 was conducted with adolescent soccer players ( N = 46) and Study 2 was conducted with gymnasts ( N = 85). In both studies, athletes reported the extent to which they perceived their parents and coaches provided autonomy support. Athletes also completed scales assessing their motivation toward sport (Studies 1 and 2), situational motivation prior to and following a competition (Study 2), and need satisfaction (Study 1). Sport achievement and performance were also assessed in the form of goal attainment (Study 1), self-reported achievement following the competition (Study 2), and flow states (Study 2). Hierarchical moderated regressions were conducted in order to test our competing hypotheses. Results Analyses provided support for the compensatory-protective interaction hypothesis. Coaching autonomy support was more strongly related to sport motivation, need satisfaction, sport achievement, and flow in athletes who perceived lower level of parental autonomy support. Conclusions This research program provided support for the study of the interactive effect of perceived autonomy support from distinct socialization agents (i.e., parents and coaches) and its impact on adolescent-athletes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".