The Antecedents of Coaches’ Interpersonal Behaviors: The Role of the Coaching Context, Coaches’ Psychological Needs, and Coaches’ Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored how the coaching context influences coaches' psychological needs, motivation, and reported interpersonal behaviors, using self-determination theory. In Study 1, 56 coaches identified how contextual factors influence their coaching experience. Coaches identified administration, athlete motivation, colleagues, parents, professional development, time, and work-life as having the largest impact on them. In Study 2, 424 coaches reported on their perceptions of the factors identified in Study 1 and their psychological needs, motivation, and interpersonal behaviors. Structural equation modeling analyses suggested perceptions of the coaching context supported or thwarted their psychological needs, which positively or negatively predicted their autonomous and controlled motivation. Coaches' autonomous motivation predicted their reported supportive interpersonal behaviors and controlled motivation predicted thwarting behaviors. Overall, the results provided additional support for understanding how the coaching context, coaches' psychological needs, and their motivation for coaching relate to their coaching behaviors.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".