The Sport Psychologist, 2009, 23, 203-232
© 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc.
The Coach-Athlete Relationship:
A Tripartite Efficacy Perspective
Ben Jackson
University of Western Australia
Peter Knapp
University of Leeds
Mark R. Beauchamp
University of British Columbia
The purpose of the current study was to identify putative antecedents and consequences associated with self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and relation-inferred self-efficacy, within the context of elite coach-athlete dyads. Semistructured interviews were
conducted with each member of six international-level coach-athlete partnerships,
and data were analyzed using inductive and deductive content analytic techniques.
Results for both athletes and coaches demonstrated that the above ‘tripartite efficacy
beliefs’ (cf. Lent & Lopez, 2002) were identified as originating from perceptions
regarding oneself, inferences regarding the ‘other’ dyad member (e.g., the athlete’s
coach), as well as the dyad as a whole. Results also revealed that the tripartite efficacy
constructs were interrelated, and independently associated with a number of positive
task-related and relationship-oriented consequences. Findings are considered in relation to developing and sustaining effective coach-athlete relationships at the elite
level.
Self-efficacy corresponds to a person’s confidence in his or her own capabilities to perform specific tasks (Bandura, 1997), and in the context of sport this
construct has been studied extensively across athlete and coach populations.
Among athletes, self-efficacy has been found to be associated with improved athletic performance (Moritz, Feltz, Fahrbach, & Mack, 2000), enhanced effort and
persistence (e.g., George, 1994), positive affective responses (Haney & Long,
1995; Treasure, Monson, & Lox, 1996), as well as the setting of more challenging
personal goals (Kane, Marks, Zaccaro, & Blair, 1996). Among coaches, self-efficacy (also referred to as coaching-efficacy) has also been found to be associated
with the use of more positive instructional/coaching behaviors (Feltz, Chase,
Moritz, & Sullivan, 1999; Sullivan & Kent, 2003), as well as improved athlete
Jackson is with the School of Sport Science, and Health, University of Western Australia, Crawley,
WA, 6009, Australia. Knapp is with the School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.
Beauchamp is with the School of Human Kinetics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
V6T 1Z4, Canada.
203
204 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
performance and greater athlete satisfaction (Feltz et al., 1999; Myers, VargasTonsing, & Feltz, 2005).
Notwithstanding this body of knowledge, it is noteworthy that coaches and
athletes are highly interdependent and in addition to developing self-efficacy
beliefs, are also likely to develop a set of relational efficacy cognitions that correspond to the other member of the coach-athlete partnership. Lent and Lopez
(2002) recently theorized that two specific forms of relational efficacy manifest
themselves in close relationships, such as coach-athlete partnerships, each of
which are conceptually distinct from, but also related to, self-efficacy beliefs. The
first type of relational efficacy, other-efficacy, involves “an individual’s beliefs
about his or her significant other’s ability to perform particular behaviors” (Lent
& Lopez, 2002, p.264). The second form of relational efficacy, relation-inferred
self-efficacy (or RISE) constitutes a metaperception (cf. Kenny & DePaulo, 1993)
and is concerned with the question, “How confident is my significant other in my
abilities?” Specifically, Lent and Lopez defined RISE as “person B’s appraisal of
how his or her capabilities are viewed by person A” (Lent & Lopez, 2002, p.268).
Lent and Lopez theorized that other-efficacy and RISE represent important relationship-specific antecedents of self-efficacy that complement information provided by mastery enactments, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and emotional states (cf. Bandura, 1997). In addition, Lent and Lopez
theorized that while other-efficacy and RISE represent important antecedents of
self-efficacy in close relationships, both relational constructs also play substantive
roles in their own right in sustaining dyadic functioning.
Recent investigations in both social psychology and sport psychology have
provided preliminary support for the utility of Lent and Lopez’s (2002) conceptual model. For example, in research involving romantic relationships, Lopez and
Lent (1991) found that self-efficacy and other-efficacy beliefs associated with
relationship management skills were independently able to explain unique variance in perceptions of relationship satisfaction and adjustment. In addition, RISE
beliefs were able to explain additional variance in perceptions of relationship
adjustment, and were also positively related to relationship persistence expectations. From the sporting domain, recent research by Jackson, Beauchamp, and
Knapp (2007) with youth tennis pairs, examined the relationships between the
tripartite efficacy constructs and athlete commitment and satisfaction. Jackson et
al. found that other-efficacy and RISE beliefs were positively related to self-efficacy, and when athletes were highly confident in their own tennis-playing capabilities (self-efficacy) they were more likely to be committed to their relationships, and when they were confident in their partner’s respective capabilities
(other-efficacy) they were more likely to be satisfied with their relationships.
Interestingly, through the use of actor-partner interdependence modeling, Jackson
et al. also found that when athletes had elevated levels of self-efficacy then their
partners were also more likely to be committed to the relationship as well (this is
termed a “partner” effect; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). In another study, involving the dyad of “horse-and-rider” within equestrian eventing, Beauchamp and
Whinton (2005) found that elevated levels of other-efficacy (i.e., riders’ confidence in their horses’ dressage capabilities) were able to augment the effects of
self-efficacy (i.e., riders’ confidence in their own performance-related capabilities) with each efficacy construct able to explain unique variance in riding perfor-
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 205
mance. Collectively, these studies suggest that while key indices of relationship
health (e.g., satisfaction, adjustment, persistence, commitment) are associated
with self-efficacy beliefs, it is also important that people demonstrate confidence
in their partners’ capabilities (other-efficacy) and also believe that their partners
are confident in them (RISE).
In addition to investigating some of the potential consequences associated
with the tripartite efficacy constructs, recent research has also begun to examine
some of the antecedents of other-efficacy, RISE, and self-efficacy within sporting
partnerships. Using interview-based methods with international-level athlete
dyads, Jackson, Knapp and Beauchamp (2008) found that each of the tripartite
constructs were reported by athletes to be supported by a range of cognitions and
experiences that included perceptions regarding oneself, one’s partner, the dyad/
relationship, as well as external factors. Specifically, in line with theorizing by
Bandura (1997) self-efficacy was found to be supported by antecedents that
included past individual mastery achievements, physiological and emotional
states, and verbal persuasion. In line with theorizing by Lent and Lopez (2002),
self-efficacy was also reported by athletes to derive from relationship-specific
cognitions (i.e., other-efficacy and RISE), as well as dyadic mastery achievements. In their study, other-efficacy was aligned with rather different antecedents
that included comparisons with previous athletic partners, comments from third
parties (regarding the partner), the partner’s past performances, as well as perceptions of the partners’ motivation, psychological state (e.g., being relaxed), and
physiological factors (e.g., strength). Finally, RISE beliefs were reported to derive
from a partner’s verbal and nonverbal behavior, as well as one’s own self-efficacy
beliefs, insofar as athletes thought their partners would be confident in them if
they were confident in themselves.
In spite of this emerging body of evidence within the sport psychology literature, researchers have yet to examine the tripartite model of efficacy beliefs within
the context of coach-athlete relationships. Coach-athlete dyads are conceptually
quite different from athlete dyads. In athlete dyads members often share the same
position and status; in which case Kenny et al. (2006) would refer to this as an
example of an indistinguishable partnership. Coach-athlete partnerships, on the
other hand, represent distinguishable dyads (Kenny et al., 2006), whereby members fulfill different roles and are subject to differential power (i.e., superordinatesubordinate) relations. Recent advances in the study of coach-athlete interactions
in sport (see Jowett, 2007 for a review) have provided insightful information
regarding the significance of the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral ties that
develop between dyad members. Nonetheless, little is currently known regarding
the specific contribution of coaches’ and athletes’ relational efficacy beliefs in
promoting these desirable ties, as well as how the tripartite perceptions are formed
in these contexts. Given the importance of understanding the factors that may
promote successful (i.e., high-performing) and effective (i.e., stable and satisfying) coach-athlete relationships (see Jowett & Poczwardowski, 2007), the overall
purpose of the current study was to examine the primary (i.e., most prominent)
antecedents and consequences associated with other-efficacy, RISE, and self-efficacy within coach-athlete dyads. International-level dyads were selected, primarily because these types of dyads (vis à vis their level of performance) invest a
considerable amount of time, effort, and personal resources in their relationships
206 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
and, as such, relational efficacy beliefs are likely to be salient. This study drew
from a social constructionist perspective (Schwandt, 2000) to understand in
coaches’ and athletes’ own words the antecedents and consequences of self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE in such settings. Social constructionism is concerned with uncovering the subjective and unique perceptions that are manifested
within social contexts (Gergen & Gergen, 2003), and acknowledges that individuals’ cognitions, and the meanings they attach to them, are shaped via their interactions with others (Cresswell, 2003).
Method
Participants
Six international-level athletes (Mean age = 22.5, SD = 3.62) and their coaches
(Mean age = 42.17, SD = 6.49) from the sports of tennis, triathlon, track and field
(two dyads), figure skating, and bob skeleton were recruited to take part in the
study. Dyads comprised one all-male, one female coach-male athlete, and four
male coach-female athlete partnerships. Coaches reported an average of 13.33
years coaching experience (SD = 5.13), and athletes had 10.5 years experience in
their respective sports (SD = 5.32). The average relationship length was 3.45 years
(SD = 3.04, range 1.3–9.3), and athletes reported spending on average 10.33 hr
(SD = 4.96) training each week with their respective coaches. To protect participant anonymity, all participants were assigned a letter according to their role (A
for athletes, C for coaches) and a number designating their dyad (1–6, e.g., A3,
C5).
Procedure
Upon receiving approval from the human subjects ethics board at the lead author’s
institution, information letters were posted to national governing organizations
(NGOs) of individual sports in the United Kingdom. Elite athletes and their
coaches were subsequently contacted by respective NGOs, and those that wished
to take part registered their interest with the lead author. Information letters were
sent to coaches and athletes informing them of the nature of the study, that their
involvement was entirely voluntary, and that their anonymity would be protected.
Prospective interviewees were also informed that they could choose not to answer
any question and/or to withdraw from the project at any time without suffering
any negative repercussions.
Interviews with coaches and athletes were conducted separately and consecutively, at a time and place of their choosing. Before each interview, coaches and
athletes were (1) reminded of the assurances presented in the information sheet,
(2) asked to give their permission for the conversation to be audio recorded, and
(3) given the opportunity to provide an appropriate contact address for future correspondence. Finally, before commencing interviews, individuals were requested
to provide their informed consent to take part in the research. At the completion
of interviews, participants were invited to ask any questions related to the nature
of the study, and were thanked for their time.
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 207
Interview Guide
A semistructured interview guide (available from the first author upon request)
was developed and initially piloted with members of two university-level coachathlete dyads, to assess the breadth and depth of questions, as well as to identify
any problematic wording or phrasing. Before conducting each interview, all participants were informed that the conversation would focus upon different types of
confidence (the term confidence was used rather efficacy to facilitate participant
comprehension) held by themselves and the other dyad member (i.e., coach or
athlete), hereafter referred to as “the other.” Participants were first asked to provide information regarding the number of years experience in their respective
sports, the amount of time spent together each week, as well as the origin and
length of the relationship. Given the task-specific nature of each of the tripartite
efficacy beliefs (cf. Bandura, 1997; Lent & Lopez, 2002), athletes and coaches
were then asked to describe, and write down, the main skills required of both
themselves and “the other” (i.e., “Could you describe the main skills required of
you as a coach [athlete] in your sport?”, “Could you describe the main skills
required of your athlete [coach] in your sport?”). For both coaches and athletes,
emergent skills included not only technical requirements (e.g., effective instruction, display correct technique), but also psychological (e.g., motivate the athlete,
remain calm) and relationship-specific considerations (e.g., clear communication,
providing social support, listening to advice). Once participants had outlined the
requisite skills for themselves/”the other,” the first question for each efficacy construct subsequently asked participants to describe their confidence in relation to
the skills listed. For example, with respect to self-efficacy, coaches and athletes
were first asked “Could you describe your confidence in your own ability to carry
out those skills listed for yourself?” Similarly, in the section on other-efficacy
beliefs, athletes were first asked, “Could you describe your confidence in your
coach’s capabilities with respect to those skills listed for your coach?”, and
coaches were asked “Could you describe your confidence in your athlete’s capabilities with respect to those skills listed for your athlete?” In relation to RISE
perceptions, athletes were asked, “Could you describe how confident you think
your coach is in your capabilities, with respect to those skills listed for yourself?”,
and coaches were asked “Could you describe how confident you think your athlete is in your capabilities, with respect to those skills listed for yourself?” For
self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE, this was followed by a second question
designed to tap into the antecedents of that belief (e.g., “Can you explain what
gives you this confidence?”) and finally, a third question which explored the
implications of each perception (e.g., “Can you explain how your confidence in
your coach’s capabilities affects you and your relationship?”). Over the course of
the interview, clarification and elaboration probes were used to maximize investigator understanding (Whittemore, Chase, & Mandle, 2001). All interviews were
conducted by the first author and lasted for an average of 40 min for athletes and
48 min for coaches.
208 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
Data Analysis
Interview recordings were transcribed in full and then data were initially content
analyzed by the first author. Lent and Lopez (2002) proposed, within their conceptual model, a number of antecedents and consequences associated with self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE (see p. 262 for a summary table). Accordingly,
meaning units (Tesch, 1990) that were consistent with this theoretical model, and
reflected these antecedents and consequences, were initially deductively coded
into themes (i.e., clusters of conceptually congruent meaning units). However, in
instances where meaning units did not correspond directly with Lent and Lopez’s
a priori conceptualization, themes were created via an inductive process. For both
the deductive and inductive approaches, conceptually similar meaning units were
first assigned to themes and thereafter to subsequent higher-order categories that
reflected either antecedents or consequences of each tripartite construct (See
Tables 1 through 6 later in this article). During analysis, all data were organized
and stored using the QSR NVIVO software program (see Bazeley, 2007). Figure
1 illustrates those themes that were derived deductively using Lent and Lopez’s
original model, as well as those themes that were inductively formed. Themes
were only created in instances where more than one athlete or coach highlighted
a particular phenomenon. This method of inclusion was selected as the purpose of
the current study was to provide a general representation of the most prominent
antecedents and consequences of efficacy beliefs in dyadic contexts.
Trustworthiness Procedures
A number of prominent qualitative researchers (e.g., Denzin & Lincoln, 2000;
Marshall & Rossman, 1999) have highlighted the importance of ensuring ‘trustworthiness’ within content analysis, and have recommended the use of a series of
safeguards to ensure that the final results accurately reflect participants’ responses.
In this study, athletes and coaches were first sent copies of their individual interview transcripts, and were asked to comment on the accuracy of their accounts.
Specifically, they were provided the opportunity to add to and, where appropriate,
edit information provided in the transcripts. Second, following data analysis, participants were sent a summary of the study findings and were asked to comment
on the degree to which the analyses were concordant with their interpretations. In
some instances, participants reported that certain themes did not apply to them
(but may have done for others). Importantly, however, all respondents felt able to
locate their experiences in the summarized findings.
In addition, the second and third authors also conducted a peer review of
meaning units, themes, and categories, to ascertain the degree to which all authors
shared a ‘mutual construction’ (Morrow, 2005) of the data provided by athletes
and coaches. Specifically, the two coauthors were provided with descriptions of
the preliminary themes and categories identified by the first author, and were subsequently invited to code all meaning units from four interviews (two with athletes and two with coaches) with respect to these themes. Where appropriate, the
coauthors were also asked to highlight instances whereby the theme descriptors
needed to be revised, or where themes needed to be further subdivided or even
“merged” with other themes. Upon completion of this initial review process, a
209
Figure 1 — Antecedent and consequent categories and themes for athlete and coach self-efficacy. Note. A & C = Theme emerged for athletes and
coaches. A = Theme emerged for athletes only. C = Theme emerged for coaches only. † Deductively formed themes. * Inductively formed themes.
210 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
consensus rate of 86% was found across the three researchers. In those instances
of interrater disagreement, consensus was ultimately achieved through debate
among the three coders regarding (1) lower- and higher-order ‘theme conceptualization’, and (2) intertheme distinctiveness and similarity. In light of this process,
some meaning units were reassigned (from the first author’s original coding), and
some theme names/descriptions were revised to ensure all clusters of meaning
units were conceptually distinct. At the end of this discussion process, all meaning
units were appropriately assigned to conceptually distinct lower-order themes,
and consensus had been reached on the allocation of all themes into higher-order
categories.
Results
Interviews yielded 136 pages of 12-point, single-spaced text, which resulted in a
total of 178, 253, and 165 meaning units for self-efficacy, other-efficacy and RISE,
respectively. For each construct, themes that were highlighted by both athletes
and coaches are presented first, followed by themes that were unique to either
coaches or athletes. All themes and categories are displayed in Tables 1 through 6
later in this article, including examples and frequency counts of meaning units.
Frequency counts are not intended to denote the particular importance of a given
theme, rather they are provided to enable insight into the relative frequency with
which athletes and coaches described specific themes and categories (Berg, 2007).
The antecedent and consequent themes, as identified by coaches and athletes, corresponding to each of the tripartite efficacy beliefs are also presented Figures 1–3
Antecedents
Themes that were described as antecedents of efficacy beliefs were categorized as
(1) perceptions regarding oneself (e.g., one’s own physiological and emotional
factors), (2) perceptions regarding “the other” (e.g., the coach’s experience), or (3)
perceptions regarding the dyad (e.g., experience as a dyad).
Self-Efficacy
For self-efficacy, five themes emerged under perceptions regarding oneself (see
Table 1). Two of these were highlighted by both athletes and coaches, two were
unique to athletes, and one theme was identified solely by coaches. In addition,
five themes emerged that related to perceptions regarding “the other.” Two of
these themes were common to athletes and coaches, two applied only to athletes,
and a single theme was unique to coaches.
Perceptions Regarding Oneself. First, athletes and coaches discussed past
mastery achievements (associated with enhanced self-efficacy) as well as an
absence of mastery experiences (associated with lowered self-efficacy), which
were collectively termed past performances. For example, athlete A5 commented,
“when you get [good] results that brings you confidence”. In relation to past negative performances however, A1 explained that, “if you’re going from week to
211
Figure 2 — Antecedent and consequent categories and themes for athlete and coach other-efficacy. Note. A & C = Theme emerged for athletes and
coaches. A = Theme emerged for athletes only. C = Theme emerged for coaches only. † Deductively formed themes. * Inductively formed themes.
212
Figure 3 — Antecedent and consequent categories and themes for athlete and coach RISE Note. A & C = Theme emerged for athletes and coaches.
A = Theme emerged for athletes only. C = Theme emerged for coaches only. † Deductively formed themes. * Inductively formed themes.
213
Perceptions regarding
oneself
Higher-Order
Category
Physiological & emotional
factors
(Athletes = 9)
Precompetition preparation
(Athletes = 11)
Education & training
(Coaches = 5)
Experience
(Athletes = 4)
(Coaches = 17)
Past performances
(Athletes = 11)
(Coaches = 5)
Lower-Order Theme
Self-Efficacy Antecedents
(continued)
“my confidence comes from training, you’ve practiced it so you know you can do it”
(A6)
“ I am now very confident in my ability as a coach, I know that I’ve gone to quite a lot
of seminars, I’ve learnt quite a lot” (C4)
“ I’d won every qualifying competition...I just thought ‘you know, I can do this’” (athlete, mastery performance, A4), “ I’ve had races where I’ve been training really
well and I’ve had a bad race, and like it knocks your confidence” (athlete, poor
performance, A3)
“a lot of the confidence I have is from having success,” (coach, mastery performance,
C2), “ I don’t have confidence in that I can really change someone into a top class
performer at this point in time, because I’ve not done that yet” (coach lack of mastery, C4)
“a main part of confidence comes with your racing experience in the big championships” (athlete, A6)
“given 15 years of coaching you feel fairly confident” (coach, experience as coach,
C3) “the reason I’ve got most confidence is looking at the amount of errors I made
during my playing career, I actually look at the ability to take negatives and make
positives.” (coach, experience as athlete, C1)
“I think for me [my confidence] is mainly about my fitness, if I know that I’m fit then
I can run all day” (A1)
Exemplar Meaning Unit
Table 1 Antecedent Categories, Themes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Self-Efficacy
214
“If I wasn’t confident in my coach obviously I wouldn’t be confident in my own ability” (A6)
“working with an athlete of that ability given what she’s achieved, that’s a confidence
booster as well” (C2)
“ I think if a coach didn’t believe in you that affects your confidence quite hugely you
know” (A5)
“that gives me [self-]confidence, her confidence in me” (C3)
“my confidence has increased by fifty percent, going from [my former coach] to my
current coach because my current coach lets me have my own input into training”
(A6)
“ if a drill’s not going so well then he will try and build me up and tell me that I can do
it that builds your confidence and helps you” (A1)
“ to go to the world championships...where [my athlete’s] performing at a very high
level, that gives me confidence” (C3)
Other-efficacy
(Athletes = 9)
(Coaches = 7)
Verbal persuasion
(Athletes = 13)
Athlete’s past performances
(Coaches = 5)
Compatible coaching style
(Athletes = 3)
RISE
(Athletes = 23)
(Coaches = 10)
Exemplar Meaning Unit
Lower-Order Theme
Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 9 athlete meaning units were classified as
‘Physiological and emotional factors’.
Higher-Order
Category
Perceptions regarding
‘the other’
Self-Efficacy Antecedents
Table 1 (continued)
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 215
week losing first round then . . . your confidence takes a bit of a knock.” Second,
athletes and coaches reported that their experience underpinned their self-efficacy
perceptions. For athletes, this reflected their level of experience in their sport,
however for coaches this incorporated their experience both as a coach and as an
athlete (see Table 1).
Athletes, but not coaches, also highlighted a number of physiological and
emotional factors as antecedents of self-efficacy, including their level of fitness,
speed, strength, injury status, as well as pain-related factors. For instance, athlete
A6 identified the role of pain in relation to her self-efficacy, stating, “if my coach
said ‘I want you to do them in 45 seconds,’ which is race pace . . . I’d be like ‘I’m
going to die,’ and it’s the thought of the pain I think that kills your confidence.” In
addition, athletes reported that their precompetition preparation contributed to
self-efficacy, and this included the time devoted to practice, as well as the rehearsal
of specific skills before competition. Athlete A3 noted the impact of successful
rehearsal, commenting, “my coach has given me sessions, I’ve done them and
then it’s stored away . . . you can take confidence from that”, while A6 illustrated
the effect of insufficient preparation, “if you haven’t done the work then you’re
not going to be confident.” Finally, coaches reported that self-efficacy beliefs
stemmed from their education and training, in particular, attending academic and
vocational courses. For example, coach C2 highlighted “formal coach background
and coaching courses and degrees, stuff like that, all the education side of things”
as a contributor to his confidence in his own ability.
Perceptions Regarding ‘The Other’. Coaches and athletes both reported that
favorable self-efficacy perceptions developed from positive other-efficacy and
RISE beliefs (see also the intrapersonal consequences for other-efficacy and RISE,
Tables 5 and 6 later in this article). For example, in relation to other-efficacy,
coach C4 noted, “it’s given me the confidence [in my own ability] knowing that
he’s got the ability . . . I’ve coached him and now everyone can see that I can
coach.” Similarly, with respect to RISE perceptions, A1 said that, “to help get that
[self-]confidence I think you need your coach believing in you”. Meanwhile,
coach C3 felt, “I think her confidence in you gives you the confidence [in your
own ability] . . . and you just see it spiraling when that happens.”
The first group of meaning units cited solely by athletes reflected their
coaches’ compatible coaching style (see Table 1), where athletes felt at ease with
the coach, as well as being allowed input into decisions. This was evident in the
way athlete A1 described his coach, “He realizes what I’m like . . . I think that
gives me confidence knowing that I can just be myself around him and he’s not
going to judge me.” The second perception highlighted solely by athletes reflected
verbal persuasion from the coach. For instance, athlete A1 suggested, “if things
aren’t going well . . . he’ll say just the odd thing to get my confidence up and to
get me feeling confident.” Finally, analyses showed that athletes’ past performances were an antecedent of coaches’ self-efficacy perceptions. For example,
coach C6 illustrated how his athlete’s poor performances were associated with
decreased confidence in his own ability, “at the moment, when [my athlete] isn’t
doing as much as she could there are things that make you think ‘well, should I be
doing better’, so . . . that makes you self-critical.”
216 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
Other-Efficacy
Participants reported (see Table 2) seven perceptions regarding ‘the other’ in relation to other-efficacy, of which four were common to athletes and coaches, two
were unique to athletes, and one was specific to coaches. For athletes, two further
perceptions regarding the dyad were evident.
Perceptions Regarding ‘The Other’. Athletes and coaches both noted that other-
efficacy beliefs emerged out of comparisons with past “others.” For example,
athlete A6 felt, “I’ve never seen [current coach] show me how to run properly, but
[former coach] would . . . actually demonstrate how it would be done, so I don’t
know about [current coach’s] ability to improve my technique, as much as I did
with [former coach].” In addition, athletes and coaches also reported that “the
other’s” past achievements contributed to their other-efficacy beliefs. That is,
prior successes for “the other” were associated with enhanced other-efficacy perceptions (see Table 2). The penultimate theme reported by both dyad members
was termed third party comments. This contained meaning units that reflected the
effects of receiving feedback from individuals outside the dyad regarding “the
other’s” ability. Specifically, individuals reported enhanced confidence in “the
other’s” ability when they received positive feedback from outside the dyad about
that person (see Table 2). Finally, athletes and coaches identified that they were
confident in ‘the other’ when s/he displayed a high level of effort and determination, as well as a desire to succeed and improve; this theme was termed motivation. For example, athlete A5 suggested that her other-efficacy was due, in part, to
the perception that her coach “works really hard and puts a lot of energy and effort
into everything.” In addition, coach C4 recalled one particular practice session in
relation to her favorable other-efficacy beliefs by stating “there was no question of
whether he would or wouldn’t do it, and that session really was the one where I
saw the determination.”
Unique to athletes, compatible coaching style emerged as an antecedent of
other-efficacy, whereby athletes reported feeling at ease with their coaches, being
able to communicate effectively, and contributing to decision-making. For
instance, athlete A2 highlighted that her favorable other-efficacy beliefs resulted
partly from her ability to communicate with her coach, saying, “You can always
talk to him, he doesn’t care what you say.” Conversely, athlete A6 noted how an
inability to communicate had negatively affected a former relationship, and her
other-efficacy, “If . . . you can’t talk to somebody then you’re going to not have
much confidence in their ability as a coach.” Aside from communication issues,
athlete A3 outlined that her positive other-efficacy resulted from “his approach
toward coaching,” adding, “He’s really considerate, he understands and . . . he
knows I run, but I have a life too.” In addition, athletes reported favorable otherefficacy when coaches had greater coaching and competing experience. For example, athlete A5 described the effect of her coach’s competing experience in her
sport, “he’s obviously been . . . a top athlete so that gave me confidence really that
he’s been there.” The single theme in this category that was unique to coaches
illustrated that favorable other-efficacy beliefs stemmed from coaches’ perceptions of their athletes’ psychological state. Specifically, coach C4’s confidence in
her athlete was reported to be due to her perception that “he’s very quick to learn,”
and C6 added, “she’s always switched on and focused, which is a good thing.”
217
Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 21 athlete meaning units were classified as
‘Compatible coaching style’.
Perceptions regarding
the dyad
Exemplar Meaning Unit
“I would say that I set everybody against my first coach because he was the best
coach ever” (A6)
“he can remember things from years ago that I tell him, whereas some can’t remember from a day or even five minutes ago” (C4)
‘The other’s’ past achievements “I have every confidence in my coach because of what she’s produced, a good coach
(Athletes = 9)
does produce results, a bad coach has pupils, but not that many results” (A4)
(Coaches = 22)
“the first couple of times I saw her run, I thought ‘oh my goodness, this is quite a
special, special athlete’, so there’s a confidence in her ability” (C3)
Third party comments
“really good athletes that I know of are like ‘yeah I used to train with [that coach],
(Athletes = 3)
he’s really good’” (A2)
(Coaches = 5)
“other people that know far more than I ever will, certainly believe that she has got that
ability, so you know those things have certainly backed up what I thought” (C2)
Motivation
“I’m sure it’s really hard to design sessions but I just get confidence from the fact
(Athletes = 9)
that he’s willing to do those things for me” (A5)
(Coaches = 23)
“she sets her sights high and the focus is there and she’s totally driven by that, which
is great, and reassuring” (C2)
Compatible coaching style
“I didn’t have confidence in my previous coach, it was a bit of a personality clash he
(Athletes = 21)
liked to be too powerful” (A6)
Experience
“Although a title doesn’t always make you confident in someone, the experience does”
(Athletes = 13)
(experience in coaching, A6) “he used to do the sports and the weight lifting so I’m
sure he knows what he’s talking about” (coach’s experience competing, A2)
Psychological state
“he’s very clever, he’s very sharp” (C4)
(Coaches = 4)
Mastery achievements as a dyad “it took a couple of track races together before I thought ‘yeah, this is working’. Things
(Athletes = 6)
were coming off and so as I’ve improved I’ve never doubted him since then” (A3)
Contact time (Athletes = 3)
“he hadn’t seen me, the breakdown of contact time decreased the confidence in him” (A6)
Other-Efficacy Antecedents
Higher-Order Category
Lower-Order Theme
Perceptions regarding
Comparisons with past ‘others’
‘the other’
(Athletes = 12)
(Coaches = 11)
Table 2 Antecedent Categories, Themes, and Meaning Units for Other-Efficacy
218 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
Perceptions Regarding the Dyad. Athletes revealed that mastery achievements
as a dyad contributed to their other-efficacy beliefs. This was encapsulated by
athlete A4, who commented, “I was so confident in [my last coach] . . . because he
took me to international level . . . I was just so confident in him as a coach, because
I’d had success with him.” In addition, athletes noted that the degree of face-toface contact time as a dyad underpinned their other-efficacy perceptions. For
example, athlete A6 commented that, “in the end [former coach] would only
coach me one day a week . . . so I think not seeing him as much decreased my
confidence in him.”
RISE
RISE antecedents emerged across all three categories, namely in relation to oneself, “the other,” and the dyad (see Table 3). A single theme regarding oneself was
common to athletes and coaches, while two themes were unique to athletes. Four
themes regarding ‘the other’ emerged that included one for athletes and coaches,
one solely for athletes, and two that were unique to coaches. Finally, two perceptions regarding the dyad were identified, one of which was highlighted by athletes
and coaches, and another that was reported solely by coaches.
Perceptions Regarding Oneself. For athletes and coaches, RISE estimations
developed most frequently from their own self-efficacy beliefs (this relationship is
also highlighted as an interpersonal consequence of self-efficacy for athletes and
coaches, Table 4). For instance, athlete A6 highlighted this assumption in relation
to her present coach, “I think that I’m bad, so I think that he thinks that I’m not too
good.” Athletes also reported that their past performances provided a basis to
enhance RISE beliefs, whereas an absence of performance success contributed to
weakened RISE appraisals (see Table 3). In addition, athletes also believed that
their personal motivation affected their coaches’ confidence in their ability. In this
theme, when athlete A4 was asked to explain the origins of his positive RISE
appraisals, he noted, “[my coach] knows the kind of strong will that I have, she
knows the kind of personality that I have, she knows that I don’t give up.”
Perceptions Regarding ‘the Other’. Athletes and coaches both described the
impact of “the other’s” verbal behavior, referring to the content of feedback, as
well as the way in which messages were delivered (e.g., tone of voice, raising
voice). With respect to the content of ‘the other’s’ feedback, athlete A6 stated that
her previous coach “had confidence in me because he always gave really positive
feedback”. Similarly, coach C1 recalled that “the times where he says no to me in
training is next to none, so that shows me that he has got confidence in what I do
with him.” The second perception regarding ‘the other’ revealed that athletes estimated their coaches’ confidence in their ability via the goals set by the coach. For
instance, A6 described, “at the start [my coach] and I set goals that I would get
down to 56 seconds this summer, which is pretty quick, whereas now he’s not setting goals . . . I think that knocks my belief in his confidence in me.” Two further
themes emerged solely for coaches. First, in addition to verbal inferences, coaches
also estimated RISE via athletes’ nonverbal behavior (i.e., body language, see
Table 3). Second, coaches perceived that their athletes’ affective states contributed
to coach RISE appraisals. That is, where coaches perceived their athletes were
219
Exemplar Meaning Unit
“I thought I was good, so I think he thought I was good” (A6)
“given that I’ve got confidence in what I’m doing, she’s got confidence in me and that’s
important” (C3)
“I’m not sure whether he’s that confident in my ability as much as my former coach was,
because he saw me achieve quite a few things whereas [my current coach] hasn’t
seen me achieve anything” (A6)
“knowing how hard I work, day in, day out...she can feel confident in what I’m doing”
(A4)
“if someone’s telling you bad things all the time...then you’re going to think ‘well,
they’re not that confident in me’” (A6)
“if he says no to me, I take that as he’s not confident in what I’m doing” (C1)
“the long term plans and goals he has for me, I don’t think he’d have them [if he wasn’t
confident in me]” (A3)
“I can tell how confident she is in me from the way she acts around me” (C3)
“on the whole I think she’s happy with her training and her running, and with everything
that I’ve put in place so my feelings are that she is confident in me” (C3)
“I think by him getting to know me...it’s obviously raised his confidence in me” (A2)
“I think it’s probably developed since the start because I didn’t know her and she didn’t
know me” (C3)
Athlete’s achievements “when we started she actually had a very successful season so...I think her confidence in
during time as a dyad
me grew as she thought, ‘well, he’s doing something right’” (C3)
(Coaches = 7)
Goals set by coach
(Athletes = 8)
Nonverbal behavior
(Coaches = 5)
Athlete’s affective state
(Coaches = 5)
Experience
(Athletes = 4)
(Coaches = 3)
Motivation
(Athletes = 3)
Verbal behavior
(Athletes = 25)
(Coaches = 12)
Past performances
(Athletes = 5)
Lower-Order Theme
Self-efficacy
(Athletes = 3)
(Coaches = 8)
Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 5 athlete meaning units were classified as
‘Past performances’.
Perceptions regarding the
dyad
Perceptions regarding ‘the
other’
RISE Antecedents
Higher-Order Category
Perceptions regarding
oneself
Table 3 Antecedent Categories, Themes, and Meaning Units for RISE
220
Perception of athlete’s selfefficacy(Coaches = 3)
Relationship termination
(Coaches = 3)
Performance
(Athletes = 8)
Behavior during competition
& training
(Athletes = 4)
Motivation
(Athletes = 4)
Affective responses
(Athletes = 8)
Complacency
(Athletes = 4)
Instruction
(Coaches = 12)
RISE
(Athletes = 3)
(Coaches = 8)
“if I’ve got that confidence I’m not worrying about anything else other than being
ready to race” (A3)
“I wouldn’t say that I’m over confident because then you get complacent and then
you think ‘ok, I don’t have to work so hard’” (A4)
“by having confidence in what I do I can easily look at what he does and point him
in the right direction, and say ‘do this, do that’, you know” (C4)
“At the moment I’m not too confident, so then I think that [my coach] thinks that
I’m bad as well” (A2)
“with [my athlete] I feel that she’s confident in me because I definitely have the
[self-]confidence at the top level in triathlon” (C5)
“ if I’m not confident and I don’t know what I’m doing, then she picks up on it and
it has an impact on her, then she has [self-]doubts” (C3)
“ if you’re not sure about things I suppose some of that will come out and will be
reflected in terms of how long you work with your athlete” (C2)
“if you step on to a court knowing that you’re feeling confident then you can go
for a few more shots that you wouldn’t necessarily do if your confidence was
low” (A1)
“I think it [my self-confidence] makes me work a lot harder” (A2)
“if you’re not confident going into a race then you’re going to do bad” (A6)
Exemplar Meaning Unit
Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 8 athlete meaning units were classified as
‘Performance’.
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Self-Efficacy Consequences
Higher-Order
Lower-Order Theme
Category
Table 4 Outcome Categories, Themes, and Exemplar Meaning Units for Self-Efficacy
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 221
happy they inferred positive RISE beliefs. For example, coach C2’s positive RISE
beliefs were reported to stem from the fact “she [the athlete] seems very happy, so
you know, I think she’s confident in what I’m doing.”
Perceptions Regarding the Dyad. Athletes and coaches both reported that
greater experience as a dyad was related to favorable RISE estimations. For example, athlete A6 commented, “I’m not sure that [coach] has much confidence in me
. . . because we haven’t worked with each other for so long.” In the final theme,
athlete’s achievements during the time as a dyad, coaches estimated that athletes
were confident in their ability as a result of their successes during the relationship.
This was evident in one quote from coach C5, who thought, “after we as a team
have had a good race then their confidence in me would increase.”
Consequences
All consequence themes were assigned to one of two categories. First, where
meaning units related directly to a personal outcome (e.g., one’s own motivation,
performance, affective state) that did not refer to ‘the other’ or the dyad, themes
were categorized as ‘intrapersonal.’ However, where meaning units involved
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors directed toward ‘the other’ (e.g., responsiveness
to the coach) or the dyad (e.g., relationship persistence intentions, closeness),
these were termed ‘interpersonal’ consequences.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy beliefs were associated with six intrapersonal themes (five for athletes, one unique to coaches), and three interpersonal themes (one common to
athletes and coaches, and two unique to coaches), as shown in Table 4.
Intrapersonal. Athletes consistently described how self-efficacy beliefs were
positively related to their own performance levels and, conversely, low levels of
self-efficacy were associated with diminished performance. As one example, athlete A6 recalled, “I stood on the start line and I was like ‘I am . . . going to come
last in this race,’ and I did.” In the second theme, athletes identified a willingness
to attempt difficult and novel skills as a result of their self-efficacy beliefs, and this
theme was termed behavior during competition and training. For example, athlete
A1 commented that during his tennis matches, “I think that’s the whole thing with
confidence, you believe in yourself and you hit shots that you wouldn’t hit if your
confidence was low.” Third, self-efficacy was reported to be related to elevated
athlete motivation, in which athletes identified greater levels of effort and determination. For instance, athlete A1 said, “If I’m feeling confident, I’m wanting to
train.” Fourth, athlete self-efficacy was associated with general affective responses,
including elevated feelings of happiness and relaxation, as well as diminished
perceptions of anxiety. For example, athlete A3 suggested that “being confident .
. . relaxes you and you can focus on being relaxed.” Finally, athletes felt that complacency may result from over-estimating one’s ability. Athlete A4 recalled a specific period of “over-confidence”, saying, “throughout the preparation period for
that competition my coach was saying ‘you’ve got to train properly and be
focused’, and that was going in one ear and out the other.”
222 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
For coaches, in the theme instruction, meaning units illustrated that coaches
felt a high degree of confidence in their own ability enabled them to provide decisive instruction, diagnose technical faults, and devise strategy for competition.
For example, coach C4 highlighted that being self-efficacious enabled him “to
know just exactly what to say to [athlete] . . . and point him in the right direction”.
In relation to low self-efficacy however, coach C6 noted, “when you’re not so
sure, you maybe don’t have it clear in you mind where you should take their training, and you might, um and ah a bit on plans for racing.”
Interpersonal. Athletes and coaches both reported more positive RISE apprais-
als when they were highly self-efficacious (this relationship is also reflected in the
antecedents of RISE beliefs in Table 3). For instance, when athletes were highly
confident in their own abilities, this was associated with the assumption that their
coaches would also be confident in their (i.e., the athlete’s) abilities (see Table 4).
For coaches, elevated levels of self-efficacy were also associated with elevated
perceptions of their athlete’s self-efficacy beliefs. Specifically, coaches assumed
that athletes’ self-efficacy beliefs would reflect coaches’ own self-efficacy beliefs.
For instance, coach C6 noted how his confidence may transmit across to his athlete, “If I wasn’t [self-]confident . . . then that would affect the athlete psychologically, they’d be thinking, ‘this isn’t normally how my coach is,’ and then that
creates [self-] doubts, so I think the two reflect.” Furthermore, results showed that
coaches forecasted that their relationship may break down as a result of low selfefficacy beliefs; this theme was termed relationship termination. As an example,
coach C1 suggested, “It would be wrong to continue working with a player that
you felt you couldn’t help further . . . that would be taking that player down the
wrong road.”
Other-Efficacy
For other-efficacy (see Table 5), three intrapersonal (all common to athletes and
coaches), and eight interpersonal themes emerged. One interpersonal theme was
common to athletes and coaches, while four were unique to athletes and three
were unique to coaches.
Intrapersonal. The first theme illustrated how other-efficacy beliefs were related
to self-efficacy (also indicated in antecedents of self-efficacy, Table 1), for both
athletes and coaches. The majority of meaning units in this theme highlighted a
positive relationship between other-efficacy and self-efficacy. For example, athlete A4 felt, “being confident in my coach sort of inspires me to be confident in
what I’m doing.” However, a second group of meaning units emerged in this
theme where coaches identified that high other-efficacy may actually engender
lowered self-efficacy. For example, coach C1 described how a high degree of
confidence in his athlete’s ability was related to personal self-doubt, whereby “I
wonder whether there’s going to be a time when [my athlete] may need somebody
who can deliver this . . . level of coaching better than I can.”
For both athletes and coaches other-efficacy beliefs were also reported to
facilitate personal motivation. For example, coach C6 discussed, “If you have
massive confidence in your athlete, you will perhaps even give more time.” On the
other hand, athlete A2 documented the effects of low other-efficacy, “I’d have no
223
“in terms of the relationship I’m very happy” (C3)
“if you have confidence in your coach your relationship will be more trusting” (A6)
“I’m thinking in terms of long term planning and that wouldn’t happen [if I wasn’t confident in
her ability]” (C3)
“we might end up separating perhaps if I didn’t have that confidence in [my athlete]” (C5)
Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 9 athlete and 10 coach meaning units were
classified as ‘Motivation’.
Closeness (Athletes = 10)
Goals for athlete
(Coaches = 9)
Relationship termination
(Coaches = 4)
Relationship satisfaction
(Coaches = 4)
Other-Efficacy Consequences
Higher-Order Category Lower-Order Theme
Exemplar Meaning Unit
Intrapersonal
Self-efficacy
“you feel confident because you think ‘wow, I’m working with such a great coach’” (A4)
(Athletes = 9)
“you’re working with a very gifted individual, so the [self-]confidence is there” (coach, posi(Coaches = 7)
tive relationship, C2), “I will see if there comes a time when I lose confidence in my own
ability, as [my athlete] keeps on getting better and better” (coach, negative relationship, C1)
Motivation
“you think, ‘I’m working with a great coach’ and it motivates you, it’s a good boost” (A4)
(Athletes = 9)
“you’ve got responsibilities to really give her the very best, so you’re continually challenging
(Coaches = 10)
yourself, I’m continually challenging myself to be better” (C2)
Affective responses
“if you aren’t sure what you’re being told then it might make you nervous” (A2)
(Athletes = 6)
“it’s just a huge boost to your well-being in every other aspect of your life” (C3)
(Coaches = 5)
Interpersonal
Athlete/coach selection “I wouldn’t choose a coach that I didn’t have confidence in” (A6)
(Athletes = 5)
“you see certain characteristics and you pick those people out and you always say ‘that’s the
(Coaches = 6)
person I’d like to work with’” (C5)
Responsiveness to the “if you’re confident that you’re going to get the right training you’re going to listen to them”
coach (Athletes = 9)
(A1)
Verbal behavior toward “if you did not believe in your coach you probably wouldn’t share the burden, you’d keep it to
coach (Athlete = 6)
yourself” (A5)
Relationship persistence “I still want to carry on working with him because I think that he is a good coach and I’m confident in his ability” (A6)
intentions (Athletes = 14)
Table 5 Outcome Categories, Themes, and Meaning Units for Other-Efficacy
224 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
confidence in [coach] and then I wouldn’t want to go out and race”. The final
intrapersonal consequence for athletes and coaches was termed general affective
responses. Specifically, participants indicated that high other-efficacy was related
to reduced anxiety and frustration as well as enhanced relaxation and enjoyment.
Athlete A6 discussed the consequences of low other-efficacy, noting, “My coach
thought he was good and I didn’t, it just made me . . . angry . . . and frustrated.”
However, athlete A3 extolled her coach’s ability, explaining, “You’ve got confidence in him and it’s kind of . . . you have no negativity”. In addition, when asked
to identify the implications of his confidence in his athlete, C3 said, “you’re enjoying it . . . you feel much happier.”
Interpersonal. The first theme, athlete/coach selection, showed that both
coaches and athletes were more likely to initiate a relationship with each other
when holding positive other-efficacy beliefs. Athlete A4 noted, “I think if you
don’t have confidence in someone then you’re not going to approach someone”,
and coach C4 also said, “It was purely natural, raw talent and that’s why I agreed
to take him on at an early age because I could see that was there.”
In responsiveness to the coach, athletes were more likely to listen to and act
upon advice from coaches when reporting positive other-efficacy (see Table 5).
For instance, athlete A2 noted, “if I didn’t think my coach was any good, I just
wouldn’t listen, I would just let it go over my head and go ‘yeah, yeah, yeah.’” The
second group of meaning units unique to athletes was termed verbal behavior
toward coach, which highlighted that athletes were more willing to communicate
with, and seek advice from coaches in whom they were highly confident. As athlete A5 commented, “if I wasn’t confident in [my coach] I probably wouldn’t
phone him up and say ‘look I’m not sure about this’ or ‘how can I work on
this.’”
Analyses also revealed that athletes’ other-efficacy beliefs were related to
their relationship persistence intentions. Indeed, Athlete A5 said, “I’m confident
in what he does for me, I’m confident in the plan of what he’s set out, so I want to
stay as a partnership.” Finally, closeness meaning units illustrated that favorable
athlete other-efficacy beliefs were related to enhanced perceptions of trust, respect,
and support within the dyad. Athlete A5, for example, described, “if you did not
believe in your coach . . . you perhaps wouldn’t trust them”. Similarly, when asked
to explain the implications of other-efficacy, athlete A4 commented, “[It makes
me] kind of look up and respect her.”
It emerged that coaches set more challenging goals for the athlete when they
were confident in their athletes’ abilities, and less challenging goals in response to
low other-efficacy expectations. For example, coach C6 reported low targets for
his athlete due to unfavorable other-efficacy, “I just want her to keep training . . .
I have no real expectations. Do I think she’ll do much this year? No, I don’t.” In
the second coach theme, relationship termination, coaches forecasted their relationship may break down as a result of lowered other-efficacy beliefs. For instance,
coach C2 felt, “if you thought she was a no-hoper, I think there’s a natural wastage
there”. Finally, in relationship satisfaction, coaches’ described how other-efficacy
beliefs were related to their feelings about their relationship. Specifically, coaches
reported greater satisfaction with their relationship when they were confident in
their athletes (see Table 5).
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 225
RISE
Analyses revealed four intrapersonal themes for RISE (see Table 6), one of which
was reported by athletes and coaches, two that were unique to athletes and one
that was identified by coaches alone. In addition, one interpersonal theme emerged
for both athletes and coaches, one for athletes alone, and a final theme was apparent that was specific to coaches.
Intrapersonal. For athletes and coaches, RISE was related to one’s own self-ef-
ficacy. Specifically, positive RISE appraisals were related to elevated levels of
self-efficacy (see Table 6, RISE is also indicated as an antecedent of self-efficacy
in Table 1). Conversely, negative RISE inferences were associated with lowered
self-efficacy. For example athlete A4 noted, “You question whether they believe in
you and then you start to believe, you know ‘well are they right?’” Athletes also
reported that RISE appraisals influenced their own motivation, as athlete A5 outlined, “it’s good, because . . . it sort if spurs me on, I think well he believes in me.”
On the contrary, athlete A4 described how amotivation may result from low RISE
beliefs, “I think you would struggle to want to get up in the morning and go to the
ice rink and put on your skates and work hard.” In the third theme, athletes’ positive RISE estimations were associated with adaptive affective responses, such as
feeling ‘positive’ and ‘happy’ (see Table 6). Conversely, negative RISE inferences
were associated with an array of maladaptive affective responses (e.g., worry), as
reported by athlete A6, who felt, “if I knew my coach was watching me then it
would worry me that what he was going to think about my race”. The final intrapersonal outcome, no effect, contained meaning units drawn from two of the six
coaches who explicitly felt that RISE perceptions were not associated with any
intrapersonal outcomes. Specifically, coach C1 said, “I think as you progress . . .
you really don’t care what the athlete thinks of you, if you really have your own
confidence”. In addition, coach C6 suggested, “It [low RISE] wouldn’t concern
me . . . the only person that challenges my confidence is me.”
Interpersonal. Athletes and coaches both reported that unfavorable RISE per-
ceptions would likely lead to the breakdown of their partnership, and this theme
was termed relationship termination. As C2 noted, “if she didn’t have confidence
in me I would pick up on it and I would have to do some things pretty drastic or
maybe go our separate ways”. In relationship persistence intentions, athletes
described their desire to continue working with their coach when they felt their
coach was confident in their ability. For example, A1 commented, “I want to carry
on working with [my coach] in the future . . . because I know that he believes I am
a good player.” Finally, a number of coaches identified that they were likely to
initiate communication with their athlete when they perceived unfavorable RISE
perceptions. For example, C2 felt that, “from my personal point of view to be able
to resolve something like [low RISE beliefs] I’d want to know the reasons why”,
also remarking, “I think if I felt those vibes I’d want to know what the reasons
were.”
226
Relationship persistence
intentions
(Athletes = 3)
Communication
(Coaches = 5)
Affective responses
(Athletes = 10)
No effect
(Coaches = 5)
Relationship termination
(Athletes = 4)
(Coaches = 9)
Motivation
(Athletes = 8)
Self-efficacy
(Athletes = 23)
(Coaches = 10)
Lower-Order Theme
“I would try to deal with [low RISE] by talking to the athlete, trying to find out what
the problem was, and would try to overcome that” (C3)
“I always had [self-]confidence because he had confidence in me” (A6)
“[my athlete] does have confidence in me and that does make me have confidence”
(C4)
“with [my last coach], when I don’t think he did have confidence in me I really
didn’t want to do athletics, I’d think ‘what’s the point in carrying on all this hard
work’” (A6)
“he believed in me and I was just like ‘yeah, I’m feeling really good about this’”
(A2)
“he has to make his own path at the end of the day, he has to deliver as a player, I
have to deliver as a coach, so he couldn’t knock me” (C6)
“if they weren’t confident in me I’d probably not train with them anymore” (A3)
“if a player doesn’t believe in you then your relationship will not work and might
break up” (C3)
“I think because he’s got confidence in me I’m not even thinking about moving
coaches or anything” (A3)
Exemplar Meaning Unit
Note. Figures in brackets represent frequency counts (i.e., the number of meaning units within a given theme). For example, 8 athlete meaning units were classified as
‘Motivation’.
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Higher-Order
Category
RISE consequences
Table 6 Outcome Categories, Themes, and Meaning Units for RISE
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 227
Discussion
Despite the prominence of coach-athlete dyads in sport, the factors that underpin
successful and satisfying relationships are not yet fully understood (Jowett &
Wylleman, 2006). Consistent with Lent and Lopez (2002), the results of the current study provide preliminary evidence that, in elite coach-athlete contexts, the
tripartite efficacy constructs may be associated with a number of salient relationship perceptions (e.g., relationship persistence intentions) as well as task-related
outcomes (e.g., performance, motivation, instruction). In addition to identifying
salient outcomes, this study also provides specific insight into the interrelationships between self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE, as well as the unique antecedent variables relating to athletes’ and coaches’ efficacy beliefs.
Lent and Lopez (2002) suggested that the tripartite efficacy constructs play a
fundamental role in the healthy development and sustenance of mutually beneficial relationships. Consistent with this, the results of this study revealed that in
elite coach-athlete contexts efficacy perceptions may be closely associated with
relationship formation, maintenance, and termination. First, with respect to formation, coaches and athletes reported initiating relationships with each other, only
when they held strong beliefs about the other’s capabilities. Interestingly, this
finding is consistent with previous research conducted with athlete dyads (Jackson et al., 2008), whereby members of elite competitive partnerships indicated
that relationship formation was dependent upon favorable other-efficacy perceptions. With regard to maintenance, consistent with Jackson et al. (2008), athletes
in this study were more likely to persist with a relationship if they held high levels
of other-efficacy and RISE. Interestingly, when athletes were confident in their
coaches’ capabilities, they also reported being more likely to communicate effectively (e.g., initiate communication, seek advice, pay attention to coach feedback)
and feel close to their coaches. Perceived closeness has been conceptualized as a
key facet of the coach-athlete relationship (Jowett, 2007) and has consistently
been found to be related to coach-athlete relationship longevity (e.g., Jowett,
2003). Finally, the results of this study also suggest that the tripartite efficacy
beliefs may play an important role in relationship termination. For example,
coaches repeatedly reported that their relationships would end if they lacked confidence in themselves or their athletes, or believed their athletes were not confident in them. In a similar regard, athletes forecasted that their relationship may
breakdown if they felt their coach was not confident in their abilities.
In addition to shaping relationship development, the tripartite efficacy beliefs
were reported to influence task-related outcomes. Consistent with theory (Bandura,
1997) and previous relationship-based efficacy research, athlete self-efficacy was
associated with improved performance and motivation (cf. Beauchamp & Whinton,
2005; Jackson et al., 2008), as well as behavior during competition (e.g., attempting
challenging skills), while coaches reported delivering more decisive instruction
when they were self-efficacious. In a similar vein, Feltz et al. (1999) indicated that
“coaching efficacy should have an influence on how one coaches. . . . High-efficacy
coaches are hypothesized to . . . use more effective . . . feedback techniques” (1999,
p.767). Beyond holding favorable beliefs about one’s own capabilities, holding
positive beliefs about the significant other’s capabilities was also reported by both
coaches and athletes to be associated with enhanced motivation and effort.
228 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
This finding is again consistent with the Jackson et al. study involving elite athlete
dyads. Furthermore, when athletes in this study believed that their coaches were
confident in them (i.e., high RISE), this was reported to promote greater athlete
motivation to work harder (interestingly this finding did not emerge the other way
round).
In addition to the consequences associated with self-efficacy, other-efficacy,
and RISE, the current study also sought to explore the antecedents of athletes’ and
coaches’ tripartite efficacy perceptions. First, as evidence of the interrelationships
within Lent and Lopez’s (2002) model, other-efficacy and RISE beliefs emerged
as antecedents of self-efficacy for both coaches and athletes. These findings are
consistent with previous qualitative (Jackson et al., 2008) and quantitative (Jackson et al., 2007) investigations in sport. Self-efficacy beliefs, for both athletes and
coaches, were also reported to be underpinned by previous mastery achievements
as well as one’s experience in sport. A number of antecedents were also apparent
for other-efficacy, including comparisons with past ‘others,’ third party comments, “the other’s” past achievements, and “the other’s” level of motivation.
Finally, regardless of dyad members’ roles (i.e., coach or athlete), RISE appraisals
were reported to stem from inferences regarding “the other’s” verbal behavior, as
well as experience as a dyad, and one’s own self-efficacy beliefs. With regard to
this latter theme, this meant that when athletes and coaches were confident in their
own abilities, they inferred that “the other” was also confident in their abilities
(high RISE). Kenny and Acitelli (2001) refer to this phenomenon as assumed
similarity, whereby individuals assume that their partner views them in the same
way that they view themselves.
Despite evidence of common tripartite efficacy antecedents for both dyad
members, analyses also revealed unique variables for athletes and coaches in relation to self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and RISE. For example, verbal persuasion
(from ‘the other’) was reported to underpin self-efficacy for athletes, but not for
coaches. This finding supports the notion that verbal persuasion may be more
salient when the feedback provider is in a superordinate status position and perceived as a knowledgeable source of information (e.g., a coach; Feltz, Short, &
Sullivan, 2008). Athletes also reported enhanced confidence in their own and their
coaches’ ability when their coaches adopted a ‘compatible style’ (e.g., being made
to feel at ease, contributing to decisions). These attributes were not described in
Lent and Lopez’s (2002) model, however they do mirror selected characteristics
from Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) notion of autonomy-supportive coaching
behaviors. In particular, Mageau and Vallerand proposed that autonomy-supportive coaches acknowledge athletes’ feelings, allow initiative and input, and avoid
controlling feedback. The results of this study suggest that these behaviors may
also be beneficial to athletes’ self- and other-efficacy perceptions. A further antecedent theme also emerged for coaches’ other-efficacy beliefs that was not conceptualized within Lent and Lopez’s model. In particular, coaches reported that
other-efficacy beliefs developed from their perception of their athletes’ psychological characteristics (e.g., being mentally strong versus being mentally fragile).
In support of this finding, Horn’s (2002) model of coaching effectiveness asserts
that coaches who believe their athletes are less “psychologically capable . . . in
sport contexts . . . might treat their . . . players as low-expectancy athletes” (p.
320). With respect to RISE, it was particularly noteworthy that athletes estimated
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 229
positive RISE beliefs when their coaches provided challenging goals (cf. Lent &
Lopez, 2002). Indeed, coaches reported that they set more demanding goals when
they were highly confident in their athletes, and thus it is plausible to suggest that
the goals set by a coach may provide some insight for athletes when inferring their
coaches’ confidence in their abilities.
In spite of the contributions of this study, limitations should also be noted.
First, the methodological approach used in this study did not enable insight into
either causality or the relative influence (i.e., magnitude of effects) of antecedent
variables in actually engendering changes in self-efficacy, other-efficacy, and
RISE. Experimental research that builds on the antecedents that emerged in this
investigation could provide important information about possible cause-and-effect
relationships between these antecedents and the focal tripartite efficacy constructs.
For instance, by tapping into the various autonomy-supportive behaviors that
coaches exhibit (e.g., providing choice and requesting feedback during training),
it may be possible to observe the impact that such coaching actions have on athletes’ self- and other-efficacy beliefs. Similarly, although coaches and athletes
described a number of important outcome themes, it was not possible to examine
the extent to which efficacy perceptions causally impacted upon intrapersonal and
interpersonal consequences. Moreover, although the results provide important
information relating to coaches’ and athletes’ tripartite perceptions in elite contexts, caution should be exercised before generalizing these findings to coachathlete dyads at other competitive levels (e.g., coaches working with youth
athletes).
Notwithstanding these limitations, the results of this study reveal a number of
important directions for future research. In particular, further investigation is
required that explores the mechanisms underlying the major contradictions that
emerged in relation to Lent and Lopez’s (2002) model. For example, two coaches
described how other-efficacy beliefs may actually undermine, rather than bolster,
self-efficacy perceptions. One particular avenue for research, therefore, would be
to test the notion that adverse consequences (e.g., lowered self-efficacy) may
result when other-efficacy perceptions are considerably higher than self-efficacy
beliefs (cf. Bonito, 2002). As Lent and Lopez noted, the extent to which efficacy
beliefs are “harmonious and complementary . . . may have important implications
for each individual and their relationship” (p.276). Thus, in addition to identifying
the independent predictive effects for each efficacy construct it would also be
advantageous to explore whether, or the extent to which, the ‘network’ of tripartite
efficacy beliefs may act in an interactive manner to predict salient individual/
relationship perceptions in dyadic settings. A second important area for investigation revolves around the finding that negative RISE estimations for coaches may
not be associated with any intrapersonal outcomes (see ‘no effect’ theme). Relationship theorists (e.g., Snyder & Stukas, 1999) have previously asserted that the
effect of metaperceptions (i.e., RISE) is likely to be most pronounced when ‘the
other’ is perceived to have comparatively higher levels of status. Bearing this in
mind, it would be particularly interesting to determine the extent to which intradyadic status discrepancies might moderate the effects of RISE beliefs within
coach and athlete populations. That is, does the position of relative power that one
occupies within a dyad (i.e., superordinate, subordinate, or equal power) influence
the extent to which RISE beliefs predict individual and relational consequences?
230 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
Aside from status considerations, it may also be interesting to explore within
future research the possible individual (e.g., personality traits) and relationship
factors (e.g., low satisfaction, suboptimal performance) that lead coaches to dismiss their athletes’ confidence in them, as well as explore how this perception
may influence the manner in which coaches’ subsequently interact with their athletes (e.g., verbal feedback).
Finally, it is worth noting that the number of meaning units that emerged for
other-efficacy in this study, both in terms of antecedents and consequences markedly exceeded the number of meaning units for either self-efficacy or RISE.
Underlying this, it is possible that in elite sporting contexts individuals become
particularly attuned to the abilities of those with whom they work alongside, and
are thus able to identify an extensive range of (1) reasons for their confidence in
their partners, as well as (2) implications for their confidence in these significant
others. This observation does not in any way reflect the relative importance of
other-efficacy in comparison with the other two tripartite constructs. Rather, it
provides a finding that may inform future relational efficacy research. That is, it
would be useful to identify in future investigations the full range of potential antecedents of each of the tripartite constructs, the strength of their effects, as well as
the spectrum of cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes that might derive
from these social cognitions.
Beyond the theoretical and empirical contributions advanced by this investigation, the results of the current study also provide a number of practical implications for coaches, athletes, and applied practitioners in elite sport contexts. First,
drawing from the antecedents that emerged in the current study, sport psychology
consultants would be encouraged to target relational efficacy perceptions (otherefficacy and RISE) in coach-athlete dyads, as these were found to be positively
related to self-efficacy beliefs for both dyad members. Moreover, given the importance of adopting a ‘compatible style’, elite coaches would be encouraged to
implement autonomy-supportive behaviors. Indeed, by incorporating relatively
simple techniques such as providing choice and acknowledging athletes’ feelings,
it may be possible to reinforce athletes’ self- and other-efficacy perceptions. Furthermore, although two coaches felt that negative RISE beliefs had no intrapersonal consequences, athletes reported a number of maladaptive outcomes resulting from depleted other-efficacy perceptions (e.g., diminished self-efficacy,
motivation, relationship persistence intentions). Thus, if a coach is able to detect
that an athlete lacks confidence in his/her ability (i.e., low coach RISE), s/he
would be advised not to overlook this but rather to initiate communication to
attempt to reverse their athletes’ diminished other-efficacy. For athletes, on the
other hand, results suggest two important techniques that may be adopted to maximize their coach’s RISE beliefs. In particular, given the importance that coaches
attributed to nonverbal and verbal behavior in estimating RISE, athletes would be
advised to display positive body language (e.g., making eye contact, maintaining
upright posture), as well as conveying favorable verbal messages to their coaches.
Indeed, this may serve to preserve their relationship, given that some of the
coaches in this study reported that low RISE beliefs were associated with relationship termination.
In summary, in addition to highlighting a number of key antecedent variables,
results revealed that efficacy beliefs were associated with adaptive relationship
Coach-Athlete Efficacy Beliefs 231
perceptions (e.g., relationship persistence intentions) and task-related outcomes
(e.g., motivation) for coaches and athletes. Although relationship research in sport
remains “a fairly new area of scientific enquiry” (Poczwardowski, Barott, &
Jowett, 2006, p.126), the present findings suggest that the tripartite model may
represent an invaluable conceptual framework in developing a more comprehensive understanding of what makes relationships ‘work’ in coach-athlete sporting
contexts.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Company.
Bazeley, P. (2007). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Beauchamp, M.R., & Whinton, L. (2005). Self-efficacy and other efficacy in dyadic relationships: Riding as one in equestrian eventing. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27(2), 245–252.
Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bonito, J.A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups: Methodological and
conceptual issues related to interdependence. Small Group Research, 33, 412–438.
Cresswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Feltz, D.L., Chase, M.A., Moritz, S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (1999). A conceptual model of
coaching efficacy: Preliminary investigation and instrument development. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 765–776.
Feltz, D.L., Short, S.E., & Sullivan, P.J. (2008). Self-efficacy in sport. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
George, T.R. (1994). Self-confidence and baseball performance: A causal examination of
self-efficacy theory. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16, 381–399.
Gergen, M.M., & Gergen, K. (Eds.). (2003). Social construction: A reader. London: Sage.
Haney, C.J., & Long, B.C. (1995). Coping effectiveness: A path analysis of self-efficacy,
control, coping, and performance in sport competitions. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 25, 1726–1746.
Horn, T.S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sports domain. In T.S. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in Sport Psychology (pp. 309–354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jackson, B., Beauchamp, M.R., & Knapp, P. (2007). Relational efficacy beliefs in athlete
dyads: An investigation using actor-partner interdependence models. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 29, 170–189.
Jackson, B., Knapp, P., & Beauchamp, M.R. (2008). Origins and consequences of tripartite
efficacy beliefs within elite athlete dyads. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
30, 512–540.
Jowett, S. (2003). When the “honeymoon” is over: A case study of a coach-athlete dyad in
crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444–460.
Jowett, S. (2007). Interdependence analysis and the 3+1C’s in the coach-athlete relationship. In S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social Psychology in sport (pp. 15–28).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2007). Understanding the coach-athlete relationship. In
S. Jowett & D. Lavallee (Eds.), Social Psychology in Sport (pp. 3–14). Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
232 Jackson, Knapp, and Beauchamp
Jowett, S., & Wylleman, P. (2006). Interpersonal relationships in sport and exercise settings: Crossing the chasm. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 119–123.
Kane, T.D., Marks, M.A., Zaccaro, S.J., & Blair, V. (1996). Self-efficacy, personal goals,
and wrestlers’ self-regulation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 18, 36–48.
Kenny, D.A., & Acitelli, L.K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in perceptions of the partner in
close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 439–448.
Kenny, D.A., & DePaulo, B.M. (1993). Do people know how others view them? An empirical and theoretical account. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 145–161.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford.
Lent, R.W., & Lopez, F.G. (2002). Cognitive ties that bind: A tripartite view of efficacy
beliefs in growth-promoting relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,
21, 256–286.
Lopez, F.G., & Lent, R.W. (1991). Efficacy-based predictors of relationship adjustment
and persistence among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32,
223–229.
Mageau, G.A., & Vallerand, R.J. (2003). The coach-athlete relationship: A motivational
model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 883–904.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moritz, S.E., Feltz, D.L., Fahrbach, K.R., & Mack, D.E. (2000). The relation of self-efficacy measures to sport performance: A meta-analytic review. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 71, 280–294.
Morrow, S.L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250–260.
Myers, N.D., Vargas-Tonsing, T.M., & Feltz, D.L. (2005). Coaching efficacy in intercollegiate coaches: Sources, coaching behavior, and team variables. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 6, 129–143.
Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J.E., & Jowett, S. (2006). Diversifying approaches to research
on athlete-coach relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 125–142.
Schwandt, T.A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative enquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 189–213). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Snyder, M., & Stukas, A.A. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive,
motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273–303.
Sullivan, P.J., & Kent, A. (2003). Coaching efficacy as a predictor of leadership style in
intercollegiate athletics. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 1–11.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research analysis types and software tools. New York: Falmer
Press.
Treasure, D.C., Monson, J., & Lox, C.L. (1996). Relationship between self-efficacy, wrestling performance, and affect prior to competition. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 73–
83.
Whittemore, R., Chase, S.K., & Mandle, C.L. (2001). Validity in qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 11, 522–537.