Goal: Write a short research paper (1 to 2 double-spaced pages) that calls upon one scholarly journal article that uses the method you’re considering proposing in your semester-long paper. Ideally, your selected journal article will be a study that looks at the same or similar topic you hope to investigate. 

Format of the paper:

· 1 to 2 double-spaced pages with in-text citations and a source list using APA at end

· Intro paragraph 

o Introduce your topic (same topic as semester-long paper), provide a tasty appetizer to the rest of the paper – 1 sentence

o Introduce your general approach (nomothetic quantitative social science or idiographic qualitative critical/cultural research) – 1 to 2 sentences; if you use the textbook, please use in-text citation

o Introduce your specific method (survey, ethnography, content analysis, focus groups, experiment, interviews, rhetorical analysis, etc.) – 1 to 2 sentences, if you use the textbook, please use in-text citation

· Body paragraph 1 – Address the “why question”: Why is your general approach and your specific method a good fit for you as a scholar and for your topic? “If this project were to be taken all the way through to a full empirical investigation of this topic, the method I would use would be focus groups. Focus groups would be ideal because there is not a lot out there on this topic just yet and so it could be explored at this initial phase via the focus group methodology.”

· Body paragraph 2 – cover scholarly journal article– summarize the method used, major results and conclusions, details about the sample (participants and/or media content being observed), unique aspects of the study 

· Body paragraph 3 – Restate your proposed method in clear terms and cover some of the specifics of how you would carry out that method: “To carry out this method, I would recommend conducting xx number of focus group meetings with xx number or participants…”

· Conclusion – tell us what you just told us in the above parts of the paper 

· Reference list (Using proper APA)

Keys to success on this paper:

· Find an appropriate peer-reviewed scholarly journal article that features the approach and method you’re considering (that is ideally on the same/similar topic as your paper)

· Accurate, specific and plainly stated coverage of the general approach and method you plan to propose in your semester-long paper

· Address the “why question” – why does this approach and that method make sense for your semester-long paper topic

· Accurate and thorough coverage of your peer-reviewed scholarly journal article

· Proper sourcing through APA

· Creativity and color in writing – research-based writing doesn’t need to be boring

· Clean, crisp, and carefully edited and revised paper free from typos and writing errors

· Thoughtful and coherent coverage of the “Information You Should Record”

Social Behavior and Personality , Volume 48, Issue 2, e8362
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8362
www.sbp-journal.com

Coach–autonomy support and youth sport team efficacy mediated by
coach–athlete relationship

Sun-Lyoung Cho1, Woo-Yeul Baek2

1Korea Sports Psychology Institute, Republic of Korea
2Department of Sport Management, Kyonggi University, Republic of Korea

How to cite: Cho, S.-L., & Baek, W.-Y. (2020). Coach–autonomy support and youth sport team efficacy mediated by coach–athlete
relationship. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 48(2), e8362

In most previous research on the relationships between
coach–autonomy support, the coach–athlete relationship, and team
efficacy in team sports, the focus has been on adult players, limiting the
generalizability of the findings to other age groups. Thus, we
investigated the mediating role of the coach–athlete relationship in the
link between coach–autonomy support and team efficacy in a youth
team sports context. Participants were 254 Korean youth athletes.
Results showed that coach–autonomy support served as a crucial
antecedent of the coach–athlete relationship and team efficacy.
Further, the coach–athlete relationship had a significant effect on team
efficacy. We also confirmed a partial mediating effect of the
coach–athlete relationship in the link between coach–autonomy
support and team efficacy in a youth team sports context. Our findings
provide insight into the psychological sources of team efficacy in youth
team sports.

Keywords
coach–autonomy support;
coach–athlete
relationship; team
efficacy; youth team
sports; youth athletes

In sport contexts, perceptions of high energy and vitality are crucial for athletes to improve their athletic
performance (Adie, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2008). Diminished athletic performance is evident when athletes
experience a loss of positive energy and feel emotionally and physically exhausted. Coaches are important
figures who can affect the physical and psychological functioning of athletes in a sports environment (Adie
et al., 2008). Given this, the mechanisms for connecting coach-generated environments with athletic
performance have been extensively studied (Huh & Choi, 2017; Lafrenière, Jowett, Vallerand, &
Carbonneau, 2011). In particular, researchers have found that athletes’ perception of coaching behavior is
closely associated with their perceived quality of motivational environments and with the outcome of
subsequent exercise (Occhino, Mallett, Rynne, & Carlisle, 2014). Moreover, coaches with an autonomy-
supportive coaching style can meet athletes’ need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and, in turn,
nurture the motivations that enhance the athlete’s performance (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).

According to Mageau and Vallerand (2003), coach–autonomy support refers to coaches displaying attitudes
and behaviors that show they value athletes’ self-initiation and involvement in independent problem solving
and decision making, and includes coaches’ social support, positive feedback, and democratic decision
making. This support is likely to promote athletes’ positive motivation and meet their needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness with others (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Coaches’ autonomy-supportive
behaviors elicit athletes’ internal motivational resources by allowing their independent activities and
respecting their thoughts and emotions (Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes, 2010). Moreover, athletes
tend to have passion, dedication, endurance, and enjoyment in regard to achieving a given task when they

CORRESPONDENCE Woo-Yeul Baek, Department of Sport Management, Kyonggi University, 154-42, Gwanggyosan-ro, Suwon-si,
Gyeonggi-do 16227, Republic of Korea. Email: tommybj71@hanmail.net

© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Cho, Baek

are well aware of coaches’ autonomy support (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2007). Thus, we believed that coaches’
autonomy support may help to develop a positive coach–athlete relationship in team sports contexts.

Coach–autonomy support is also a significant predictor of team efficacy, which is a group’s shared belief
reflecting each member’s perception of the team’s capabilities (Lindsley, Brass, & Thomas, 1995). Numerous
researchers have focused on the antecedents of team efficacy in the strong relationship between team
efficacy and team performance (Myers, Feltz, & Short, 2004). Among them, Hampson and Jowett (2014)
found that coach–autonomy support positively affects the team efficacy of football players, leading these
authors to suggest that coaches’ autonomy-supportive leadership is a determinant of athletes’ perceived
team efficacy. Additionally, Price and Weiss (2013) revealed that coaches’ autonomy-supportive behaviors
are closely related to team efficacy among women soccer players.

Young athletes spend a significant amount of their time in sport contexts, which can help with their
physical, psychological, and social development (Balaguer, Castillo, Cuevas, & Atienza, 2018). These athletes
need to take ownership of their decisions to grow into successful adults; however, they often lack the
necessary self-determination because they are trained to follow instructions and work within a set routine
(Coatsworth & Conroy, 2009; Lafrenière et al., 2011). Ryan and Deci (2000) suggested that young athletes
are likely to experience high-quality performance when they participate and practice in an autonomy-
supportive atmosphere. Young athletes who perceive that their coaches have created an autonomy-
supportive environment are more likely to own their behaviors, build positive relationships with their
coaches, and feel competent in their sports performance (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Consequently,
creating an autonomy-supportive atmosphere in a sport setting allows young athletes to take responsibility
for their progression as athletes and realize their personal development as individuals.

Although numerous scholars have demonstrated the impact of coach-created autonomous environments on
athletic performance in adult team sports contexts (e.g., Hampson & Jowett, 2014; Jowett, Shanmugam, &
Caccoulis, 2012; Lafrenière et al., 2011; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003), comparatively few have investigated
these relationships in predicting young athletes’ team sports performance. Thus, we conducted our study in
the context of Korean youth team sports, and proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: Coach–autonomy support will have a significant positive impact on the coach–athlete
relationship in a youth team sports context.
Hypothesis2: Coach–autonomy support will have a significant positive impact on team efficacy in a youth
team sports context.
Hypothesis3: The coach–athlete relationship will have a significant positive impact on team efficacy in a
youth team sports context.
Hypothesis 4: The coach–athlete relationship will have a significant positive mediating role in the
relationship between coach–autonomy support and team efficacy in a youth team sports context.

The research model is shown in Figure 1.

2© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

Figure 1. Research model.

Method
Participants and Procedure

We collected data from student athletes attending one of 10 high and middle schools located in Seoul, South
Korea. We contacted the coaches at these schools by telephone and received permission to attend a team
meeting to give the athletes a brief introduction to the purpose of the study and distribute informed consent
forms for both athletes themselves and their parents, because the athletes were under 18 years of age.
During a second visit we retrieved the informed consent forms and then asked the participants to complete
the survey, which we collected immediately after completion. There was no incentive for participating in the
study. Of the 227 surveys we distributed, 225 valid responses were returned. The participants ranged in age
from 14 to 18 years (M = 16.45 years, SD = 1.67). Other demographic details are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Participants’ Demographic Characteristics

Measures

The survey items, except demographics, were adapted from previous studies and were measured on a
7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Because the original
scales were developed in English, we used back-translation to ensure translation accuracy (Brislin, 1990). A
native Korean speaker who was fluent in English translated the original scales into Korean, then a scholar

3© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Cho, Baek

who was also fluent in both English and Korean converted the translated version back into English. No
discrepancies between the two versions were found. After the translation process, three sport marketing
professors with 10–14 years of research experience examined the relevance and word clarity of the survey
items.

Coach–autonomy support was measured with six items (α = .93) taken from the Sport Climate
Questionnaire developed by Deci (2001). A sample item is “My coach encourages me to ask questions.” We
used 10 items from the Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004) to assess
three dimensions of the coach–athlete relationship: commitment (three items, α = .85; e.g.,“ I feel
committed to my coach”), complementarity (three items, α = .92; e.g., “When I am coached by my coach, I
feel at ease”), and closeness (four items, α = .96; e.g., “I like my coach”). Team efficacy was measured with
16 items adapted from the scale developed by Yoo and Lim (2009), which has four dimensions: cohesion
(five items, α = .93; e.g., “Our team resolves conflict between players”), trusting coach (four items, α = .95;
e.g., “I trust my coach”), preparation (two items, α = .88; “Our team has been training hard”), and
competency (four items, α = .75; “Our team has won a lot against strong teams”).

Data Analysis

We conducted descriptive analysis, reliability analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and structural equation
modeling analyses with maximum likelihood estimation using SPSS 23.0 and Amos 23.0. Indices utilized to
assess the model fit (Bollen, 1989; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010) were chi square (χ2), comparative
fit index (CFI; ideal level > .90), normed fit index (NFI; ideal level > .90), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI; ideal
level > .90), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; ideal level < .08), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; ideal level < .08).

Results
Descriptive Statistics

The results of the descriptive statistical analyses (see Table 2) reveal that skewness and kurtosis values were
within the acceptable ranges (Hair et al., 2010). Tolerance (ranging from .21 to .79) and variance inflation
factor (ranging from 1.26 to 4.56) values were measured to check multicollinearity, and the results show that
multicollinearity was not a concern (Hair et al., 2010).

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, Internal Reliability, and Correlations of Variables

Note. ** p < .01.

Measurement Model Tests

The confirmatory factor analysis results show an acceptable fit of the measurement model according to the
cut-off points recommended by Hair et al. (2010), χ2 = 1312.23, df = 51, CFI = .93, NFI = .90, TLI = .92,
RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04. Composite reliability values ranged from .86 to .94, and average variance
extracted values ranged from .51 to .66, verifying that the model had good convergent validity (Fornell &

4© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

Larcker, 1981). Because all average variance extracted scores were higher than the squared correlations of
all pairs of variables, the model’s discriminant validity was also supported (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Therefore, construct validity was adequate.

Structural Equation Modeling

The structural equation modeling results (see Table 3) show an adequate model fit to the data, χ2 = 1314.94,
df = 444, CFI = .93, NFI = .90, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .05. Coach–autonomy support had a
significant positive impact on the coach–athlete relationship and team efficacy, and the coach–athlete
relationship had a significant positive effect on team efficacy.

Table 3. Path Coefficients Between Coach–Autonomy Support, Coach–Athlete Relationship, and
Team Efficacy

Last, we estimated the 95% confidence interval of the indirect effect based on 5,000 bootstrapping
resamples to confirm the mediating role of the coach–athlete relationship in the link between
coach–autonomy support and team efficacy. For small-to-moderate samples, bootstrapping methods are
recommended to estimate indirect effects (Shrout & Bolger, 2002), and if the 95% confidence interval does
not include the value of zero, the indirect effect is considered significant at p < .05. The results in Table 4 show that the coach–athlete relationship mediated the relationship between coach–autonomy support and team efficacy.

Table 4. The Mediating Effect of the Coach–Athlete Relationship in the Link Between
Coach–Autonomy Support and Team Efficacy

Note. CAS = coach–autonomy support, CAR = coach–athlete relationship, TE = team efficacy, CI =
confidence interval, LL = lower limit, UL = upper limit.

Discussion
We proposed and tested a model to show how coach–autonomy support affects the coach–athlete
relationship and team efficacy in a youth team sports context. Results reveal that greater coach–autonomy
support directly predicted athletes’ positive perceptions of the coach–athlete relationship, as well as
enhancing team efficacy both directly and indirectly through the mediator of coach–athlete relationship.
Consequently, our results support the proposed model.

5© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Cho, Baek

Our findings have several theoretical and practical implications. First, coach–autonomy support matters in
regard to the coach–athlete relationship for young athletes playing team sports. Results show that
coach–autonomy support positively predicted the coach–athlete relationship. Martin, Jackson, Richardson,
and Weiller (1999) pointed out that athletes in both early adolescence (10–13 years old) and late
adolescence (14–17 years old) prefer coaches who engage in training and instruction, give positive feedback,
and display more democratic (vs. dictatorial) behavior. Moreover, Coatsworth and Conroy (2009) reported
that coaches’ autonomy support via process-focused praise is a significant predictor of competence and
relatedness need satisfaction in the relationship between coaches and youth swimmers. Coaches are often
considered as experts and role models by young athletes, and within the sporting situation coaches also
interact more with the athletes than do other influential agents, such as parents and teachers, the impact of
which is consistently strong and positive from early to late adolescence (Chan, Lonsdale, & Fung, 2012).
When coaches in positions of authority provide young athletes with autonomy support and respect their
perspective, young athletes may take responsibility for their own decisions and build strong ties with the
coaches. Thus, our findings confirm that coach–autonomy support is an important predictor of positive
coach–athlete relationships in the context of youth team sports.

Second, we found that young athletes’ perceptions of coach–autonomy support were significantly associated
with team efficacy, which is in line with the findings in previous research (Hampson & Jowett, 2014;
Høigaard, de Cuyper, Fransen, Boen, & Peters, 2015; Price & Weiss, 2013). For example, Høigaard et al.
(2015) found that perceived democratic coaching behavior is the most significant predictor of team efficacy
among handball players, and they concluded that, as democratic coaches encourage and appreciate each
player’s point of view, the athletes in the team believe that democratic coaches allow them to contribute to
important team development processes, such as goal setting, and, consequently, the athletes show
heightened team efficacy perceptions. Likewise, it is plausible that when coaches show autonomy support
that empowers young athletes with choices and decision-making opportunities and conveys trust in their
abilities, the athletes are likely to feel highly competent about their athletic performance because they feel
secure and emotionally stable (López-Walle, Balaguer, Castillo, & Tristán, 2012). Collectively, our findings
suggest that coaches should focus on utilizing interpersonal behaviors to create an autonomy-supportive
environment that meets young athletes’ basic needs for autonomy and competence.

Third, in line with the findings of previous researchers (Coatsworth & Conroy, 2009; Vieira et al., 2015), we
found that the coach–athlete relationship had a significant impact on perceived team efficacy among youth
athletes playing team sports. In team sports contexts, researchers have found that the coach’s relationship
with each player is closely related to team efficacy and team performance (Coatsworth & Conroy, 2009;
Vieira et al., 2015). Given this, Coatsworth and Conroy (2009) reported that coaches’ praising of the
autonomous behavior of young athletes increases the athletes’ perceived competence and pride, which has a
positive impact on the outcome of their goal setting and reflection of their identity. Moreover, Vieira et al.
(2015) found that the perceived coach–athlete relationship significantly influences the team efficacy of
young volleyball players and concluded that the greater the closer the athletes feel, the greater the
commitment they have to the coach, and the more they perceive that the coach trusts, respects, and
appreciates them, the greater is the players’ perception of team efficacy. Thus, the coach–athlete
relationship is an important psychological source of team efficacy in the youth sports context, and coaches
of youth sports teams should strive to strengthen their psychological bonds with the athletes by showing
respect for and trust in them as a way to improve team efficacy.

Finally, our finding that coach–autonomy support indirectly predicted team efficacy through the
coach–athlete relationship extends the findings of prior studies (Jowett et al., 2012; Mageau & Vallerand,
2003) in which it has been reported that the coach–athlete relationship has a partial mediating role in the
relationship between coach–autonomy support and team efficacy. Our results indicate that young athletes
showed improved team efficacy when coaches provided an autonomy-supportive environment, via the
athletes’ building positive relationships with their coaches. It should be noted that in a sports setting where

6© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

authority is clearly defined, it has been found that young athletes often expect their coaches to play a role in
directing and making decisions, and to be authoritative (Lafrenière et al., 2011). However, when coaches
show autonomy-supportive coaching behaviors by offering young athletes a rationale for tasks and
encouraging them to take ownership of their decisions, the athletes feel understood and trusted by their
coaches, which increases the likelihood of their developing positive and strong emotional ties with the
coaches, resulting in increased team efficacy (Lafrenière et al., 2011; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). Thus, our
findings suggest that, to build a positive coach–athlete relationship and improve the team efficacy, coaches
working in youth team sports contexts need to show young athletes respect and trust as persons and avoid
using punishments or criticisms that are directed toward the athletes.

There are limitations to this study that should be addressed. First, we examined the relationships between
coach–autonomy support, the coach–athlete relationship, and team efficacy from the perspective of athletes
only. Thus, it could be appropriate to conduct future research in which both coaches’ and athletes’
perspectives are considered when exploring the relationships between these three psychological elements.
Second, the data were collected from youth athletes playing a limited range of sports, and who were enrolled
at one of 10 high and middle schools in South Korea. If this study is replicated, a focus on groups of youth
athletes who participate in other team sports and live in other countries with different cultural dimensions
(e.g., collectivism and power distance), should be considered to improve the external validity of the findings.

References
Adie, J., Duda, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). Autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the optimal
functioning of adult male and female sport participants: A test of basic needs theory. Motivation and
Emotion, 3, 189–199.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-008-9095-z

Balaguer, I., Castillo, I., Cuevas, R., & Atienza, F. (2018). The importance of coaches’ autonomy support in
the leisure experience and well-being of young footballers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 840.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00840

Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological
Methods & Research, 17, 303–316.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017003004

Brislin, R. W. (1990). Applied cross-cultural psychology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chan, D. K., Lonsdale, C., & Fung, H. H. (2012). Influences of coaches, parents, and peers on the
motivational patterns of child and adolescent athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, 22, 558–568.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01277.x

Coatsworth, J. D., & Conroy, D. E. (2009). The effects of autonomy-supportive coaching, need satisfaction,
and self-perceptions on initiative and identity in youth swimmers. Developmental Psychology, 45,
320–328.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014027

Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2007). Assessing autonomy-supportive coaching strategies in youth
sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 671–684.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.12.001

Deci, E. L. (2001). The Sport Climate Questionnaire. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/2Ypf523

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

7© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Cho, Baek

Gillet, N., Vallerand, R., Amoura, S., & Baldes, B. (2010). Influence of coaches’ autonomy support on
athletes’ motivation and sports performance: A test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 155–161.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.10.004

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hampson, R., & Jowett, S. (2014). Effects of coach leadership and coach–athlete relationship on collective
efficacy. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 24, 454–460.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01527.x

Høigaard, R., de Cuyper, B., Fransen, K., Boen, F., & Peters, D. M. (2015). Perceived coach behavior in
training and competition predicts collective efficacy in female elite handball players. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 46, 321–336.
https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2015.46.321

Huh, J.-Y., & Choi, H.-H. (2017). Effect of coach-athlete relationship maintenance on the relationship
between coaching behaviors and team efficacy in professional soccer athletes [In Korean]. Korean Wellness
Society, 12, 261–273.
https://doi.org/10.21097/ksw.2017.11.12.4.261

Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The Coach–Athlete Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q):
Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science, 14, 245–257.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2003.00338.x

Jowett, S., Shanmugam, V., & Caccoulis, S. (2012). Collective efficacy as a mediator of the association
between interpersonal relationships and athlete satisfaction in team sports. International Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 10, 66–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2012.645127

Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Jowett, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Carbonneau, N. (2011). Passion for coaching and the
quality of the coach–athlete relationship: The mediating role of coaching behaviors. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 12, 144–152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.08.002

Lindsley, D. H., Brass, D. J., & Thomas, J. B. (1995). Efficacy-performance spirals: A multilevel perspective.
The Academy of Management Review, 20, 645–678.
https://doi.org/10.2307/258790

López-Walle, J., Balaguer, I., Castillo, I., & Tristán, J. (2012). Autonomy support, basic psychological needs
and well-being in Mexican athletes. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 1283–1292.
https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_sjop.2012.v15.n3.39414

Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of
Sport Sciences, 21, 883–904.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000140374

Martin, S. B., Jackson, A. W., Richardson, P. A., & Weiller, K. H. (1999). Coaching preferences of adolescent
youths and their parents. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 247–262.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209908404203

Myers, N. D., Feltz, D. L., & Short, S. E. (2004). Collective efficacy and team performance: A longitudinal
study of collegiate football teams. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8, 126–138.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.8.2.126

Occhino, J. L., Mallett, C. J., Rynne, S. B., & Carlisle, K. N. (2014). Autonomy-supportive pedagogical
approach to sports coaching: Research, challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Sports
Science & Coaching, 9, 401–415.

8© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal

https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.9.2.401

Price, M. S., & Weiss, R. M. (2013). Relationships among coach leadership, peer leadership, and adolescent
athletes’ psychosocial and team outcomes: A test of transformational leadership theory. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 25, 265–279.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2012.725703

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New
procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

Vieira, L. L. J., Ferreira, L., Cheuczuk, F., Flores, P. P., Vissoci, R. N. J., Rocha, F. F., … Vieira, F. L. (2015).
Impact of coach-athlete relationship on the collective efficacy of young volleyball players. Revista Brasileira
de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano, 17, 650–660.
https://doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2015v17n6p650

Yoo, J., & Lim, S. (2009). Development and validation of the Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Soccer [In
Korean]. Korean Journal of Sport Psychology, 20, 17–31. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/36lf2au

9© 2020 Scientific Journal Publishers Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of
Society for Personality Research and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.