Do both coaches and parents contribute to youth soccer players’ motivation and engagement? An examination of their unique (de)motivating roles

ABSTRACT

Although much is known about the motivating effects of coaching and parenting, the unique contribution of coaches and parents to youth athletes’ motivational functioning received far less attention. While a few studies did look into the simultaneous role of constructive (i.e., need-supportive) coaching and parenting, no study to date simultaneously addressed the undermining role of dysfunctional (i.e., need-thwarting) coaching and parenting practices in athletes’ motivation. Therefore, the present study examined associations between both need-supportive and need-thwarting coaching and parenting behaviours and athletes’ motivation and engagement, using a cross-sectional design among 255 male youth soccer players (M_age = 13.72) from Belgium. Examined separately, coaching and parenting showed a similar pattern of associations, with need-supportive styles being positively associated with autonomous motivation and engagement and with need-thwarting styles relating positively to amotivation and disengagement. When considered in combination, need-supportive coaching, but not parenting, related positively to soccer players’ autonomous motivation and engagement, whereas need-thwarting coaching and parenting related uniquely and positively to amotivation. These findings testify to the importance of distinguishing between need-supportive and need-thwarting styles when examining the unique roles of coaches and parents in athletes’ motivation and engagement.

KEYWORDS:

• Sport motivation
• need thwarting
• need support
• self-determination theory

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 In a more explorative way, we examined the interactions between need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviours from the same socialisation figure. Only 1 out of 10 possible interactions turned out significant. Likewise, potential interactions between coach and parental behaviours were examined. Again, only 20% of the tested interactions turned out significant. Results are shown in Appendix A.

2 The more precise age distribution was as follows: 10 years (6.3%), 11 years (2.8%), 12 years (17.7%), 13 years (24%), 14 years (19.3%), 15 years (9.4%), 16 years (9.1%), 17 years (10.2%), 18 years (0.4%), and 20 years (0.8%).

3 A three-level model, with soccer players nested within coaches within clubs, was not considered because the distribution of coaches across sports clubs was very unbalanced: for 11 of the 16 clubs only one coach participated.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Government of Flanders, Department of Sport [grant number B/14197/02-IV2].