When does perceived coach autonomy support enhances change in athletes’ subjective vitality? The multilevel moderating role of grateful climate

ABSTRACT

Grounded in self-determination theory, this study explores the positive impact of perceived coach autonomy support on athletes’ subjective vitality. Additionally, we posit that a grateful climate, functioning as a socio-cultural structure, plays a crucial cross-level moderator. A total of 203 athletes from 32 sports teams were included in the analysis. Employing a time-lagged design, our results reveal a significant predictive relationship between perceived coach autonomy support and changes in subjective vitality. Moreover, a noteworthy cross-level moderating effect of the grateful climate emerged. In teams characterized by a high grateful climate, the relationship between perceived coach autonomy support and athletes’ subjective vitality is strengthened, and such an effect is not validated in teams with a low grateful climate. These findings are consistent with our expectations, affirming not only the replication of previous research but also emphasizing the importance of a grateful climate as a cultural structural factor in this context.

KEYWORDS:

• Self-determination theory
• broaden-and-build theory
• gratitude
• adolescent

Subjective vitality has been a crucial concept that researchers have focused on for the past several decades. Ryan and Frederick (1997) defined vitality as the energy for daily living available to everyone, encompassing more than just physical vigor but also the simultaneous presence of enthusiasm and spirit. As a series of studies have unfolded, subjective vitality has gained increasing attention across various fields, including clinical psychology, consumer psychology, developmental psychology, educational psychology, and sports psychology. Previous research has indicated that having higher levels of subjective vitality greatly benefits an individual’s physical and mental health. Consequently, researchers have been actively seeking potential factors to enhance individuals’ subjective vitality over time (e.g. Chen et al., 2022; Kinnafick et al., 2014; Patrick et al., 2000). From this perspective, this is even more crucial for athletes who face intense training and competition on a daily basis.

According to recent research by Lavrusheva (2020), the factors promoting subjective vitality can be broadly categorized into three groups, namely physiological, psychological, and environmental factors. Among these three factors, the perception of the environment has always been a significant concern in the field of sports. Given the close interaction between coaches and athletes in sports teams, with coaches providing guidance and support, coaches play a crucial role in shaping the environmental atmosphere. Some empirical studies in the past have also supported that in both competitive sports and fitness settings, athletes’ perceived coach autonomy support has a direct impact on subjective vitality (Adie et al., 2012; Kinnafick et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2023). However, upon closer examination of these studies, the author believes that there is still considerable theoretical room for improvement. In essence, we still lack a clear understanding of the psychological mechanisms connecting athletes’ perceived coach autonomy support and their subjective vitality. The potential factors influencing the strength of athletes’ perceived coach autonomy support have been relatively neglected in previous research, leading to a significant theoretical gap.

In light of this, this study proposes a potential moderator from the perspective of gratitude theory, which is termed as grateful climate (Chen & Hsu, 2022; Chen, Kuo, Ni, & Hsu, in press; Chen, Kuo, Ni, Wu, et al., 2024). Unlike the perceived coach autonomy support, which represents an individual’s perception, a grateful climate signifies a contextual characteristic within a social and cultural context. It is defined as the shared perception among team members regarding their values, beliefs, and expected behaviors related to gratitude (Chen, Kuo, Ni, Wu, et al., 2024). The authors propose that in a context where gratitude is highly recognized, emphasized, and valued, and where the psychological processes align with the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotional systems as spirals (Fredrickson, 2004b), athletes become more conscious of the autonomy support provided by their coaches. This increased appreciation extends to all aspects, thereby enhancing athletes’ subjective vitality. In the subsequent literature review, we will provide a clearer theoretical elaboration.

Perceived coach autonomy support and athletes’ subjective vitality

The term ‘vitality’ describes a positive feeling of aliveness and energy that goes beyond mere physical activity, arousal, or even the presence of stored caloric reserves. Instead, it signifies a distinct psychological state characterized by enthusiasm and spirit (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). From a psychological perspective, possessing a high level of subjective vitality is an indispensable factor for athletes (Lavrusheva, 2020). Given that athletes often face significant stress from training and competition over the long term, higher subjective vitality serves as a protective factor, enabling athletes to perform at their competitive best in a state filled with passion and energy. In light of this, understanding the antecedents of enhancing athletes’ subjective vitality becomes crucial and previous research has found that athletes’ perceived coach autonomy support is an important facilitating factor (Adie et al., 2012; Kinnafick et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2023).

The Self-Determination Theory highlights autonomy support as a pivotal element within an individual’s social environment (Mossman et al., 2024). This support involves offering choices and meaning, enabling individuals to perceive control over their own actions. When individuals can exercise autonomy in their decision-making, as opposed to feeling constrained by external influences, they tend to experience elevated levels of vitality. As vitality is defined as one’s conscious sense of having energy or as ‘the experience of possessing positive energy under one’s self-regulation’(Ryan & Frederick, 1997, p. 530). Receiving autonomy support from significant figures, such as coaches in the case of athletes, is likely to enhance relational energy and boost psychological resourcefulness, including vitality, which arises from a series of positive interpersonal interactions (Owens et al., 2016, p. 37).

For example, when coaches offer autonomy support, they can foster positive interactions with athletes and elevate their energy and enthusiasm by motivating athletes to define their own goals, develop training plans, and pursue their aspirations, all while endorsing the choices made by the athletes. Empirically, autonomy support has shown a positive correlation with heightened vitality in the context of sports. As an illustration, in a cross-sectional study involving adult sports participants, Adie et al. (2008) discovered that athletes who perceived autonomy support from their coaches reported higher levels of vitality. Furthermore, this pattern holds true in longitudinal studies conducted with adolescent athletes, with consistent replication in studies by Adie et al. (2012), Balaguer et al. (2012), and Wang et al. (2023). Based on the previously mentioned research, we proposed that there is substantial support for the relationship between perceived coach autonomy support and athletes’ subjective vitality. However, a notable research gap remains due to the limited understanding of the regulatory factors that can enhance perceived coach autonomy support, subsequently leading to an increase in athletes’ subjective vitality. This presents a crucial research question within the field of sport psychology.

In this article, we aim to present a novel perspective that enhance perceived coach autonomy support from a perspective rooted in gratitude theory (Fehr et al., 2017; Fredrickson, 2004b). Our study proposes that the notion of a grateful climate (Chen & Hsu, 2022; Chen, Kuo, Ni, & Hsu, in press; Chen, Kuo, Ni, Wu, et al., 2024), particularly at the team level, plays a pivotal moderating role. As athletes grow and train within a team environment, the ambiance and cultural characters cultivated by the team have a profound impact on individual athletes. Therefore, adopting a team-level perspective in our study is crucial for helping researchers gain a comprehensive understanding of how athletes are influenced by both individual and team dynamics simultaneously.

Grateful climate enhances autonomy support

Fehr et al. (2017) proposed the multilevel model of gratitude extends the construct of gratitude beyond the individual, situating it within the collective milieu of teams or organizations. His framework as comprising: (1) episodic gratitude as an emotion at the event level, (2) persistent gratitude as an individual-level tendency, and (3) collective gratitude at the organizational level (p. 362) refers to the enduring experience of gratitude that is shared among members of organizations (p. 346). The collective gratitude of an organization stems from the persistent gratitude at the individual level, fostered through social interactions and communications and interchange, denoted in this discourse as a grateful climate.

However, Chen, Kuo, Ni, Wu, et al. (2024) argue that the grateful climate is a distinct construct, not merely an aggregate of individual-level gratitude. They conceptualized grateful climate at sports team as collective consensus represented a culturally shaped perception that team members collectively exhibit values, beliefs and expected behaviors that fit with the script of gratitude. In such a grateful climate, athletes collectively agree on the importance of fostering and expressing gratitude, engaging in selfless support among teammates without the expectation of reciprocation, thus epitomizing an atmosphere rich in grateful attitudes and behaviors (Chen & Hsu, 2022). Empirically, they developed a psychometrically validated instrument, the Sports Team Grateful Climate Questionnaire, to assess the extent of gratitude within athletic environments. They demonstrated the newly conceptualization of grateful climate has better incremental validity than simply aggregating individual-level gratitude (Chen, Kuo, Ni, Wu, et al., 2024).

Our research focuses on the moderating role of grateful climate at group level in the relationship between perceived coaches autonomy support and athlete’s subjective vitality at individual level. According to the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004a), we posit that a grateful climate would strengthen the effect of perceived coach autonomy support in three ways. First, expanding the scope of attention, athletes in a gratitude-enriched team environment become more sensitively conscious of the support and assistance from coaches. Second, broaden the range of cognition allows athletes in such a grateful climate to introspect and realize the importance of what one has in life. Additionally, athletes are more likely to respond to benefactors’ supportive actions with thoughtful consideration rather than with a narrow-minded confrontation, predisposing them to positive interpretations of autonomy-supportive behaviors, which promotes positive outcomes, including enhanced subjective vitality. Finally, a high grateful climate leads athlete to recognize and appreciate actions that convey gratitude within the team, including the gratitude shown for coaches autonomy support (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004a).

Based on the above review, we infer those athletes who are exposed to a prolonged grateful climate are more likely to perceive various forms of support provided by coaches. Moreover, they are better able to interpret that these perceived supports are without controlling intentions and are intended to facilitate the athletes’ development. In other words, a grateful climate prevents athletes from taking these supports for granted; instead, they appreciate and perceive them as valuable resources to be preserved or utilized. In the long term, these supports from coaches have the potential, as suggested by the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004a), to develop into a psychological resource. For instance, subjective vitality, a focus of this study, is one such psychological resource. Accordingly, we expect grateful climate would strengthen the relationship between perceived coach autonomy support and athletes’ subjective vitality.

In conclusion, from the perspective of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), our study suggests that coach autonomy support can assist athletes in accumulating psychological resources, specifically referred to in this paper as athletes’ subjective vitality. Furthermore, based on the broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001, 2004a), it is inferred that the perceived effects of coach autonomy support are strengthened by a grateful climate. This is because, in a high grateful climate, athletes are less likely to take such support for granted and instead view it as a precious psychological resource.

Method

Participants and procedures

High school student-athletes were invited to participate in a longitudinal study¹ on a voluntary basis, and to ensure compliance with ethical guidelines, we obtained permission from the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Given that the participants were under the age of 18, we obtained informed consent from both the students themselves and their parents before our data collection to ensure their ethical rights. To maintain confidentiality, research surveys were distributed in classrooms by a research assistant during athletes’ break time and without the presence of the coach. Participants completed and returned their questionnaires directly to the research assistant.

With respect to the data collection, six waves of data were collected over three years, with each wave being collected approximately five months apart. All data collection implemented outside of the participants’ competition seasons. Data from waves 1, 2, 4, and 5 were utilized for analysis. In wave 1, participants were invited to provide demographic information and domain-general gratitude. In wave 2, participants completed the measure of perceived coach autonomy support and grateful climate. In wave 4, participants rated the subjective vitality served as control variables measure. Finally, in wave 5, participants rated the subjective vitality once again.

Of the participant, 504 athletes were reached in the first data collection stage, and 203 athletes participated in the 3-year period. Accordingly, a total of 203 athletes from 32 sports teams provided complete data and were retained in the analysis. To ensure robust estimations in multilevel modeling, research suggests that a minimum sample size of 30 at the group level of analysis provides sufficient power to test the study hypotheses (Maas & Hox, 2005). Accordingly, our sample size in team level was adequate. The final sample consisted of 71 female athletes and 132 male athletes, with a mean age of 15.29 years (SD = 0.48). On average, the athletes’ tenure in the sport specialty was 4.31 years (SD = 2.33), and their weekly training days was 5.46 (SD = 0.69). The respondents represented various sports expertise, including track and field, korfball, wrestling, judo, archery, shooting sport, table tennis, basketball, volleyball, swimming, taekwondo, kendo, rugby, fencing, and softball.

Measurement

Perceived coach autonomy support

We used a short version of the Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ) developed by Deci (2001) to measure perceived coach autonomy support (Adie et al., 2012; Jõesaar et al., 2012). Previous study used the short version of the SCQ and found that perceived coach autonomy support at Time 1 can significantly predict Time 2 task involvement after controlling for Time 1 task involvement, supporting the predictive effect of this instrument (Jõesaar et al., 2012). Besides, Cronbach’s α was .80 at Time 1 and .81 at Time 2 in their study. In Chen and Wu (2016) study, they also used the short version of SCQ and found the Cronbach’s α was .93 in a sample of collegiate athletes in Taiwan. Sample items are ‘I feel that my coach provides me choices and options’ and ‘I feel understood by my coach’. A seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) was used in this study. Cronbach’s α was .89 in the present study.

Subjective vitality

We assessed athletes’ subjective vitality using a scale initially developed by Ryan and Frederick (1997) and subsequently validated by Bostic et al. (2000). In the original version presented by Ryan and Frederick (1997), seven items were grouped under the same factor. This scale was also expected to exhibit positive correlations with well-being indicators such as self-actualization and self-esteem, while demonstrating negative associations with indicators of ill-being, including psychopathology, anxiety, and depression, as supported by data collected from various studies and sample groups. However, in their study involving 526 participants, Bostic et al. (2000) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis and identified that one negatively worded item did not perform effectively. Consequently, this item was eliminated to enhance the model’s fit. Following the recommendation of Bostic et al. (2000), we used only the remaining six items in our research. A prior study employing the Chinese version of the subjective vitality scale with an athlete population reported satisfactory reliability and validity (Chen & Chang, 2017). In our study, we asked participants to assess their subjective vitality within a general context, not specific to sports, based on their current experiences when completing the survey. Sample items included statements like ‘I feel alive and vital’ and ‘I nearly always feel awake and alert’. A seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), was employed for participants to indicate their responses. Cronbach’s α was .88 at Wave 4 and .90 at Wave 5 in the present study.

Grateful climate

The 9-item Sports Team Grateful Climate Questionnaire (Chen, Kuo, Ni, Wu, et al., 2024) assessed the grateful climate within sports teams, demonstrating satisfactory reliability and validity of this scale in Chinese adolescent athletes. The questionnaire measures the perception of a culturally shaped environment within the team, wherein members collectively exhibit values, beliefs, and expected behaviors that align with gratitude. It does not aggregate individual trait gratitude scores, but rather focuses on the team-level variable of grateful climate. Sample items include ‘People on our team think that being grateful and expressing gratitude is important’ and ‘On this team, people always express gratitude for the contributions of others’. Cronbach’s α was .96 in the present study. To examine the aggregation of grateful climate, the average inter-member agreement (r_wg(j)) across teams was .76. Furthermore, the intra-class correlation for grateful climate was ICC(1) = .26, F = 1.60, p < .05, and ICC(2) = .69 in the current study. These results satisfy the criteria for within-team agreement (LeBreton & Senter, 2007) and inter-member reliability (Bliese, 2000), providing support for aggregating grateful climate scores to the team level. Participants rated each item on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Domain-general gratitude

The 5-item Gratitude Questionnaire Taiwan version (GQ-T; Chen et al., 2009) was used to measure individual’s dispositional gratitude. The GQ-6, initially developed by McCullough et al. (2002), and translated into a five-item Taiwan version (Chen et al., 2009), was employed. Previous studies have demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity of the GQ-T in Chinese athlete and adolescent athlete populations (Chen, 2013; Chen & Chang, 2017; Chen & Kee, 2008; Chen et al., 2023). An example item is ‘I have so much in life to be thankful for’. Participants rated the items on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of the scale in the current study was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, which was .83.

Control variables

Several control variables were included to examine the potential effects on subjective vitality, including athletes’ age, tenure in the sport specialty, and weekly training days. Specifically, age and tenure in the sport specialty were self-reported in years. Weekly training days were self-reported in days. To increase the strengths of current findings, we further controlled for the prior level of athletes’ subjective vitality (Little et al., 2006). Moreover, we also included domain-general gratitude (GQ-T; Chen et al., 2009) as an additional control variable to account for shared variance, which allowed us to promote the incremental validity of the grateful climate measures.

Results

Attrition analysis and descriptive statistics

To evaluate whether nonresponses in the collected data exhibited any systematic patterns, we created dummy variables to categorize respondents into two different groups (i.e. respondents and non-respondents across multiple waves). We then compared demographic variables between respondents and non-respondents, following the suggestion of Ployhart and Vandenberg (2010). The results indicated no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age (t = 0.22, p > .05), tenure in the sport specialty (t = 1.33, p > .05), and weekly training days (t = −0.04, p > .05). These findings suggest that the nonresponses in the collected data were not systematic.

The means, standard deviations, and correlations of research variables are presented in Table 1. Supporting our expectations, the results of correlations revealed that subjective vitality at Wave 4 was positively associated with subjective vitality at Wave 5 (r = .54, p < .01). Perceived coach autonomy support was positively associated with subjective vitality at Wave 5 (r = .23, p < .01).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. W1 age	15.29	0.48	–
2. W1 tenure in the sport specialty (years)	4.31	2.33	−.04
3. W1 weekly training day	5.46	0.69	−.10	.20**
4. W1 domain-general gratitude	6.06	0.90	.03	−.04	.20**
5. W4 subjective vitality	4.63	1.13	.05	−.04	.09	.24**
6. W2 perceived coach autonomy support	4.31	1.03	−.10	.04	.23**	.20**	.21**
7. W2 grateful climate	4.79	0.58	−.05	.11	.14*	.13	.07	.20**
8. W5 subjective vitality	4.70	1.25	.02	−.09	.08	.25**	.54**	.23**	.09

*p < .05; **p < .01.

W = Wave; Team N = 32; Athlete N = 203. Team-level variable was grateful climate was assigned to members of the same team to calculate the individual-level correlations.

HLM null models and hypotheses testing

Due to the non-independent nature of the empirical data structure and research hypotheses, we firstly calculated the ICC(1) by conducting a null model with no predictors for subjective vitality at Wave 5. The result indicated that the ICC(1) for subjective vitality at Wave 5 was 0.12, supporting the use of hierarchical linear modeling (Dyer et al., 2005). Accordingly, we followed the suggestion of Bryk and Raudenbush (1992) to adopt a two-level random intercept model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation in SPSS (Heck et al., 2014) to examine our research hypotheses. To reduce the threat of common methods variance, we group-mean centered Level-1 predictors (i.e. age, tenure in the sport specialty, weekly training days, domain-general gratitude, and subjective vitality at Wave 4), and grand-mean centered the Level-2 predictor (e.g. grateful climate; Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).

The HLM results are shown in Table 2. Prior to test our main hypotheses, we initially entered age, tenure in the sport specialty, weekly training days, domain-general gratitude, and subjective vitality at Wave 4 as control variables in Model 1. Then, Hypothesis 1 proposed that perceived coach autonomy support was positively associated with subjective vitality at Wave 5. As presented in Model 2, after controlling for age, tenure in the sport specialty, weekly training days, domain-general gratitude, and subjective vitality at Wave 4, perceived coach autonomy support was positively associated with subjective vitality at Wave 5 (b = .20, p < .01). Hypothesis 1 was supported. We then included the grateful climate as predictor of subjective vitality at Wave 5 in Model 3 and found non-significant result (b = .16, p > .05). For Hypothesis 2, we found that the cross-level interaction between perceived coach autonomy support and grateful climate was positively associated with subjective vitality at Wave 5 (b = 26, p < .05; see Model 4 in Table 2).

Table 2. Results of hierarchical linear modeling.

Predictors	Subjective vitality (W5)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Level 1 (individual-level)
Intercept	4.67***	4.67***	4.67***	4.67***
1. W1 age	−.02	.02	.02	.00
2. W1 tenure in the sport specialty (years)	.02	.02	.02	.02
3. W1 weekly training day	.05	−.01	−.01	.00
W1 domain-general gratitude	.17	.14	.14	.14
W4 subjective vitality	.57***	.54***	.54***	.54***
W2 perceived coach autonomy support		.20**	.20**	.23**
Level 2 (group-level)
W2 grateful climate			.16	.16
Interaction
W2 perceived coach autonomy support t * W2 grateful climate				.26*
-2 Restricted Log likelihood	604.93	601.47	602.22	600.54
Residual	.92***	.89***	.89***	.88***
Intercept (variance of residual error for team)	.23*	.28*	.29*	.29*

W = Wave; Unstandardized coefficients are reported.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

To further specify the pattern of this cross-level interaction, we depicted the interaction (see Figure 1) by conducting simple slopes analysis for the effect of perceived coach autonomy support on subjective vitality at Wave 5 at specified values of grateful climate (Preacher et al., 2006). We evaluated the simple slopes at one standard deviation above and below the mean for grateful climate. The results indicated that perceived coach autonomy support was positively related to subjective vitality at Wave 5 when grateful climate was high (b = .38, t = 3.22, p < .01), but this relationship was not significant when grateful climate was low (b = .08, t = 0.80, p > .05). In brief, the results supported Hypothesis 2.

Figure 1. Interaction plot of perceived coach autonomy support and grateful climate in predicting change in subjective vitality at wave 5.

Discussion

The primary aim of this study is to examine the cross-level moderating effects of grateful climate. After mitigating the issue of common method variance through the use of a time-lagged data collection method, the research findings indicate that the perceived coach autonomy support significantly predicts the change in subjective vitality. Furthermore, we found a notable cross-level moderating effect of the grateful climate. The results indicated that athletes with high perceived coach autonomy support exhibit higher subjective vitality in more grateful teams compared to those with low perceived coach autonomy support in less grateful team. This study underscores the importance of considering both individual differences and environmental conditions when seeking to understand changes in athletes’ subjective vitality. Only by doing so can intervention strategies be designed that are more suitable for enhancing athletes’ subjective vitality.

The first significant contribution of this study lies in the reaffirmation of the relationship between perceived coach autonomy support and athletes’ subjective vitality (Adie et al., 2012; Balaguer et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2023). The results indicate that perceived coach autonomy support significantly predicts change in athletes’ subjective vitality. Although the participants in previous studies varied in sports types, ages, and cultures, our results were remarkably consistent and also provided reliable external validity evidence. Furthermore, both previous studies and the current research, in terms of data collection strategies, have employed longitudinal or time-lagged approaches that alley common method biases (Lindell & Whitney, 2001; Podsakoff et al., 2003). Consistently, the results indicate that when athletes perceive the support provided by coaches without controlling intention but rather as coaches being willing to listen, empower, and encourage them, it can enhance athletes’ subjective vitality which corresponds to self-determination theory (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Koole et al., 2019; Mossman et al., 2024). These evidences collectively support the robust association between perceived coach autonomy support and athletes’ subjective vitality. Based on the above, an important question arises: examining the distinction between perceived and actual coach support may be another significant research direction. In other words, how athletes interpret the support they receive becomes crucial, and the potential disparity between the actual support received and subjective perception is another issue worthy of attention. Although these extended issues are beyond the scope of this study, they provide directions for future research in the exploration of perceived (actual) coach support.

The second significant contribution regarding the moderating role of grateful climate we found. Although the main effect of grateful climate was not significant (b = .16, p > .05) in Model 3 at Wave 5, our analysis indicated meaningful moderation, suggesting that the cross-level interaction between perceived coach autonomy support and grateful climate was positively associated with subjective vitality at Wave 5 (b = 26, p < .05; see Model 4 in Table 2). This implies that the foundational perception of coach autonomy support is indeed important, but it is the presence of a grateful climate that greatly enhances the potential benefits of subjective vitality. Within such a climate, athletes not only perceive and consciously acknowledge the support from coaches more intensely but also interpret it with goodwill, integrating this support into their personal experiences and the collective ethos of the team, thus significantly strengthening their subjective vitality. Therefore, an individual’s well-being and behavior are complex constructs, necessitated consideration of influenced by an intricate interplay between both personal attributes and the surrounding environment (Funder, 2009; Schmitt, 2009; Shiner, 2009; von Eye & Bergman, 2009).

Furthermore, our study illuminated distinctions between teams with high and low levels of grateful climate. The results revealed that perceived coach autonomy support was significantly associated with increased subjective vitality at Wave 5 within contexts of a high grateful climate (b = .38, t = 3.22, p < .01). In contrast, a low grateful climate attenuated this relationship, rendering the correlation between perceived coach autonomy support and subjective vitality was nonsignificant at Wave 5 (b = .08, t = 0.80, p > .05), thereby diminishing the influence of coach autonomy support on subjective vitality. This finding delineates the distinction between high- and low-grateful climate teams, with the former exhibiting a collective sense of appreciation and positivity that is crucial to the emotional and social framework of the team. Characterized by mutual acknowledgment of effort and contributions, this grateful climate fosters an environment where members feel both valued and supported, thus significantly enhancing morale, cooperation, and overall team cohesion. Thus, compared to team members functioning in an environment with a low grateful climate, those within a high grateful climate are more likely to participate in tasks that contribute to and promote the team’s goals, as they are cognizant of their efforts being acknowledged and valued. This insight is pivotal for understanding how distinct team cultures at the environmental level can enhance member well-being.

The above results raised an interesting inquire into the forms of support. Unlike visible support, which is direct and acknowledged by recipients, invisible support provided in a more indirect manner that recipients may not directly attribute to help has been shown to be more beneficial (Zee & Bolger, 2019) and lead to greater goal achievement for a longer time (Girme et al., 2013). Autonomy support, typically demonstrated as a form of invisible support, significantly influences fostering athletes’ independence, especially within environments characterized by a robust grateful climate. Therefore, academic inquiries might need to navigate the complex relationship between coaching strategies particularly invisible support from the coach and team culture, notably a grateful climate. From this perspective, it is interesting to explore whether covert, implicit forms of support, such as listening actively, emotional backup, and nonverbal encouragement, are as beneficial to athletes as visible forms of support. Going a step further, this raises the question of whether a team with a greater grateful climate can enhance the effects of invisible support. These are intriguing topics, and unraveling these questions could contribute to the overall well-being of athletes, both mentally and physically.

Implication and limitation

The results of this study have several important implications worth emphasizing. Firstly, the findings indicate that as long as athletes perceive higher levels of coach autonomy support, they can experience higher subjective vitality especially when they are in a high grateful climate. Therefore, how to enhance athletes’ perception of coach autonomy support becomes a key issue. Reviewing the existing literature, researchers generally have a clear understanding of the content and scope of influence of perceived coach autonomy support (Hagger et al., 2007; Mossman et al., 2024; Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, there is a relative lack of research on how athletes interpret the support they receive. This cognitive process, ranging from detection, consciousness and understanding to judgment, remains a question that requires further investigation. Which athletes are more inclined to interpret the support they receive as non-controlling? Conversely, which athletes are more likely to negatively interpret the support they receive? These questions perhaps need further clarification, aligning with the findings of this study that highlight how athletes perceiving high coach autonomy support benefit more from grateful climate. This suggests that understanding the differential interpretation of support among athletes is crucial and warrants additional investigation within the realm of sports psychology.

Second, how to change the team climate is the second significant revelation extended from this study. Our research results clearly indicate that, in contrast to a climate characterized by low gratitude, a climate of high gratitude has a more favorable facilitating effect. Therefore, shaping grateful climate at sports team becomes a key issue. As of now, although there is no direct research specifically designing intervention programs for grateful climate at sports team, the authors believe that insights can potentially be derived from the literature on group dynamics (Cronin et al., 2011; Van Vugt & Schaller, 2008). Since contemporary sports psychology emphasizes individualized intervention plans, asserting that, to assist athletes in achieving optimal athletic performance, each intervention plan should be tailored specifically to the athlete, meaning there is no universally applicable approach (Chen et al., 2022; Lavallee et al., 2005; Sargent et al., 2021). However, our study, to some extent, reflects a different perspective. While group intervention plans may not be the most direct strategy for enhancing athletes’ performance, they may hold undeniable value in strengthening the overall mental and physical health of athletes. This is precisely why group intervention plans still retain their inherent value. In the near future, as we draw inspiration from techniques and methods in group therapy or group dynamics, researchers may be able to design climate-enhancing programs for gratitude. This direction is worth further exploration by researchers.

Although this study has yielded rich results, there are several research limitations that must be noted. Firstly, while the study employed a longitudinal research design, data collection exclusively relied on self-report questionnaires. While this approach reduces the impact of common method variance and provides evidence supporting the stability of directional relationships among variables, future research should strive to incorporate objective measurement strategies. For instance, in the context of coach autonomy support, it may be beneficial to include responses from coaches as a complementary and objective source of information. Second, since the grateful climate is currently only applicable to sports teams, future research could attempt to extend its application to different team structures. For example, exploring the impact of grateful climate in various social structures such as the military, corporate environments, and schools could be an important topic. Because the nature of the work and the challenges faced by these organizations vary, it is worth investigating whether a climate of gratitude still exerts similar effects. Third, our findings may contribute to a more balanced understanding of gratitude worldwide, echoing the field’s call for a culturally inclusive and, consequently, more accurate depiction of human wellbeing (Shek, 2014). Nevertheless, it is crucial to emphasize that although the study was conducted within an interesting cultural context, we did not investigate culture as a construct. Consequently, we find it important to highlight this theoretical limitation in our research for future investigations while refraining from reading too much into the uncertain cultural uniqueness or similarity of the results.

Conclusion

In summary, this study, grounded in self-determination theory, once again demonstrates the promotive effect of perceived coach autonomy support on athletes’ subjective vitality. Furthermore, distinct from previous research, we approached the understanding of key factors in enhancing perceived coach autonomy support from a novel perspective. By exploring the gratitude theory, we proposed that the grateful climate, functioning as a socio-cultural structure, could be a crucial cross-level regulatory factor. The results aligned with our expectations. Therefore, this study not only replicates past findings but also underscores the significance of grateful climate as a cultural structural factor.

Compliance of ethical standard statement

This study was approved by the National Taiwan University review board (202012ES010)

Informed consent

The athletes were instructed to read the information sheet, and signed an informed consent form before the survey. Therefore, their confidentiality and anonymity were ensured.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The data for this study were collected in the context of a larger project (a six-waves of data collection across three years) supervised and funded by the first authors. Current study used the one, second, fourth, and fifth wave of variables form the project. We declare that part of data for grateful climate in this study had reported in another independent article aim at developing measurement. Apart from this, neither the analysis nor the findings had been reported in prior work.

Additional information

Funding

Lung Hung Chen was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology [MOST 110-2628-H-179-001, MOST 111-2628-H-179-001, & NSTC 112-2628-H-179-001], Taiwan.

Notes

1. The data for this study were collected as part of a larger project, which involved six waves of data collection over a three-year period. The project was supervised and funded by the first authors. It is important to note that the Gratitude Questionnaire at wave 1 and Sports Team Grateful Climate Questionnaire at wave 2 used in this study had been reported in other articles, which aims to capture the growth of athlete’s gratitude and scale develop. Besides, neither the analysis nor the findings presented in this study have been reported in any prior work.