Autonomy-supportive and controlling styles of teaching are usually considered to be the opposite ends of a single continuum. An alternative view, however, is that individuals can perceive both styles simultaneously, which suggests that they are different constructs ( Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011 ). Using cluster analysis, Study 1 (N = 160) confirmed that both teaching styles were perceived by students. Four clusters appeared depending on the student’s score on the measures of autonomy and controlling styles (high autonomy–high control; low autonomy–low control; high autonomy–low control; low autonomy–high control). Participants in the high autonomy–low control cluster reported the highest self-determined motivation in their studies. Using path analysis and mediational analyses, Study 2 (N = 127) tested the independence of the two styles by studying the process through which they influenced motivation. The results showed that need satisfaction (specifically, the need for autonomy) mediated the path between perceived autonomy-supportive teacher behavior and motivation, and that need-thwarting (specifically, the need for autonomy and relatedness) mediated the path between perceived controlling teacher behavior and self-determined motivation, which in turn predicted academic performance. These results add to the existing literature supporting the independence of the two styles.

Two field studies investigate the role of self in the tendency of athletes to engage in claimed handicapping strategies during training (anticipatively claiming that handicaps may interfere with their performance). Study 1 tested the relationship between trait self-esteem and athletes' engagement in claimed self-handicapping. As hypothesized, low physical self-esteem athletes claimed more handicaps than high physical self-esteem athletes. For stronger evidence for the causal role of the self, Study 2 tested whether securing athletes' self-worth through self-affirmation would lead to decreased claimed self-handicapping by using a mixed model design that allows for both between-subjects (affirmation vs. control condition) and within-subject comparisons (before vs. after self-affirmation intervention). Self-affirmed athletes had decreased levels of claimed self-handicapping. Studies 1 and 2 also demonstrate that athletes engage in claimed self-handicapping during training, which could have deleterious effects on subsequent performance. Discussion centers on theoretical implications and applications for coaches, sport teachers, and sport psychologists.

No abstract

We examined the relationship between physical self-esteem and claimed self-handicapping among athletes by taking motives into consideration. In Study 1, 99 athletes were asked to report their tendency to engage in claimed self-handicapping for self-protective and self-enhancement motives (trait measures). Low self-esteem athletes reported a higher tendency to engage in claimed self-handicapping for these two motives compared with high self-esteem athletes. Neither low nor high self-esteem athletes reported a preference for one motive over the other. In Study 2, 107 athletes participated in a test that was ostensibly designed to assess high physical abilities - and thus to encourage self-handicapping for self-enhancement motives (success-meaningful condition) - or to assess low physical abilities, and thus to encourage self-handicapping for self-protective motives (failure-meaningful condition). Before starting the test, athletes were given the opportunity to claim handicaps that could impair their performance. Low self-esteem athletes claimed more handicaps than high self-esteem athletes in both conditions. Findings suggest that low physical self-esteem athletes engage more in claimed handicapping regardless of motives, relative to high physical self-esteem athletes.

Distinct and simultaneous effects of autonomy-supportive and controlling styles, usually considered as mutually exclusive, on situational self-determined motivation are tested. In Study 1, economics students (N = 100; 57 men, 43 women; M age = 21.5 yr.) were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (high vs. low) of autonomy supportive and/or controlling behaviors during a task. Results supported the independence of those constructs. An unexpected effect in regards to Self-determination Theory was found in the Low autonomy - High control condition in which self-determined motivation was observed. The interpretation for this specific condition, an effect due to the attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance triggered by the commitment procedure, was tested. In Study 2, sport students (N = 80, 44 men, 36 women; M age = 19.2 yr.) were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions: No commitment, Commitment plus self-affirmation, and Commitment without self-affirmation. Results supported Study 1's interpretation: motivation was lower when participants were recruited without a commitment procedure or when they were invited to self-affirm than when participants recruited with a commitment procedure.

One hundred and three athletes participated in a motor task that was ostensibly designed to detect their physical ability (high ego-threatening condition) or provide pretesting data for an upcoming study (low ego-threatening condition) and were then given the opportunity to claim handicaps that could impair their performance on this task. Extending previous findings that high self-handicappers (i.e., athletes who scored high on the self-handicapping scale) and low self-esteem athletes engage in claimed self-handicapping in high ego-threatening conditions, the results reveal that they may also engage in this strategy in low ego-threatening conditions. In the low ego-threatening condition, athletes’ self-esteem and self-handicapping tendency explained together 33% of the handicaps they claimed.

The aim of this research was to refine our understanding of the role of working memory capacity (WMC) on motor performances that require attentional control in dual‐task situations. Three studies were carried out on soccer players. Each participant had to perform a juggling task in both normal and dual‐task conditions. In Study 1, the interfering task was a mental calculation test performed under time pressure (strong cognitive load). In Study 2, the interfering task was a count‐down test (low cognitive load). In Study 3 an intra‐individual design in which participants perform dual‐tasks increasingly complex has been proposed. Results showed a positive relationship between participants’ WMC and their dual‐task motor performance when the cognitive load was low and a negative relationship when the cognitive load was high. This paper highlights the role of the WMC in the activation of different modes of processing and its importance on the performance in dual‐task.

No abstract