The Coach's Impact on Long Distance Runners' Training and Competition Motivation

Abstract

An understanding of how an athlete's motivation is affected by coaching behaviours is vital information for a coach to acquire. This study examines the impact and need for a coach in optimising international athletes' training and competition motivation within the framework of Cognitive Evaluation Theory. The participants were six long distance runners with international experience. Qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews regarding the athletes' motivational experiences. Following inductive analysis, four general dimensions were established: athlete's uninfluenced training motivation; athlete's uninfluenced competition motivation; coaching behaviours impact on athlete's training motivation; and coaching behaviours impact on competition motivation. The findings revealed that coaching behaviours are typically consistent with the current motivational research [1-4] and the role of the coach is more important for an athlete's training motivation rather than competition motivation.Education of coaches in the correct use of motivational behaviours is therefore recommended, if athletes are to fulfill their abilities.

Autonomy support and motivational responses across training and competition in individual and team sports

“…In line with our findings for effort, this may suggest that, compared to training, perceived autonomy support may be less important for athletes' enjoyment in competition (cf. Goose & Winter, 2012).…”

“…Performance-contingent rewards that may undermine autonomy support (Deci & Ryan, 1987) are more prevalent in competition than in training, because performance in competition is formally evaluated by extrinsic rewards, such as ranking points and prize money, particularly at higher levels (Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Hence, compared to training, coaches may, in general, employ a more controlling coaching style in competition (e.g., by imposing a tactical plan on the athlete/team and/or by providing them tangible rewards for winning) in order to control the competitive outcome (e.g., Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2009;Goose & Winter, 2012). Thus, an emphasis on extrinsic rewards and performance outcomes may undermine autonomy supportive and encourage controlling coaching strategies (Bartholomew et al, 2009;Mageau & Vallerand, 2003).…”

Evaluating the predictability of distance race performance in NCAA cross country and track and field from high school race times in the United States

“…Physical and psychological variables that were not included in the models might contribute to race performance at the NCAA level. Specific factors affecting this individual heterogeneity include predisposition to injury, intrinsic motivation, self-confidence, pressure to perform well, and changes in coaching staff, which are all known to affect competitive performance at the NCAA level (Goose & Winter, 2012;Marx, Huffmon, & Doyle, 2008;Wooten, 1994). Training status of a high school runner also affects how much he/she can improve with increased training in college.…”

Humble Coaches and Their Influence on Players and Teams: The Mediating Role of Affect-Based (but Not Cognition-Based) Trust

“…Effective coaches teach proper technical skills and strengthen players' psychological preparedness to increase their rate of success (Smith et al, 2007). They influence their players' training motivation (Goose, & Winter, 2012). Coaches also ensure their athletes are at peak physical condition to meet the demands of competition and HUMBLE COACHES 7 create a safe and productive recovery process to ensure players successfully return from injury (Fernandes et al, 2014).…”