Controlling coaching in team sports: the role of demanding and domineering behavior in athletes’ motivational outcomes.

Recent research within the context of Self-Determination Theory distinguished being demanding and domineering as separate approaches of a psychological controlling coaching style. This study aimed to examine the role of these controlling approaches in athletes’ motivational outcomes when accompanied by need-supportive coach behavior (i.e., autonomy support and structure). K-means cluster analyses were performed to identify coaching profiles combining controlling and need-supportive approaches. Within a sample of team sport athletes (N = 317), results pointed towards four-cluster solutions (i.e., high-high, high-low, low-high, low-low) when analyzing either the autonomy and demanding scores or the structure and demanding scores. Also four clusters were found when focusing on the autonomy and domineering variables (i.e., moderate high-high, high-low, low-high, & moderate low-low), and when inspecting the structure and domineering scores (i.e., high-high, high-low, low-high, & moderate low-moderate low). Concerning associations of these profiles with athletes’ autonomous motivation, controlled motivation and engagement, adopting a domineering approach showed to be unfavorable in terms of all motivational outcomes, whereas profiles characterized by high levels of demanding did not show negative associations with beneficial motivational outcomes. Yet, a highly demanding approach even provoked the highest scores regarding autonomous motivation and engagement when extended by either high levels of autonomy-supportive or structuring behavior. Altogether, while coaches are being strongly recommended to avoid domineering coaching behavior, these results may indicate that being demanding does not necessarily have to harm athletes’ adaptive outcomes (i.e., autonomous motivation and engagement), but only when coaches also display high levels of autonomy support or structure.status: publishe