Does a closer coach-athlete bond buffer or exacerbate the detrimental effects of controlling coaching on athletes’ coping and outcomes?

Introduction: Although the detrimental effects of a controlling coaching style on athletes’ mental health have been widely demonstrated, many coaches still rely on such a style, hoping to push athletes towards exceptional performances. Some coaches are convinced that, if they simultaneously adopt a warm and relatedness-supportive approach, their controlling practices will not yield detrimental effects on their athletes. Based on the Self-Determination Theory and Skinner’s coping framework, this study examined whether these coaches’ convictions hold true.Methods: A total of 203 volleyball players (67% female; age = 21.20 ± 4.67 years) completed assessments of perceived controlling and relatedness-supportive coaching styles, their coping strategies (accommodation, compulsive compliance), and their self-reported engagement, performance, competitive anxiety, and burn-out. Results: Results showed that athletes who perceived their coach as more controlling, reported reduced performance, and higher levels of competitive anxiety and burn-out. Relatedness support exaggerated the detrimental effects of a controlling coaching approach. At higher levels of relatedness support the relation between controlling coaching and compulsive compliance (i.e., a maladaptive coping strategy) became stronger. This in turn yielded a more detrimental pattern of outcomes including reduced performance and higher levels of anxiety and burnout. Conclusion: The combination of a controlling and relatedness-supportive coaching style relates to more undesirable outcomes, such as more maladaptive coping through compulsive compliance, and in turn worse performance, and mental well-being as measured by athletes’ feelings of anxiety and burnout. It thus seems better to not use a controlling coaching style, than trying to counteract the detrimental effects by also investing in a warm and caring bond.Introduction: Although the detrimental effects of a controlling coaching style on athletes’ mental health have been widely demonstrated, many coaches still rely on such a style, hoping to push athletes towards exceptional performances. Some coaches are convinced that, if they simultaneously adopt a warm and relatedness-supportive approach, their controlling practices will not yield detrimental effects on their athletes. Based on the Self-Determination Theory and Skinner’s coping framework, this study examined whether these coaches’ convictions hold true.Methods: A total of 203 volleyball players (67% female; age = 21.20 ± 4.67 years) completed assessments of perceived controlling and relatedness-supportive coaching styles, their coping strategies (accommodation, compulsive compliance), and their self-reported engagement, performance, competitive anxiety, and burn-out. Results: Results showed that athletes who perceived their coach as more controlling, reported reduced performance, and higher levels of competitive anxiety and burn-out. Relatedness support exaggerated the detrimental effects of a controlling coaching approach. At higher levels of relatedness support the relation between controlling coaching and compulsive compliance (i.e., a maladaptive coping strategy) became stronger. This in turn yielded a more detrimental pattern of outcomes including reduced performance and higher levels of anxiety and burnout. Conclusion: The combination of a controlling and relatedness-supportive coaching style relates to more undesirable outcomes, such as more maladaptive coping through compulsive compliance, and in turn worse performance, and mental well-being as measured by athletes’ feelings of anxiety and burnout. It thus seems better to not use a controlling coaching style, than trying to counteract the detrimental effects by also investing in a warm and caring bond.C