Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High School Male Student-Ath

Eastern Illinois University
The Keep
Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications
2017
Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High

School Male Student-Athletes
Matthew Robert Warner
Eastern Illinois University
This research is a product of the graduate program in Kinesiology and Sports Studies at Eastern Illinois
University. Find out more about the program.
Recommended Citation
Warner, Matthew Robert, "Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High School Male Student-Athletes" (2017). Masters Theses. 2881.
https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/2881
This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses
by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact tabruns@eiu.edu.
The Graduate School �
EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY
Thesis Maintenance and Reproduction Certificate
FOR: Graduate Candidates Completing Theses in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree

Graduate Faculty Advisors Directing the Theses
RE: Preservation, Reproduction, and Distribution of Thesis Research
Preserving, reproducing, and distributing thesis research is an important part of Booth Library's
responsibility to provide access to scholarship. In order to further this goal, Booth Library makes all
graduate theses completed as part of a degree program at Eastern Illinois University available for personal
study, research, and other not-for-profit educational purposes. Under 17 U.S.C. § l 08, the library may
reproduce and distribute a copy without infringing on copyright; however, professional courtesy dictates
that permission be requested from the author before doing so.
Your signatures affirm the following:

• The graduate candidate is the author of this thesis.
• The graduate candidate retains the copyright and intellectual property rights associated with the
original research, creative activity, and intellectual or artistic content of the thesis.
• The graduate candidate certifies her/his compliance with federal copyright law (Title 17 of the U.
S. Code) and her/his right to authorize reproduction and distribution of all copyrighted materials
included in this thesis.
• The graduate candidate in consultation with the faculty advisor grants Booth Library the non
exclusive, perpetual right to make copies of the thesis freely and publicly available without
restriction, by means of any current or successive technology, including by not limited to
photocopying, microfilm, digitization, or internet.
• The graduate candidate acknowledges that by depositing her/his thesis with Booth Library,
her/his work is available for viewing by the public and may be borrowed through the library's
circulation and interlibrary loan departments, or accessed electronically.
• The graduate candidate waives the confidentiality provisions of the Family Educational Rights
and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 U.S. C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) with respect to the contents of
the thesis and with respect to information concerning authorship of the thesis, including name and
status as a student at Eastern Illinois University.
I have conferred with my graduate faculty advisor. My signature below indicates that I have read and
agree with the above statements, and hereby give my permission to allow Booth Library to reproduce and
distribute my thesis. My adviser's signa �currence to reproduce and distribute the thesis.
Graduate Candidate Signature Faculty Adviser Signatu�
Printed Name Printed Name
/(<.0"./t'/' of 5c,'C'J1.(,�
Graduate Degree Program
Please submit in duplicate.

Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High School Male Student-Athletes
(TITLE)
BY
THESIS
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF
Masters of Science
IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

CHARLESTON, ILLINOIS
2017
YEAR
I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THIS THESIS BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING

THIS PART OF THE GRADUATE DEGREE CITED ABOVE
7/3\/LJ
THESIS COMMITTEE CHAIR DATE D�PARTMENTISCHOOL CHAIR DATE
OR C.HAIR'S OFSIGNEE
7 /3,I[11 1/3)/Jf..
r
iHESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE
THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE

Running Head: COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES
Eastern Illinois University 2017

COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES II
Copyright (2017)

COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES m
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a correlation between a coach's coaching
style and team cohesion for high school student-athletes in different sports. A secondary purpose
of this study was to examine if there was a difference between a coach's perceived coaching
style and their student-athlete's perception. Methods: 20 male student-athletes and four coaches
of three different sports (baseball, track/field, and tennis) participated in the study. Eligible
participants were given consent/assent forms based on their age at the first meeting. At the
second meeting the forms were returned and participants were given questionnaires based on
what group they belonged to (student-athlete or coach). Participants were instructed on how to
fill out the questionnaires and to turn them in at the next meeting. At the next meeting all
questionnaires were received. Results: The coaching styles of social support, training and
instruction, and democratic coaching significantly correlated to social cohesion and training and
instruction was the only coaching style that significantly correlated to task cohesion. The same
results were found for the baseball team. In regards to the difference between perceived
coaching styles by the coaches and the athletes, there was no significant difference between
perceived styles between the two groups. Conclusion: When comparing coaching styles with
social cohesion, training and instruction, social support, and democratic coaching were the only
styles found to significantly correlate with team cohesion. Only training and instruction
correlated with task cohesion and furthermore, both student-athlete and coach, accurately
perceived the coaching styles used. In conclusion, this study found that training and instruction,
democratic coaching, and social support significantly correlated with social cohesion, training
and instruction significantly correlated with task cohesion, and student-athletes and coaches had
similar perceptions of coaching styles used.

COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES IV
Acknowledgements
Firstly, I would like to thank my chair advisor, Dr. Scott Ronspies. Without your help, I
would not be where I am today, nor would I have been nearly as successful as I have been. I
would also like to thank the rest of my committee Dr. Jon Oliver and Professor Chelsea Duncan.
Your guidance and expertise has been greatly beneficial and along with Dr. Ronspies, your
knowledge has impacted me greatly and I will forever be grateful. Also I would like to thank Dr.
Gannon White at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock. Your expertise in statistics was very
appreciated and I have no doubt I would still be running statistics today if not for you.
I would also like to give thanks to my friends. Without the help of the friendships I have
built here at EIU, I would not be where I am today. Thank you to Jacob, Jon, Garrat, Stacey, and
Justin. The friend I would like to thank the most is my wife Kayla Warner. I will be forever
thankful for you being a part of my life and everything you have ever done and will do for me.
Thank you for always keeping me sane when grad school gets too hard. I hope that one day I
can help you at least half as much as you have helped me.
Finally, I would like to thank my family. I would like to thank my mom and dad, John
and Julie, for always believing in me and always helping me whenever they can, my
grandparents Irma and Delbert for always helping take care of me when I was younger, Glen and
Wanda for allowing me the opportunity of even attending college and allowing me to further my
education. Also I would like to thank my sister Stacy Parkinson for always helping me with my
writing and allowing me to vent. Thanks for everything you've done sis.
COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES v
Table of Contents
Introduction ................ ............................................................................................................ 1
Statement of Problem .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 1
Rational for the Study . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .......... . ............ . ................. . .... . ............... . .................. .3
Statement of Purpose ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 6
Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 7
Basic Assumptions . . . .. .. . .... . . .

.. .. .... . .......... . .... . .
.. .... . .
.. .... . .... . .... . ....... . .... . . .
.. .. ....... . ....... .7
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................... ......... 8
Review of Literature .............................................................................................................. l 0
Coaching Styles .... . ............... . .............................................................. . .

.. ................ . 10
.
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) . .......... . .... . ...................... . ............... . .

.. .......... . ....... 10
Democratic Coaching Style . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Autocratic Coaching Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Social Support . .. . .... . .... . .... . ..

.. . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... 13
Positive Feedback . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . .... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................ 14
Attentional Focus ................ . . .

.. . .......... . ....... . ......... . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Autonomy Support .... . .

.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Feedback Valence ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . .. . . . . . . . . ......................... 18
Training and Instruction ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.. .... . . 20
.. ...
Coaching of Different Generations ........... . . . . . . . . . .............. . ............... . ........ . ................ 21
Baby Boomers .... . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ . ....... . ............................ 22
Generation X . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. .

.. . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . .................. 22
Generation Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. .. ....... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES VI
Generation Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ........... . .... . ............................ . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 24
Team Cohesion ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. .. .. .... . .......................................... 25
Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 25
Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ) ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Task Cohesion ........................ . . ... .... . . .. .... . ................................................... . . . . . . ..... . 27...
Social Cohesion ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . ..... . ........................................ 28
Negatives of Team Cohesion . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................... 29
Coaching Styles and Their Effect on Team Cohesion . ......... . .................................... 31
Summary of Literature Review . .. ..... . . .

.. . ........... .. .. .
. .. . .. .... . .... . . . . . . . . . ............................ 32
Methodology ...................................... ....... . ..... . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. . . .
.. .. . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . 35
.. ..
Participants and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . .

.. .. ...................................... ............................. 35
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ..... . ................................................................... 35
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Modified Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) . . . . . . ............... . ....... . ............. . ................. 37
Youtb Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ) ....... . .... . ....... . . .. . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . .37
Procedures .................................................................................................................. 37
Data Collection ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .... . ..... . .

.. ........... 38
Data Analysis . . . . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 39
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .................. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 40
Demographics . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 40
Correlation between Coaching Styles and Cohesion .... . ........... . . . . . . . .

.. .......... . .......... . .41
Comparison between Athlete's & Coach's Perception of Coaching Styles . . . . . . . . . . .43

. . .
Discussion ..................... . ..... . ......... . ..... . ........ . ................ .. . ... . . . . . . . ......... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . ..... 44
Future Research ................. . .. .. .. . . . . ........... . . . . . . ............. . ............. . ... ..... . ................ . . . . . . . 48
Implications ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . 49

COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES VII
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 50
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 70
Appendix A Student-Athlete Demographic Questionnaire ....................................... 71
Appendix B Leadership Scale for Sports (Student-Athlete Version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix C Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire .............................................. 77
Appendix D Coach's Demographic Questionnaire .................................................... 80
Appendix E Leadership Scale for Sports (Coach's Perception Version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES vm
List of Tables
Table 1 . Demographic Statistics of Student-Athletes
Table 2. Demographic Statistics of Coaches
Table 3. Correlation between Coaching Styles and Cohesion Sections Overall
Table 4. Correlation between Coaching Styles and Cohesion Sections for Baseball
Table 5. Comparison Between Coach's and Athlete's Perception of Coaching Style

COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES l
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
In a September 2016 article published on NFHS.org (National Federation of State High
School Association), the annual participation survey revealed that high school sports
participation had increased for the 27th consecutive year (NFHS, 2016). The staggering total of
7 ,868,900 high school student-athletes is at an all-time high and could be due to the ever rising
popularity in sports. The NFHS believes that high school teach athletes a sense of pride in their
community, lessons of teamwork and self-discipline, and facilitates the physical and emotional
development of the nation's youth (NFHS, n.d.). Furthermore sports have been shown to teach
sportsmanship, how to cope with loss, improves self-confidence, and one's ability to handle
competitive situations (Neutzling, 2012).
With the rise athletes participating in high school sports, the need for qualified coaches
has increased, however their qualifications for the position may be minimal. Previous research
suggests that the majority of high school coaches have not received the proper training to assume
the role of a youth sport coach (Richards & Lee, 2012; Weirsma & Sherman, 2005). Industry
research also indicates that the majority of secondary coaches do not hold any type of coaching
certification (NASBE, 2003). In addition, Martens, Flannery, and Retort (2003) concluded that
90% of high school coaches do not have any type of education in sport-related fields. This may
be due to a school's need to fill coaching duties but having no qualified coaches for that specific
sport. Due to the growth of high school sports and the lack of qualified coaches, high school
athletic directors need to develop strategic plans to recruit and appropriately train future high
school coaches in how to build successful teams and help their student-athletes reach their
highest potential.
COACHING STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES 2
Wattie (2015) stated that there are two keys to successful coaching: building trust and
great rapport with student-athletes and being able to motivate them. Fielden (2005) and Turman
(2003) examined additional positive qualities of a coach to be serene, disconnected (i.e.
overseeing a task and later advising), supportive, mindful, and reflective. However, it may not be
always beneficial to be disconnected in regards to newer/beginner athletes. They may not possess
the knowledge for the task at hand and need more immediate guidance. This presents a key
problem for a coach building trust and motivating their players, especially at the high school
level. According to Lerner and Lerner (2007), coaching amateur student-athletes can be the most
demanding and complex professional challenge a coach will face. Unlike a professional sports
team, a high school coach may only get four years with each player (at most) to build trust and
rapport. With limited time/resources a coach must find any opportunity that they can to build
trust and help lead the team to victory.
How a coach mentors their players, as well as the type of coaching style used, can be
one of the keys in building trust with the team. Chelladurai and Saleh ( 1 980) suggest five key
coaching styles, including; a) training and instruction (improving athlete's performance by
facilitating training), b) democratic behavior (allowing athletes to participate in decisions about
group goals, practice methods, game tactics, and strategies), c) autocratic behavior (using
independent decision making and stressing his or her authority when working with athletes), d)
social support (concerning the welfare of athlete's and building warm interpersonal relationship
with them, regardless of performance), and e) positive feedback (consistently praising or
rewarding athletes for good performance). These coaching styles defined in the 1980's have been
shown to still be relevant today (Fletcher & Roberts, 2013) and utilized in many recent studies
(Altahayneh, 2003; Din, Rashid, & Noh, 2016; Dixon, Turner, & Gillman, 2016). A coach must
utilize the right style or combination of these styles to help build trust and rapport with players.
A successful coach may not be the only key attribute to a team's success. Frequently
coaches mention the importance of "teamwork" or "performing a<; a team." In a research setting,
this "teamwork" can be more commonly referred to as team cohesion. Studies have indicated
that team cohesion has many benefits, but one which may interest a coach is the idea that
cohesive teams tend to be more successful (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). It is
for this reason that team cohesion was investigated in this study. A key question to examine was
if there was a coaching style that most effectively developed team cohesion?
Rationale for the Study
"A coach's primary function should be not to make better players but to make better
people" (Wooden, Yaeger, & Maxwell, 2009, p. 5 1 ). This quote originates from one of the most
successful coaches in the history of the sport industry, John Wooden. Many coaches may agree
with the statement from Coach Wooden, but there is one overall objective that athletic
departments, management, and fan bases requre: winning. Winning leads to an increase in
attendance at games (Davis, n.d.) and in turn, the organization or athletic department would
generate more revenue from an engaged fan base.
If a coach's job is to win, a coach needs to find any advantage they can to create a
winning team. One strategy a coach can use to impact their team and help them win is to look at
how cohesive their team is. Cohesion is defined by Carron, Brawley, and Widmeyer ( 1 998) as a
"dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and remain united
in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member affective
needs." Cohesion can be broken down into two sub-categories: task cohesion and social
cohesion (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1987; Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985; Eys,
Loughead, Bray, & Carron, 2009).
According to Hardy, Eys, and Carron (2005), social cohesion can be defined as when
team members get along personally, like each other, and consider one another to be friends. The
same authors state that task cohesion is when team members work well together and are in
agreement on what and how to achieve team success. There are numerous benefits to having a
cohesive team such as decreased state anxiety (Eys, Hardy, Carron, & Beauchamp, 2003),
increased satisfaction (Spink, Nickel, Wilson, & Odnokon, 2005; Widmeyer & Williams, 1991),
increased conformity to group norms (H!ZSigaard, Safvenbom, & T!ZSnnessen, 2006; Prapavessis &
Carron, 1997), increased sacrifices for the sake of the team (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997),
increased work output (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997), increased self-esteem (Julian, Bishop, &
Fielder, 1996), increased tendencies to share responsibility for team failure (Brawley, Carron, &
Widmeyer, 1987), a reduction in perceptions of social loafing by teammates (H0igaard,
Safvenbom, & T!ZSnnessen, 2006; Naylor & Brawley, 1992), increased collective efficacy
(Marcos, Miguel, Olivia, Calvo, 2010; Paskevich, Brawley, Dorsch, & Widmeyer, 1995), and
greater team success (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Teams without cohesion or
lower cohesion may not receive the benefits of cohesion and could perhaps have lower task
cohesion and a lower overall team mood (Jordan, Lawrence, & Troth, 2006).
It is clear that cohesion has many benefits, but how can a team increase their cohesion?
To increase cohesion, it may be beneficial to look at the different leadership styles that coaches
can implement. Chelladurai and Saleh ( 1 980) suggested that coaches may utilize five different
categories of leadership styles. However, it can be hard to determine which coaching style is the
best to use and when. In multiple studies, the findings have pointed towards a preference in a
combination of social support, positive feedback, training and instruction, and democratic
behavior (Alfermann, Lee, & Wurth, 2005; Giancola, 2010; Rodriguez, 2009; Sherman, Fuller,
& Speed, 2000).
Although there are preferred coaching styles, preference for style is usually determined
on an individual level. In a video from the television show Sports Science (Sportsfan50, 2007),
the hosts interviewed athletes such as Ben Roethlisberger, Abby Wambach, and Chad Johnson
on their preferred leadership styles. Roethlisberger stated that he preferred a coach who would
tell him what he did wrong and instruct him, rather than yeJling at him. Johnson stated he
preferred a coach who was aggressive and Wambach said a coach who was more likely to yell
and "get in her face" made her more focused and attentive. Autocratic coaching can be defined
as; "using independent decision making and stressing his or her authority when working with
athletes" (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980) and research results differ when it comes to the use of
autocratic coaching. Use of the autocratic coaching style bas the potential to lower satisfaction
rate, less commitment, and leads athletes to have a higher desire to quit (Rodriguez, 2009).
Furthermore, a study by Bartholornaus (2012) found that players had less commitment, less
motivation to come to practice, and hinder athletic performance.
Should a coach's athletes have decreased performance, the overall record of the team
may be impacted negatively. Coaches have to deal with a variety of external job pressures such
wining after poor performances, from an athletic director, and from fans. Considering a coach
could be viewed as a leader for a team or athlete, athletic performance is associated with a
coach's perceived level of effectiveness. An interesting finding is that coaches who are placed in
high stakes situations, such as championship game, and experience a string of losses, tend to
have less satisfaction from coaching, a lower coaching self-efficacy, and overall low job
satisfaction (Cheton, Reeve, Lee & Lee, 2015). In the same article Cheton, Reeve, Lee, and Lee
(2015) found that should a coach experience these negative effects and have increased pressure,
they can pass on this pressure to their athletes. This pressure could lead to the coach taking
control and being more demanding (autocratic). In tum, this could affect cohesion and success.
Therefore, even though coaches may be pressured to get results, passing the pressure to the
players may not be the best decision or response by the coach.
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a correlation between a coach's
coaching style and team cohesion for high school student-athletes among different sports. A
secondary purpose of this study examined if there was a difference between a coach's perceived
coaching style and their student-athlete's perception.
Limitations of the Study
1 . This study was completed at a Central Illinois high school during the school's spring
sports season. Generalizations should not be made to schools in other locations.
2. Coaches may decide to not answer the questions truthfully to convey a certain appearance
to the researcher
3. Athletes may decide to not answer truthfully, due to any previous uncomfortable
confrontations/situations with their coach or teammates.
4. Athletes' opinions can change from day to day and could result in different results at
different times.
5. The low number of student-athlete participation may have resulted in different results
than have been found in other studies.

6. The low number of coach participation may have resulted in different overall results than
may be expected.
Delimitations of the Study
1. The athletes ranged from age 14 to 18 and were limited to high school student�.
2. Data were collected during the spring sports season and only included teams competing
in the 2017 season.
3. All student-athletes were males.
Basic Assumptions
1 . It was assumed that aJl student-athletes and coaches answered the questionnaires
truthfully.
2. It was assumed that all student- athletes and coaches did not allow any prejudices to skew
their responses.
Hypothesis
Ho: There will be no significant correlations between coaching styles and team cohesion.
H1: The coaching styles of democratic coaching, training and instruction, social support,
and positive feedback will positively correlate with team cohesion.
H2: The coaching style of autocratic coaching will negatively correlate with team
cohesion.
H3: Regardless of the sport, there will be no difference in coaching style and team
cohesion.
H4: There will be a difference between the coach's perception of their style and the
athlete's perception of their coach's style.

Definition of Terms
Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS): a questionnaire made up of 40 items that are divided into 5
subscales; used to study athletes' preference for specific leader behavior, athletes' perceptions of
their coaches' behavior, and coaches' perception of their own behavior (Van Gastel, 2010).
Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ): asks participants to indicate their
agreement to 1 8 statements on a 9-point Likert-type scale and is used to study cohesion. The
primary 16 items discussed on the instrument are subdivided into the two major dimensions of
task and social cohesion (8 items each) (Eys, Loughead, Bray, & Carron, 2009).
Training and Instruction: improving athlete's performance by facilitating training (Chelladurai
& Saleh, 1 980).
Democratic Behavior: allowing athletes to participate in decisions about group goals, practice
methods, game tactics, and strategies (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980).
Autocratic Behavior: using independent decision making and stressing his or her authority
when working with athletes (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980).
Social Support: concerning the welfare of athlete's and building a warm interpersonal
relationship with them, regardless of performance (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1 980).
Positive Feedback: consistently praising or rewarding athletes for good performance
(Chelladurai & Saleh, 1 980).
State Anxiety: the emotional state of anxiety (cognitive and somatic) typically experienced prior
to and during competition (Martens, Burton, Vealey, Bump, & Smith, 1990).
Group Norms: standards for the behavior that is expected of members of the group; reflect the
organization's/group's consensus about what is considered acceptable (Carron & Eys, 2012).
Self-esteem: how an individual feels about themselves (Jarvis, 1 999).

Efficacy: belief one has in being able to execute a specific task successfully (Feltz & Lirgg,
200 l).
Cohesion: a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick together and
remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction of member
affective needs (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998).
Social Cohesion: when team members get along personally, like each other, and consider one
another to be friends (Hardy, Eys, and Carron, 2005).
Task Cohesion: when team members work well together and are in agreement on what and how
to achleve team success (Hardy, Eys, and Carron, 2005).
Teamwork: the range of interactive and interdependent behavioral processes among team
members that convert team inputs (e.g., member characteristics, organizational funding, team
member composition) into outcomes (e.g., team performance, team member satisfaction) (Marks,
Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 200 1).

Review of Literature
This review of literature will examine the following areas in relationship to the current
study: (a) coaching styles, (b) Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) (c) Coaching of Different
Generations, (d) team cohesion, (e) negatives of team cohesion, (f) effects of coaching styles and
on team cohesion, and (g) a conclusion of the literature review.
Coaching Styles
With the rise in sport popularity and the diverse player backgrounds, coaches have to
utilize different techniques of coaching and interacting with their student-athletes. These
different techniques of coaching can be referred to as coaching styles. Coaching styles can vary
in the types available and the terminology for each style. Fielden (2005) stated that there are
only two different types of coaching styles. These coaching styles are directive (the coach
teaches and provides feedback and advice) and non-directive (The coach is required to listen,
reason about, explore, and probe; it allows a person to be coached coached to problem solve/seek
solutions). In a study conducted by Heydarinejad and Adman (20 15) coaching styles were
categorized as task oriented, relationship oriented, or combined. Considering the different type
of coaching styles, an important question to ask is 'has existing research identified the most
effective style to use?' One way to assess the effectiveness of different coaching styles is
through the use of the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS).
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS)
In a seminal research study by Chelladurai and Saleh ( 1980), the authors wanted to
examine how to define and distinguish different coaching styles. At the time of this study, the
authors stated that most of the existing studies only examined autocratic and democratic styles
(Lenk, 1977), or coach personality (Sage, l 975). Though there were many different variations of
leadership behavior instruments used in other settings (Halpin, 1 957; Fleishman, 1957 a;
COACHJNG STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES 11
Fleishman, l 957b; Stogdill, 1963) these tools were not believed to be an accurate way to
measure leadership styles due to the uniqueness of sport. Chelladurai and Saleh ( 1980) stated
that sports leadership occurred in a different setting than business leadership because athletes
will train for long periods of time for a small competition timeframe, reward (winning) is denied
to at least one group, and members of an athletic team will only be together for a brief time
(three to six months). By using the previously mentioned questionnaires, the LSS was created
and focused on five key areas of coaching styles. These styles are, Training and Instruction,
Democratic Behavior, Autocratic Behavior, Social Support, and Positive Feedback. When
comparing the coaching styles in this study with the previously mentioned coaching styles
examined in existing research (Fielden, 2005; Heydarinejad and Adman, 2015) similarities can
be found between the coaching style descriptions. However, Chelladurai and Saleh's analysis
(1980) may be of most use because the researchers divided the broad topic of coaching styles
into specific areas (i.e. directive being broken down into Training and Instruction and Positive
Feedback). The LSS continues to be reliable (Fletcher & Roberts, 2013) and utilized in many
recent studies (Altahayneh, 2003; Din, Rashid, & Noh, 2016; Dixon, Turner, & Gillman, 2016).
Democratic Coaching Style
One of the first types of coaching styles examined is the democratic coaching style. The
democratic coaching style or behavior is defined as "allowing athletes to participate in decisions
about group goals, practice methods, game tactics, and strategies" (Chelladurai and Saleh, 1980,
p. 41). In simpler terms, this is when a coach will ask the athlete their opinion concerning what is
happening or what should happen. In a study by Chelladurai and Quek (1996), it was concluded
that a democratic coaching style could lead to a better comprehension of a decision, a greater
acceptance of the decision, and a more efficient execution of that decision by both the coach and
athletes. Through the use of the LSS, scales adapted from previous studies (Meyer, Allen, &
Smith, 1993; Kuvaas, 2007; Riemer & Chelladurai, 1998), and personal interviews, research
suggests that athletes have an overall greater attendance for team events, greater enthusiasm,
dedication to development, more excitement to participate, higher satisfaction, and are less likely
to quit when the democratic coaching style is employed (Rodriguez, 2009; Giancola, 2010).
Though there are many benefits to the democratic coaching style, there are other coaching styles
that can be implemented by a coach. To further analyze the topic of coaching styles, the style of
autocratic coaching will be the next style to be covered in this literature review.
Autocratic Coaching Style
Autocratic coaching is defined as independent decision making and stressing his or her
authority when working with athletes (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). From a definition standpoint
this coaching style may sound desirable to use by a variety of coaches. One of the qualities a
great leader should have is assertiveness (Teles, 2015), as this shows a leader is not passive in
their decisions (Santora, 2007). However, this should not be confused with autocratic coaching.
To better understand an autocratic coach, former National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) coach Bobby Knight can be considered a perfect example of an autocratic coach.
Coach Knight had a history of being aggressive, such as screaming in a players face or even
physically grabbing and hitting players during practice while coaching at Army, Indiana, and
Texas Tech (Jadlow & Brew, 2016; Phelps, 2010). Although examples such as Coach Knight or
Mike Rice, who was found to be verbally and physically abusive to his athletes at Rutgers
University, may be extreme versions of an autocratic coaching style, they are recognizable
figures and an accurate example of how an autocratic coach may behave.

Given that an autocratic coach can be overly aggressive and can be very assertive, there
are numerous downfalJs when it comes to this coaching style such as lower satisfaction, lower
commitment, and higher amounts of turnover in athletes (Rodriguez, 2009). Furthermore,
Bartholomaus (2012) concluded that coaches who display dominance and disrespectful behavior
towards players can actually hinder an athlete's performance. The hindrance of an athlete's
performance may actually be due to the controlling nature of the coach. Chelladurai (2011)
summarized that higher performance is affected by supporting an athlete's autonomy. Supporting
autonomy is a stark contrast to the basis of this style and something to be cognizant of when
trying to maximize athlete performance. As a season progresses, a coach should be careful of
how their coaching styles change. A coach may be more likely to exert an autocratic style
(Bartholomaus, 2012) later in the season. This may be due to a team's record and how well or
poorly they are performing. As a team progresses towards playoffs, there is more pressure for
the coach and team to perform well. This pressure for the coach may then be passed on to the
players and can even lead to an underperformance by the team (Cheton, Reeve, Lee & Lee,
2015). This could lead to a breakdown in the social aspect between athlete and coach, which is
the next style covered in the literature review.
Social Support
The third coaching style in the LSS is social support. This is described as when a coach
is concerned with the welfare of his/her athletes and the building of strong interpersonal
relationships with them, regardless of performance (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). In everyday
life, social support is seen as valued and needed. The benefits of social support are wide ranging
and can include an individual overcoming an abusive atmosphere, dealing with mental illness,
(Weisz, Quinn, & Williams, 2016) or it can include less severe topics such as increasing
adherence to exercise (Spink, Ulvick, Crozier, & Wilson, 2014). With the potential positive
effects of social support, it is not hard to imagine this coaching style could be considered a key
component to being a successful coach. There are four different types of social support that are
traditionally applied within the sports setting. Rees and Hardy (2000) identified these four types
of social support as tangible support (includes recognition that coaches provide athletes with
goods or services), informational support (encompasses recognition of coaches' provision of
information or advice to athletes), emotional support (recognizing coaches' demonstrations of
concern or empathy for athletes), and esteem support (denotes recognition of coaches'
reassurances of athlete's abilities or self-worth). Researchers have identified additional benefits
to social support including, an increase in athlete's motivation (DeFreese and Smith, 2013),
increase in performance (Rees, Ingledew, & Hardy, 1999), increase in self-confidence (Cowan,
Slogrove, & Hoelson, 2012), increase perceptions of team cohesion (Carron, Bloom, Loughead,
& Hoffmann, 2016; Westre and Weiss, 1991), reduction of athlete burnout (DeFreese and Smith,
2013), reduction of stress (Reese and Freeman, 2007), and assisting athletes with recovery from
injuries (Abgarov, Fraser-Thomas, Jeffery-Tosoni, & Baker, 2012; Clement and Shannon, 201 1;
Lu and Hsu, 2013). This evidence indicates that social support represents a key component to a
coach being successful and can help with team cohesion as previously listed (Carron, Bloom,
Loughead, & Hoffmann, 2016; Westre and Weiss, 1 991).
Positive Feedback
Positive feedback is known as consistently praising or rewarding athletes for good
performance (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). This can be as simple as telling a player good job
after making a shot in basketball, or rewarding an entire team with a day off for a great
performance in their previous competition. The main type of feedback a high school athlete will
receive is known as augmented feedback. Augmented feedback occurs when a player receives
their information from some type of an external source, such as a coach, video of a performance,
or a training apparatus (Hodges & Williams, 2012; Lauber & Keller, 2014). In a study by
Lewthwaite and Wulf, (2016) it was found that the effectiveness of feedback of any type depends
on three key factors, including the type of focus that is induced (internal or external), the extent
that the performer's need for autonomy is supported (autonomy-supportive or controlling) , and
its valence (positive or negative). Alone, implementing any of these three support types can be
very effective for a coach to use. However, coaches should look to use the types of support in
combination. In recent studies (Pascua, Wulf, & Lewthwaite, 2015; Wulf, Chiviacowsky, &
Cardozo, 2014; Wulf, Chiviacowsky, & Drews, 2015) when two of the three factors were used,
participants increased their learning more than groups who either received one of the three
combinations or none at all. Using all three of the factors together has also resulted in an even
greater effect than using two factors (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016).
Attentional Focus
In a recent study by Wulf (2013) it was concluded that how feedback was directed
(whether internally or externally) was a predictor of how well the athlete would perform and how
well they would learn the specific sport skiJl. Providing athletes instructions on their form
during competition (i.e. specific mechanics of a baseball swing) leads the athlete to have an
internal focus of attention and has been found to actually hinder an athlete's performance
(Zachry, Wulf, Mercer, & Bezodis, 2005; Wulf, 2013). In the study by Zachry et al. (2005) an
internal focus resulted in athletes having a decreased accuracy in free throws and less activation
of the biceps and triceps muscles. It is believed internal focus reduces the fluidity or "movement
economy" and also hinders the effectiveness of fine motor control, which makes the task to be
carried out less successful.
This is in contrast to external focus which actually can enhance a player's performance
and learning (Wulf, 2013). One example of external focus is to tell a player to focus and picture
themselves making a game-winning free-throw instead of focusing on their mechanics. The
advantages of coaching a player with an external focus are almost immediate (Halperin,
Williams, Martin, & Chapman, 2016; Marchant & Greig, 2009; and Porter, Anton, & Wu, 2012)
and should be used more than referring to body parts or specific movements in all situations
(Wulf, 2016). It should be noted however, that though beginners may see a benefit in external
focus, the benefits may not be as immediate (Wulf & Su, 2007). This may be due to the
complexity of grasping a new skill such as a golf swing or shooting a jump shot. An individual
who is a trained athlete may have the motor skills present and the coordination that those who
are beginners do not.
Autonomy Support
When coaching an athlete using autonomy support a coach must choose between
allowing the athlete to make choices and have control over when they receive their support,
which usually allows for enhanced learning/performance, or to control the situation in which the
player receives their support (Teixeira, Carraca, Markland, Silva, & Ryan, 2012; Wulf, 2007).
Numerous studies (Janele, Kirn, & Singer, 1995; Lim, Ali, Kim, Kim, Choi, & Radio, 2015;
Post, Fairbrother, & Barros, 2011; Wulf, Raupach, & Pfeiffer, 2005; Wulf and Adams, 2014)
have examined the benefit of not only showing the athlete support but allowing them to choose
when they get support or for how long they choose to receive support. For instance, Wulf and
Adams (2014) concluded that something as simple as allowing the athletes to choose the order of
their balance exercises helped enhance their learning and performance.
According to Halperin, Chapman, Martain, Abbiss, & Wulf (2016) an act as simple as
changing the phrasing of feedback can present a form of more autonomous support. Asking for
an opinion, making a suggestion, or providing rationale for your instruction to an athlete is a
preferred way to boost their autonomy (Halperin, et al., 2016). In a study by Hooyman, Wulf,
and Lewthwaite (2014) using cricket bowlers, they instructed them on their bowling form. Using
supportive language (i.e. "you may want to" and giving the benefit as to why they may want to)
was found to improve throwing accuracy much more than a controlling language (i.e. "you must"
and "do not"). Along with the previously mentioned benefits of enhanced learning or improved
performance, there are other benefits as well. Providing autonomous support can be beneficial to
those of any demographic (Sanli, Patterson, Bray, & Lee, 2013). Furthermore, Wulf, Freitas, and
Tandy (2014) found that providing autonomous support raises an athlete's motivation to
participate in exercise. This could then lead to a higher practice adherence, which has been
mentioned earlier as a possible challenge for coaches.
This section is very similar to the psycho-social needs listed in the Self-Determination
Theory (SDT). In SDT, an individual feels the need to be autonomous, have mastery, and have
social interactions (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Allowing the athlete to have a say in their autonomy
and allowing them to create their path to mastery of the task could be a way for a coach to build
positive feedback with their athlete. Since the previously listed studies allowed the subjects to
have a say in practice time and order of exercise, it could be said that these studies looked at
sections of the SDT and that to build autonomy support, a coach should use SDT.
Feedback Valence
The last section of feedback is known as feedback valence or whether the feedback that
the athlete receives is actually positive or negative. When using the LSS, this questionnaire only
measures positive feedback, which is assumed ideal. However, athletes will not always receive
positive feedback. Athletes may receive a more negative style of feedback such as a coach
yelling at them for not getting a base hit or being benched for not listening to instructions the
first time. This type of feedback is detrimental to an athlete's learning and can actually hinder
motor learning (Avila, Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2012). Motor learning is hindered by way of
lessened mean power frequency or MPF. With a more negative style of feedback, MPF is
lessened, motor skills become slower, and the athlete is more conscious of the corrective process
(Lewthwaite & Wulf, 2010). This lessening of MPF shows that a coach should think about how
they deliver their feedback and perhaps choose a more positive approach.
The most productive means of giving a player feedback is to give feedback with a
positive stigma. This can lead to enhanced motor learning (Avila, Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2012),
a rise in intrinsic motivation (Saemi, Wulf, Varzaneh, & Zarghami, 201 1 ), a rise in self-efficacy
(Saerni, Porter, Ghotbi-Varzaneh, Zarghami, & Maleki, 2012), enhance movement accuracy
(McKay, Lewthwaite, & Wulf, 2012), increase performance of submax tasks (Hutchinson,
Sherman, Martinovic, & Tenebaum, 2008), and an increase in balance (Lewthwaite & Wulf,
20 I 0). Giving a player positive feedback instead of negative can lead to an increase in higher
performance expectancies for the individual (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016) which has been shown
to help a player focus on the task at hand and have a higher success rate at achieving that goal
(Mckay, Wulf, Lewthwaite, & Nordin 2015). McKay et al. (2015) (as cited in Wulf &
Lewthwaite, 2016) found that players who received negative feedback had lower expectation to
achieve their goal and could also lead to anxiety, negative reactions, and hinder neuromuscular
activity.
For an athlete to improve, they must receive some constructive feedback that may not
always be positive. No player can become great without some type of criticism that will
hopefully lead to improved performance. So how can this feedback balance be achieved? The
key is constructive criticism. Sources state to effectively use constructive criticism a coach must
use the technique called a "praise sandwich" (Sarkany & Deitte, 2017; Wood, Matheson, &
Franklin, 2017). The first step is to praise the player for something good they have done. This is
because you get the attention of the athlete more effectively than with directly criticizing. This
could be something as simple as praising an athlete for their hustle on the playing field. The
second step is to then offer up some constructive criticism such as mentioning that had they
taken a more efficient route on the playing field, they would not have had to hustle quite as hard.
The third step is to then finish with a second round of praise. This could be a tie in of the first
two parts, letting the player know that if they work on the negative they will be an even greater
player than what you first mentioned.
Should a coach not use this "praise sandwich" with their players; the effects of direct
criticism can lead to an athlete becoming demotivated and hinder performance as stated earlier
(Avila, Chiviacowsky & Wulf, 2012). It is important to note that if a coach does not use this
method of criticism, it does not mean that every other form of criticism is automatically direct
criticism. Something as simple as providing an athlete with an example on proper technique
after observing improper technique could be considered a form of feedback that is not direct and
would give the athlete a reference to guide themselves (Weir, 2017).

Training and Instruction
The final type of coaching style that is commonly used and measured in the LSS is
training and instruction. This can be defined as improving athlete's performance by facilitating
training (Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980). Simply stated, this coaching style is focused on how
effective a coach is during a game situation or during practice while teaching skills. Since a
game atmosphere can be fairly fast paced, the best time a coach could use training and
instruction is during practice.
Proper training and instruction can be a challenge for a coach as each player on a team
can have a different level of skill, mental maturity, or physical characteristics (Bernard, Trudel,
Marcotte, & Boileau, 1 993). In this type of situation, communication was cited as a key in being
able to effectively coach youth in sport (Gilbert, Gilbert, & Trudel, 2001). How a coach
communicates can vary differently as it can be verbal, visual, or a physical demonstration.
Gilbert et al. (200 1) also stated that a coach may have to have a different strategy on how to
effectively communicate with each individual athlete.
Coaches may want to focus on the make-up of their practice as this can affect their
players greatly. There are three different strategies a coach can utilize to format their practice.
The three different strategies are visualizing a practice layout in advance, dividing a practice
session into smaller blocks, and asking for feedback from their players (Gilbert, Gilbert, &
Trudel, 200 1 ). Some strategies such as asking for feedback, can allow a coach to learn from
their athletes and let their athletes have a say in what is happening (Gilbert, Gilbert, & Trudel,
200 1 ). In this way a coach is able to combine both effective training and instruction and
democratic coaching, which would elicit the benefits of that as well.

Overall, in the area of training and instruction there is very little research in regards to
this topic specifically. However, that does not mean that the research in other areas does not
reveal important findings related to this topic. A coach should effectively communicate with
their athlete. When commu nicati ng with an athlete, a coach will eventually give feedhack to a
player during training and instruction. When a coach allows a player or team to pick how their
training and instruction will take place they are allowing a democratic process to take place.
Although there is no research specifically on training and instruction, this is because a coach can
use the other previously mentioned coaching styles to impact their training and instruction. This
would promote the benefits of growing a player's talents through instruction but also the benefits
of a democratic coaching style and giving a player positive feedback as well.
Coaching of Different Generations
In a study by Martens, Flannery, and Retort (2003) the researchers concluded that 90% of
high school coaches do not have any type of education in sport-related fields. This presents a
problem for those going into the coaching field and possibly for the athletes as well. Those who
are in this 90%, may have to then rely on past experiences (i.e. how they were coached in high
school/middle school or life events). The question then becomes, will this coaching style be
effective? Current research suggests it will not as each generation of athletes is different and has
established their own unique set of beliefs and ideas. The four generations that will be covered
are baby boomers, Generation X, millennials (aka generation Y), and generation Z. After
discussing the generations, their experiences will be compared and analyzed. It is important to
note that though years have been included for the upcoming sections, it is hard to pinpoint
exactly when one generation begins and another ends. When considering an individual's
generation, it may be beneficial to ask individuals their thoughts on their personality or beliefs to
match them to the appropriate generation.
Baby Boomers
Baby boomers are those individuals who were born between the years of 1 946-1964 (Jiri,
2016). As of 2007 there were approximately 85 million baby boomers in the workforce (Trunk,
2007) and though this number has likely lowered since then, they are more likely to hold
positions of leadership (Kane, 2015). Key characteristics of baby boomers are that they are loyal
and workaholics (Crampton & Hodge, 2007), are self-absorbed (Weil, 2008), feel entitled
(Lyons, 2005), and embrace change and growth (Crampton & Hodge, 2007). Many of these
characteristics identified may be seen as desirable. The characteristics seem to match what may
be considered social support (teamwork, inclusion, and loyalty), democratic (rule-challenging),
and positive feedback (embracing growth and valuing success). As shown earlier in the
literature review, these are characteristics that are valued in a coach, however, boomers can also
be seen as competitive, striving for authority, and having a take charge attitude (Wiedmer, 2015).
No research was found in regards to baby boomers and coaching. These characteristics along
with being workaholics may make baby boomers seem like autocratic coaches.
Generation X
Generation X is defined as any person who is born between the years of 1965 to 1976
(Jiri, 2016). Unlike the generation before them, they were the first generation to be considered
computer literate (Paota, Schwartz, & Schwartz, 2007). They have been characterized as a
generation who are active, happy, and more family oriented (Swanbrow, 2012). Other
characteristics of someone from this generation may include being less loyal to work than baby
boomers (Leibow, 2014), independent thinkers, enjoy fast-paced and engaging work, efficient,
and self-directed (Grimes, 2015). Due to this generation's age, this group is the most likely to be
in a current positon of leadership for future generations. Therefore, due to this generation
wanting to be independent, self-directing, engaging, and more family oriented, it may be
ben eficial to a coach to include democratic coaching and social support within their coaching
style when coaching members of this generation
Generation Y
The third generation is Generation Y, which includes those born in the years of 1977 to
1 995 (Jiri, 2016). Generation Y may also be known as millennials as the majority of this
generation reach adulthood in the new generation and include those born in 1980 and later
(Johnson, 2015). More than any generation before, this generation is heavy into technology and
connects through internet, mobile phones, social media (Gibson, Greenwood, & Murphy Jr.,
2009; Wiedmer, 2015). As such, this generation craves instant information, whether that be in
athletics, work, or school (Wiedmer, 2015). This generation can be seen as less independent,
community oriented, critical thinkers, multitaskers, willing to try new tasks, and wanting a say in
how they do things (Martin, 2005; Widmer, 2015). In addition, they need greater supervision,
feedback, structure, mentoring, and clearer goals (Widmer, 2015).
Hoffman and Czech (2008) examined millennial college athletes and characteristics they
wanted from an "ideal coach." Through the interviews in that study, millennials wanted a coach
that would build relationships with them both in and outside the sports setting. Furthermore,
they wanted a coach who would be accessible, aid in academics, clearly communicate, demand a
good work ethic, have emotion, be caring, understanding, and be democratic. This fits in with
the typical mold of an individual from Generation Y and should be variables that a coach
considers when coaching individuals in this age range.

Generation Z
The most recent generation, is Generation Z. This generation includes all individuals
who were born in 1996 and after(Jiri, 2016). Due to the age of this generation, there are few
studies showing their characteristics though there are a few characteristics already identified of
this generation. This generation is just as tech savvy as the generation before it and has been
connected to friends, data, and entertainment more than generations before (Renfro 2015;
Widmer, 2015). Because of this connection, Generation Z individuals tend to need less direction
as they use technology to learn and master tasks (Renfro, 2015).
However, this could lead to an issue with learning improper techniques or facts when
using technology to learn. The internet can be an unreliable source of information for athletes
(Meyer, 2017). Should an individual see this false information without researching all avenues,
they may learn incorrect facts and present them as correct to others. It is not hard to believe that
an athlete could find videos demonstrating improper or false techniques much like false news is
presented to individuals today. Therefore, it is important to guide these individuals to correct
information or train them on how to spot incorrect information while using technology.
In a recent study by Parker and Czech (2010) athletes from this generation were
interviewed on what they believed was an "ideal coach." During their interview there were four
key themes that all interviewees found important. Generation Z wanted a coach who did not yell
and remained calm, was caring and encouraging, involved the team in decision making, and was
knowledgeable in the sport they were coaching. Though the athletes in this study were very
young at the time, (ages 9 and IO) this study provides valuable knowledge on how this
generation may take shape and should be considered when coaching them.
Team Cohesion
Though important, coaching style alone will not determine team success. Success can be
determined by how cohesive a team is or their "teamwork." Those teams who work well
together are typically ones who end up the victor in their competition (Harle, 2013). Team
cohesion is defined as "a dynamic process that is reflected in the tendency for a group to stick
together and remain united in the pursuit of its instrumental objectives and/or for the satisfaction
of member affective needs" (Carron, Brawley, & Widmeyer, 1998, p. 2 1 3). Although winning
can be an important result of cohesion, there are many other benefits of cohesion. These benefits
can include decreased state anxiety (Eys, Hardy, Carron, & Beauchamp, 2003), increased
satisfaction (Widmeyer & Williams, 1991), increased conformity to group norms (Prapavessis &
Carron, 1997), increased sacrifices for the sake of the team (Prapavessis & Carron, 1 997), and
increased work output (Prapavessis & Carron, 1997). But are not limited to increased self
esteem (Julian, Bishop, & Fielder, 1 996), increased tendencies to share responsibility for team
failure (Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1987), a reduction in perceptions of social loafing by
teammates (Naylor & Brawley, 1992), increased collective efficacy (Paskevich, Brawley,
Dorsch, & Widmeyer, 1995), and greater team success (Carron, Colman, Wheeler, & Stevens,
2002).Team cohesion can be divided further into two main components, task cohesion and group
cohesion. Most research previously performed in the field of team cohesion has been carried out
with a questionnaire called the Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) which was created by
Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley ( 1985).
Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ)
Created by Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley ( 1 985) the GEQ was developed with the
main goal to better understand team cohesion. Predecessors to the GEQ had attempted to
measure cohesion by way of interpersonal attractions such as group congeniality (Faunce &
Beegle, 1 948), and presence/absence of a clique (Lenk, 1 969). These measurements taken were
found to be unreliable or did not dive deep enough and would lead to results that could be
interpreted in multiple ways (Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). According to previous
research at that time, previous forms of measuring cohesion failed to look at cohesiveness in
negative situations, failed to consider conditions needed for group formation, underestimated
other components of cohesion, or were not supported empirically (Eisman, 1959; Escovar &
Sim, 1 974; Gross & Martin, 1952).
Carron, Widmeyer, and Brawley ( 1985) suggested that cohesion has two key factors,
individual attractions to the group (the composite of the individual members' feelings about the
group, their personal role involvement) and group integration (represents the closeness,
similarity, and bonding within the group as a whole and involvement with other group members).
These two factors have two sub-sets called social or task. Social can be defined as a general
orientation toward developing and maintaining social relationships within the group, whereas
task can be defined as a general orientation toward achieving the group's goals/objectives
(Carron, Widmeyer, & Brawley, 1985). These two key sections along with their sub-sets are the
basis of the GEQ today, which is an eighteen item questionnaire. Nine questions are dedicated
strictly to task cohesion, and nine questions focus strictly on social cohesion. Task cohesion has
the sub-sets of GI-T (group integration-task) and ATG-T (individual attraction to the group-task)
where as social cohesion has the subsets of GI-S (group integration-social), and ATG-S
(individual attraction to the group-social). Though this questionnaire has been the popular tool
for assessing cohesion and has been used for varying age ranges, the GEQ may be too advanced
for youth who are still developing mentally. Eys, Loughead, Bray, and Carron (2009) found that
youth had issues with comprehending the complex language of the GEQ and also distinguishing
between individual-attractions to the group and perceptions of group-integration, which are two
sections of the GEQ. Therefore, it is recommended that for accurately measuring youth team
cohesion that the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YESQ) be used.
Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ)
Due to the shortfalls of the GEQ and its use among youth, Eys, Loughead, Bray, and
Carron (2009) created what is called the Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Similar to the
GEQ, the YSEQ is a 1 6 question questionnaire with questions on a 1-9 Likert scale. This
questionnaire is divided into two sections measuring task and social cohesion. Unlike the GEQ
which has four sections, the YSEQ only has two sections. The reason for the reduction in
sections measured is due to the complexity compared to the age of those filling out a GEQ.
Variables such as the reading level of the participants, the mix of positive and negative items in
the GEQ, and children's changing experiences with their peers further validates the need to use
the YSEQ with younger populations, 1 3- 1 7 years old (Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 2006; Eys,
Carron, Bray, & Brawley, 2007; Eys, Loughead, Bray, and Carron, 2009).
Task Cohesion
The first type of cohesion that is typically measured is task cohesion and is defined as
when team members work well together and are in agreement on what and how to achieve team
success (Hardy, Eys, and Carron, 2005). What a team deems a success can vary, from winning
the league championship, to simply winning a single game. In terms of success, it has been
suggested that task cohesion has a greater relationship with performance and success than its
counterpart, social cohesion (Filho, Dobersek, Gershgoren, Becker, & Tenenbaum, 2014). Since
task cohesion has been suggested to have a strong correlation with success, a coach should
attempt to create an atmosphere that promotes leadership behaviors as they have been found to
correlate with task cohesion (Callow, Smith, Hardy, Arthur, & Hardy, 2009). These behaviors
include fostering acceptance of group goals, promoting team work, having high performance
expectations, and individual consideration (Callow et al., 2009). It was further included by the
same researchers (Callow et al., 2009) that should a coach effectively promote and exhibit these
behaviors of high expectations, the expectations will be transferred to players and higher task
cohesion will be generated. Communication, though thought as a component of social cohesion,
has been found to play a key role in developing task cohesion. Multiple studies have found that
a higher amount of intra-team communication, is related to task cohesion and that
communication acceptance and positive conflict have a positive relationship to task cohesion
(Smith, Arthur, Hardy, Callow, & Williams, 2013; Sullivan & Feltz, 2003; Sullivan & Short,
201 1). For researchers or coaches who wish to gauge their team's level of task cohesion, it is
recommended that they measure task cohesion throughout the season as changes in positive and
negative communication effects cohesion (Holt & Sparkes, 2001).
Social Cohesion
The second part of overall team cohesion is social cohesion. Social cohesion can be
defined as team members getting along personally, like each other, and consider one another to
be friends (Hardy, Eys, and Carron, 2005). In a recent meta-analysis it was found that unlike its
companion task cohesion, social cohesion does not typically share such a strong correlation to
team success (Filho, Dobersek, Gershgoren, Becker, & Tenenbaum, 2014). This result however,
is in direct conflict with a meta-analysis by Carron, Coleman, Wheeler, and Stevens (2002)
which states that a combination of social and task cohesion are needed for overall group
cohesion. One would think that when examining social cohesion, that it plays just as important
of a role, and more research on how meaningful both areas are should be conducted.
It is suggested that a coach has their team take part in group outings that are non-task,
socially oriented activities (Carron, Coleman, Wheeler, & Stevens, 2002). Certain socially
oriented (i.e. team building) activities that a coach can have their team take part in include
personal growth experiences, team campouts, rope/challenge course, and any social event outside
of a sporting arena (Cogan & Petrie, 1995; McClure & Foster, 1991; Meyer, 2000; Yukelson,
1997). Previous research by Brawley and Paskevich ( 1 997) had found that a social intervention
with a sports team should be no less than one season in length and a meta-analysis by Martin,
Carron, and Burke (2009) found that even greater social cohesion could be obtained in
interventions that were longer than just one season (20+ weeks). The authors hypothesized that
this is because it can take time to introduce interventions, athletes to gain trust, and for behavior
change to occur. Due to the contradictions in cohesion research, both task and social, it seems as
though there should be further investigations with these topics to expand the body of knowledge
to assist current and future practitioners with building cohesion.
Negatives of Team Cohesion
With all of the positives it may be difficult for some to accept the notion that there would
be negatives or downsides to team cohesion. In an article by Hardy, Eys, and Carron (2005) the
thought of "too much of a good thing" was put forward, and examined what happens when there
is high cohesion. Participants in this study (n=105 athletes) believed that there were
disadvantages to high levels of cohesion and felt that social cohesion (56%) offers more of a
disadvantage than task cohesion (31 % ).

Though cohesion can help increase conformity to the group, which would help a team be
more united on a goal or task, this can actually be a downfall for a team. Since increasing
conformity would allow teams to "be on the same page" this may reduce a team member's
creativity or individualization (Frenz, 2017; Buys, 1978a; Buys, 1978b). When an individu al
loses their creativity or individualization, Frenz (2017) states that the individual will adopt
behaviors to fit in on a team and reduce any disagreements that would come up. The behaviors
that are adopted then become the group norm. This group norm can lead to what is also known
as group think. When a team begins to use group think, they rely on the group as a whole to
make a decision, and individuals lose ability to think for themselves.
Should an athlete choose to not completely mold to group norms and hold the same ideals
as their teammates, they could adapt an idea called self-handicapping. Self-handicapping is
known as the strategies people use to proactively protect their self-esteem by providing excuses
for forthcoming events by adopting or advocating impediments to success (Berglas & Jones,
1 978). Carron, Prapavessis, and Grove ( 1 994) believed that this self-handicapping could be
influenced by the cohesiveness of the group if the cohesiveness was perceived as providing a
cost or benefit to the individual. In their article Carron et al. ( 1 994) stated,
Since the cohesive group presents an environment in which the individual is buffered
from threats to self-esteem-the threats are diffused among the group's membership-the
need to use self-handicapping strategies [might] be reduced ... [also, however] individuals
in highly cohesive groups . . . should experience greater pressure to carry out group
responsibilities and satisfy the expectations of highly valued teammates .... As a result, the
need to proactively set out reasons for potential failure [might] be increased. (p. 248)
This pressure, for an individual could lead to self-handicapping, and in tum less cohesion.
It is for this reason that a coach may want to build cohesion carefully and not go overboard with
cohesion interventions. Due to the fact that cohesion is generally found to be a positive,
(Paskevich, Estabrooks, Brawley, & Carron, 2001) there is limited research studies that focus
directly on the negatives of high cohesion among sports teams. While some existing research in
this area applies to the business setting, future investigations should be conducted focusing on
the differences between the athletic environment and the business setting.
Coaching Styles and Their Effect on Team Cohesion
Now that a background of knowledge has been presented in regards to team cohesion and
coaching styles individually, the next step is to examine if coaching style affects a team's
cohesion. In many studies (Gardner, Shields, Bredemeier, & Bostrom, 1996; Heydarinejad &
Oman, 2010; Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan, 2009; Vahdani, Sheikhyousefi, Moharramzadeh,
Ojaghi, & Salehian, 2012), it has been found that a coach's style can affect a team's level of
cohesion for the better or worse. In general, the coaching styles that are desirable to build team
cohesion are training and instruction, democratic coaching, social support, and positive feedback,
while the autocratic coaching has been linked to negative cohesion (Gardner et al., 1996;
Ramzaninezhad & Keshtan, 2009; Vahdani et al., 2012). These findings seem to be validated by
the research that was presented earlier in the literature review on these five coaching styles.
How coaching styles affect team cohesion is an important place to focus future research to
further the knowledge in this area and learn about other factors that may play into the coach
player relationship.
There are other variables coaches should consider when utilizing their coaching style to
promote team cohesion. These can include the gender of the athlete, the level of play, time of
year, and also the outside pressures placed on a coach. When considering the gender of athletes,
research has pointed towards differences between males and females. Male athletes will
typically find a coach to exhibit autocratic tendencies more than females will, and male coaches
are typically seen as significantly more autocratic than their female counterparts (Gardner et al.,
1996; Rodriguez, 2009). The level of the athletes' ability along with the level of play also assists
in helping build cohesion through coaching styles. In a study by Rodriguez (2009) it was
concluded that as the level of play increases (i.e. high school to NCAA Division III, to NCAA
Division II, etc.) the perception of autocratic coaching increased as well. This can also be
applied to grade levels (i.e. freshman, sophomore, junior, senior) because within grade levels,
coaching styles can be perceived differently (Turman, 2001). The differences within levels of
play could be contributed to the outside pressures coaches face. As coaches climb the ranks of
the coaching profession, the pressure to win becomes greater, and they can pass this pressure on
to the players (Cheton, Reeve, Lee, & Lee, 2015). Finally a coach should consider what stage of
the season their team is in. The perceived level of coaching style can change throughout the
season and this could elicit different levels of cohesion throughout the year (Bartholomaus 2012;
Turman, 2003). To stay consistent, a coach should evaluate the effectiveness of their coaching
style on a regular basis, and solicit player input as well.
Summary of the Literature Review
It is clear that as sports continue to grow in popularity, the need for qualified coaches
who can effectively lead athletes and teams will grow as well. To be an effective coach, one
must have an effective leadership style and have a team that will perform well as a unit. When
developing their style of leadership, coaches should take a few considerations into account.
Though they should be the overaJl leader and the one making the final decision, it may be
beneficial to allow their players to voice their opinions on situation and what they believe is a
correct path. Furthermore, they should also support their players both on and off the court and
be an overall positive role model for their athletes. With support, any feedback that a player
receives should be positive and focus on building autonomy of the athletes. Should any feedhack
need to be negative, it should be delivered as constructive criticism, showing how an athlete can
better themselves and their performance if they make the suggested change. Proper training and
instruction should also be taken into account when coaching athletes, though this typically goes
hand in hand with the other key points that a coach should use when creating and implementing
their style of leadership.
When developing a team into a cohesive, effective unit, a coach should not only work on
an overall goal for the team, but also help members of the team get to know one another and
enjoy being with one another. Setting an overall goal, or task, for a team can unite the team and
result in a higher performance output. This higher performance output then leads to a more
successful team. Having a uniting task for a team to commit to may be the best way to build a
team's cohesiveness, but coaches should also focus on the social aspect. Having team outings,
course challenges, or simple, regular, get-togethers may help build this aspect, which in turn may
impact the team's level of social cohesion, and help to further improve their level of task
cohesion as well.
When coaching it is important to recognize that different generations have different mind
sets. Coaches should work to close the "generation gap" and try to coach more to the current
generation, instead of the generation they grew up in, because not adapting to generational
differences may impede team cohesion. As the younger generation of athletes emerge coaches
should introduce new ways of coaching to these athletes. These younger generations are more in
tune to the use of technology and receiving performance feedback almost immediately. They are
also willing to research and find information on their own. A coach may need to involve
technology somehow to meet the needs and expectation of this new generation of athletes.
Overall, a coach should realize that the lack of an effective coachjng style can negatively
impact how cohesive their team will be. Thjs negative cohesiveness has been shown to be
detrimental to a team's ability to accomplish goals and reach levels of desired success. To be an
effective coach with a successful team, it is recommended that a coach utilize a democratic
coaching style that includes, positive feedback, training and instruction, and social support.
These components, in turn, will build team cohesion and lead to a more successful team and a
successful coach as well.

Methodology
This study examined the relationship between coaching styles and team cohesion with
male high school student-athletes from a Central Illinois high school. The purpose of this
chapter is to describe the: (a) participants and setting, (b) instrumentation, (c) procedures, (d)
data collection, and (e) data analysis.
Participants and Setting
For this study, the participants were males who were spring sports season student-athletes
at a Central Illinois high school. The questionnaire was distributed to approximately 50 student
athletes and approximately seven coaches. After a one week waiting period from when the
questionnaires were circulated, 20 completed student-athlete questionnaires were submitted,
which created the overall pool of participants (n=20 athletes) The participants could fill out the
questionnaire at their personal convenience. Each team's coach was invited to participate in this
study along with their athletes. The coaches who participated in this study were from three
different sports (baseball, track/field, tennis). The average age of the coaches is 42.75 and had
coached their sport for an average of 15.25 years. The average amount of years coached at their
high school was 19 years. The questionnaire was distributed to a total of six coaches. After a one
week period from when the questionnaires were handed out, four of questionnaires were
returned, which created the overall pool of participants (n=4) and all coaches were of the same
ethnicity (Caucasian=4).
Instrumentation
During this study, all student-athJetes filled out a questionnaire that consisted of three
main sections. The first part included demographic questions that asked age, year in school,
years played overall in their sport, and their ethnicity. The second part included the Leadership
COACHJNG STYLES AND COHEION IN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES 36
Scale for Sports (LSS) which measures coaching styles, and the third part included the Youth
Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ) which measures group cohesion. Due to variables
such as the reading level of the participants, the mix of positive and negative items in the GEQ,
and children's changing experiences with their peers the YSEQ should be implemented with
younger populations, 13-17 years old (Rubin, Bukowski & Parker, 2006; Eys, Carron, Bray, &
Brawley, 2007; Eys, Loughead, Bray, and Carron, 2009).
Coaches filled out a two-part questionnaire which included demographic questions that
asked age, years coached at their current school, years they have coached the sport they currently
coach, what sport they coach, and their ethnicity. The second part is a modified LSS which
replaces wording from the traditional LSS (i.e. level of agreement with each of the statements
regarding your coach and my coach . . . ) and substitutes it so coaches can evaluate their own
coaching styles (i.e. check the appropriate response indicating which behavior best represents
your leadership style and as a coach I. . . ).
Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS).
The LSS is a 40-question survey that examines a student-athlete's perception of how
much they agree with the statement provided, in regards to their coach's leadership style. It is
graded on a l to 5 Likert scale with l =never and 5=always. The test is divided into sections
correlating to the different types of coaching styles (training and instruction, democratic
behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback). To score each section the
scores are totaled for that section and then divided by the total number of questions per section.
Though the questionnaire is older, it has been shown to be reliable and its use in multiple recent
articles shows that it can still be a valid tool to assess coaching styles (Altahayneh, 2003; Din,
Rashid, & Noh, 2016; Dixon, Turner, & Gillman, 2016; Fletcher & Roberts, 2013).
Modified Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS).
The LSS is a 40-question survey that examines a coach's perception of how much they
agree with the statement provided, in regards to their coaching style. It is graded on a 1 to 5
Likert scale with l=never and 5=always. The test is divided into sections correlating to the
different types of coaching styles (training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic
behavior, social support, and positive feedback). To score each section the scores are totaled for
that section and then divided by the total number of questions per section.
Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YESQ).
The YSEQ is a 16-question survey that looks at the athlete's perception of their team and
its cohesion. The questionnaire is divided into two sections measuring task cohesion and social
cohesion. Every other question asks the athlete's feelings towards a team's task cohesion and are
answered on a l to 9 Likert scale ( l=strongly disagree and 9=strongly agree). The second
section is scored on the same Likert scale and asked the athlete's feelings towards their team's
social cohesion. These sixteen questions connect to two different sections that correlate with
either group cohesion, or task cohesion. To calculate a score for the two sections the sum of the
questions is obtained, which is then reported as a number out of a total possible score of 72.
Procedures
All participants were from one Central Illinois high school and were approached by the
researcher before practice. The participants were informed of the experiment and all were given
an ascent form if younger than 1 8 or a consent form for those coaches and those who were 1 8
and older. Participants were instructed to fill out the form and return i t to the researcher the
following week at the same time on the same day. At the second meeting those who returned
their consent/ascent form were then given a questionnaire and told what each section was
measuring. Participants could take the survey home and complete it during their own free time
and were instructed to fill out the form and return it to the researcher the following week at the
same time on the same day. Should a participant not return their survey or not tum in their
consent/ascent form, they were not allowed to participate in the study.
Data Collection
During the first week of the experiment, athletes and coaches were approached at the
beginning of practice in the high school gym in order to inform them of the chance to participate
in this study. After informing the participants of the study, with associated benefits and risks,
they were given a consent form or an ascent form based on how old they were. They were then
instructed to have the form filled out and to return it to the investigator at a meeting that was
scheduled for the same day and time following week before practice. At the second meeting
those coaches and athletes who had a completed consent form or ascent form were then given a
questionnaire to fill out.
Participating student-athletes were instructed that the first part of the questionnaire was
for demographic purposes only, the second was for coaching styles, and the third was for
cohesion. Participating coaches were instructed that the fust part of the questionnaire was for
demographic purposes and for collecting self-perceptions on their own coaching style. To
minimize the time taken out of practice for the coach, the participants were allowed to take the
questionnaires with them to fill it out at their convenience with directions to bring them to a
meeting that was scheduled for the following week at the same time and day before practice.
Data Analysis
All correlations were analyzed using SPSS version 23 (SPSS, 2015). To receive total
mean values for each individual's scores on the LSS, each section was first summed and then the
mean was calculated based on how many questions were for each section. To calculate scores on
the YSEQ an overall sum of each section was acquired. For each section of coaching style, a
two-tailed bivariate correlation was used to find any correlation between the coaching styles and
the types of cohesion. This style of analysis was carried out on the group as a whole and the
baseball team as well.
Coach's mean LSS values were calculated in the same manner as the athlete version of
the LSS. To compare the coach's perception of their style and their athlete's perception, a t-test
was carried out to see if there were any differences present. Unlike with the previously
mentioned analysis, due to the n size, analysis was only carried out on the group as a whole
instead of individual teams.

Results
The purpose of this study was to examine if there would be any correlation present
between a coach's style, perceived by the players, and team cohesion for high school student
athletes in different sports. As a second purpose, this study examined if there was a difference
between the coach's perceived coaching style and their student-athlete's perception.
Demographics
A total of approximately 50 student-athletes ranging from freshmen to seniors in high
school and their coaches were invited to participate in this study. All athletes were current
members of their school's baseball, track/field, or tennis team. After the approximate two week
window of data collection, a total of 20 athletes had turned in their questionnaires, creating the
participant pool. Four coaches also turned in their questionnaires, leading to a total of four in the
coaching pool for this study. Only those who did not return their questionnaires were omitted
from the study. The final data analysis included 20 athletes (five freshmen, four sophomores,
nine juniors, and two seniors) and included eighteen Caucasian athletes and two Native
American athletes, though all ethnicities were allowed to participate. Of the participants in the
coaching pool, each sport (baseball, track/field, and tennis) had at minimum one coach tum in a
questionnaire, with track/field having a total of two coaching surveys submitted. All statistical
analyses were carried out using SPSS version 23 (SPSS, 2015). Tables (1 & 2) have been
included, giving the entire breakdown of coach and student-athlete demographics

Table 1
Demographic Statistics of Student-Athletes n=20

Age (avg) 16.2
Year
Freshmen 5
Sophomore 4
Junior 9
Senior 2
Sport
Baseball 17
Track/Field 2
Tennis 1
Ethnicity
Caucasian 18
Native American 2
Table 2
Demographic Statistics of Coaches n=4

Age (avg) 42.75
Sport
Baseball 1
Track/Field 2
Tennis 1
Years coached (total avg) 15.25
Years coached Cat school avg) 1 9
Ethnicity
Caucasian 4
Correlation between Coaching Styles and Cohesion
After analyzing the data for each coaching style compared to the two types of cohesion, it
was found that there were correlations between some of the coaching styles and team cohesion.
Training and instruction was the variable found to correlate with task cohesion (r=.004; p <.05),
though social support (r=.094) and democratic (r=.092) were close to significance. Training and
instruction, democratic coaching, and social support were found to have a significant correlation
with social cohesion (r=.001 r=.034 r=.004; p <.05). When comparing by team, baseball had the
same correlations as the group as a whole for both task and social cohesion. A correlation with
track/field and tennis was not available due to the extremely low n size. Data tables have been
included of analysis for each section of cohesion and its correlation to the coaching styles by
group and team (baseball only).
Table 3
Correlation Between Coaching Styles and Cohesion Sections Overall

Style and Cohesion Significance
TIS .001 *
TIT .004*
DS .034*
DT .094
AS .479
AT .771
SSS .004*
SST .092
PFS .631
PFf .646
Notes. Tl=training & instruction, D=democratic, A=autocratic,
SS=social support, PF= positive feedback, S=social cohesion
T= task cohesion
*p�.05
Table 4
Correlation Between Coaching Styles and Cohesion Sections for Baseball

Style and Cohesion Significance
TIS .001 *
TIT .012*
DS .006*
DT .260
AS .564
AT .749
SSS .007*
SST .202
PFS .855
PFf .837
Notes. Tl=training & instruction, D=democratic, A=autocratic,
SS=social support, PF= positive feedback, S=social cohesion
T= task cohesion
*p�.05
Comparison between Athlete & Coach Perception of Coaching Styles
Prior to conducting the statistical analysis, due to the extremely small sample size
available to examine potential mean differences in perceived coaching methods, a statistician
was consulted. It was determined that based on the simulation analysis presented in de Winter
(20 1 3), and that given the observed equal variances among the coaching variables and the
expected and observed effect sizes (e.g. using Cohen's D), a t-test would be the most appropriate
statistical test, to examine the hypothesis. Upon carrying out t-test analysis for each section in
comparison to the coach and athlete pool as a whole, it was found that the perceptions of the
coach and athlete were the same (i.e. no major difference). A table has been included of analysis
for each section of style and its difference to the coaching styles by group. Individual analysis
by team was not carried out, due to the small n size (n < 2) as stated in de Winter (2013).
Table 5
Comparison Between Coach's and Athlete's Perception of CoachingStyles

Style Equal Variance Assumed Equal Variance not Assumed
TI .825 .715
A .439 . 174
D .768 .726
SS .944 .935
PF .681 .483
* p�0.05
Discussion
The discussion is organized into four sections and includes a summary, main discussion
and conclusion, future research possibilities, and implications. The summary of the study will
include the purpose, a summary of findings, and statistical analyses used to answer the research
question. The discussion and conclusions will be in relation to the research questions.
The purpose of this study was to determine if there is any correlation between coaching
style and team cohesion for high school student-athletes in different sports. As a second
purpose, this study examined any potential differences between the coach's perceived coaching
style and their athlete's perception. Participants included 20 high school male student-athletes
participating in baseball, track/field, or tennis. Furthermore, their coaches were allowed to
participate in the study to provide information on their perceived coaching styles. SPSS version
23 (SPSS, 2015) was used for data analysis in this study. For each coaching style section
perceived by the athletes, a two-tailed Pearson correlation was used to determine any correlation
between each coaching style and each cohesion section. After consulting with a statistician, a t
test was used to determine any significant difference between perceived coaching styles from the
athletes and the coaches themselves. It was concluded that training and instruction, social
support, and democratic coaching significantly correlated with social cohesion. Training and
instruction was the only style that significantly correlated with task cohesion. Finally, both the
coaches and athletes accurately perceived the same coaching styles.
The first research question was whether there was a correlation between coaching styles
and team cohesion. It was hypothesized that the coaching styles of democratic coaching, training
and instruction, social support, and positive feedback would positively correlate with team
cohesion. The reason these styles were chosen for the first hypothesis was due to previous
research findings (Gardner, Shields, Bredemeier, & Bostrom, 1996; Hydarinejad & Adman,
2015; Murray, 2006) indicating these to be the most likely to correlate with team cohesion.
While this hypothesis was correct, only training and instruction, democratic, and social support
were found to have a significant correlation to social cohesion, while training and instruction was
the only coaching style that significantly correlated to task cohesion as well. This finding leads
to a discussion as to why positive feedback did not significantly correlate with cohesion.
There are numerous benefits to using the positive feedback coaching style and multiple
studies (Dagne & Assefa, 2014; Murray, 2006; Ramzaninezhad & Hoseini, 2009) concluded that
positive feedback does correlate to cohesion overall. Comparing this study against the others
that use the GEQ (Dagne & Assefa, 2014; Murray, 2006; Rarnzaninezhad & Hoseini, 2009), the
one major difference which is the questionnaires used. Due to the newness of the YSEQ, it
could be speculated that different results would be obtained when comparing the coaching styles
and cohesion together. The differences could be contributed to the changing of wording in the
YSEQ as each question could be taken in a different context from its GEQ counterpart.
Furthermore, the measuring of only two areas of cohesion instead of four, could lead to gaps in
information, since the situation is not examined from every angle. Furthermore the subjects in
this study were of a different region of the country than other studies. Each region is unique in
its own way and the difference in beliefs could lead to conflicting results as well (Rentfrow,
Gosling, Jokela, Stillwell, Kosinski, & Potter, 2013).
In regards to training and instruction being the only coaching style that significantly
correlated with task cohesion, this may be simpler to explain. As a reminder the definition of
this coaching style is, improving athlete's performance by facilitating training (Chelladurai &
Saleh, 1 980). Though there are many different coaching styles that can be used to achieve a
goal, (i.e. democratic/autocratic, positive/negative feedback, social support/isolation) the one

common factor needed to reach a goal is training. It is not a farfetched idea to suggest that those
who train and receive instruction have a better chance competing and winning than those who do
not. Though practices and games may involve the mentioned examples of coaching styles, teams
can unite around accomplishing a task or winning through training and bettering themselves.
Many athletes improve and contribute their success with training and guidance from coaches or
mentors throughout the season (Birch, 2017; Porter 2017). Therefore it is not hard to understand
how training and instruction significantly correlated with task cohesion.
A second hypothesis in regards to coaching styles and correlation to cohesion was that
autocratic coaching would negatively correlate with team cohesion. Though the analysis did
show that there was a negative correlation in both sections of cohesion, it was not significant
enough to report. However, due to results from Rodriguez (2009) and this study showing a
negative correlation, autocratic coaching may still not be a preferred choice when coaching
student-athletes. Once again variables such as the difference in questionnaires and region could
have played a role in autocratic coaching not having a significant negative correlation to team
cohesion.
However, there may be an explanation for autocratic coaching not having a significant
negative correlation to team cohesion. Since this was a negative correlation, one could speculate
that as there was less autocratic coaching utilized, there would be more team cohesion. Since
most of the participants were baseball players, their coach will be looked at more in depth for
this explanation. When speaking with the coach, he stated that this year's team was
underperforming compared to teams of previous years. This underperformance led the coach to
wonder if there was anything different he could do and was a driving factor in his participation in
this study. Due to the possibilities of the team's underperformance, this could have led the coach
to become stressed and project his stress onto his team (Cheon, Reeve, Lee, & Lee, 2015). This
could have led to more autocratic styled practices. However this seems to not be the case for the
baseball coach. Looking back at the data, his players did not have a significant correlation with
autocratic coaching and team cohesion. This means that though the team was underperforming,
the coach was not exhibiting the characteristics of an autocratic coach to take control and try to
increase the team's performance.
The third hypothesis stated that there would be no difference in coaching style and team
cohesion between the individual sports and the group as a whole. This was believed due to other
findings in studies reaching very similar conclusions. This was mostly found to be true in this
study, however due to the low amount of participants from other sports, only the baseball team's
data was analyzed. Because the participation was low in the other groups, it is impossible to
suggest with any degree of certainty that track/field and tennis would correlate the same way.
However, it could be speculated that these two sports would be different based on the type of
sport. Though all sports involve teamwork to win a game or meet through some type of points
system, tennis and track/field are more often individualized sports. Outside of rare occasions in
the sport (i.e. tennis doubles and relay teams) the majority of competitions involve one single
individual competing against another individual(s). At times this competition can be between
teammates. Though these individuals may practice and travel together, there is little time to build
social cohesion in the sport setting. However, each athlete has the same task or "goal" as
everyone else, which is to win.
The second research question involved the coaches and their perception of style in
comparison to their athlete's perception. It was hypothesized that there would be a difference
between how the coaches perceived their styles and how the student-athletes perceived their
coach's style. The results showed there was no difference between coaches and players
perception. This result may indicate a transparency between coaches and student-athletes that
accurately allow student-athletes to perceive their coach's attitudes. Had there been a difference
in participation this could have been a reason why there were slightly different perception from
athletes in regards to coaching styles and team cohesion. However, variables such as location,
experience, and school size could play a factor in the slight difference. Furthermore, due to the
size of the school, many of these student-athletes had already had experience with their coach's
style's for a few years. Some bad played for their coach since junior high, which allowed for
them to build farniliari ty and understanding their coach's style. The importance of this analysis is
that if a coach has an autocratic coaching style and the athlete believes they have a democratic
coaching style then one of them may not be understanding of the coach/athlete relationship
dynamics which could interfere with the development of team cohesion the student-athlete's full
potential and the "success" of the coach as measured by athletes' success.
Future Research
The goal of this study was to gain a better understanding of the relationships between
cohesion and coaching styles. A similar study could be performed with more participants or with
different sports so that there is a larger data pool that might generate more generalizable results.
Another study that could be performed is to determine if females have the same correlations
between coaching styles and cohesion as males. In addition, creating a YSEQ version geared
more towards coaches would allow for a researcher to assess cohesion from a coach's point of
view. Further research in these areas could provide coaches and researchers with a better
understanding of how their coaching styles will correlate with team cohesion. The creation of a
coaching YSEQ, would allow for a researcher to examine how cohesive they feel their team is.
This would allow further investigation of the coach/athlete relationship to see if team cohesion
needs to be built amongst a team. The building of team cohesion could then help coaching styles
to be implemented more effectively and help the student-athletes achieve their full potential.
Implications
Coaching is no easy task for newcomers and veterans alike. Every year a coach inherits
or selects a new group of players and a new situation. Overall the main goal of a coach is to put
his or her team in the best position they can to win. From drills, to weightlifting, to studying
game film, there are endless methods that a coach can use to tum his or her team into a
championship caliber team. Of course players will typically only respond to certain coaching
styles and this study can aid in guiding a coach to preferred or ideal styles to promote a higher
level of overall cohesion and effectiveness. This study aids in a coach's ability to speculate how
they should lead by seeing what styles athletes may prefer and to determine what will elicit the
strongest cohesion, and in tum, produce the best performance results on the field or court.
References
Abgarov, A., Fraser-Thomas, J., Baker, J., & Jeffery-Tosoni, S. (2012). Understanding social
support throughout the injury process among interuniversity swimmers. Journal of
/ntercolleg;are Sport, 5, 2 1 3-239.
Alfermann, D., Lee, M. J., Wurth, S. (2005). Perceived leadership behavior and motivational
climate as antecedents of adolescent athlete's skill development. Athletic Insight, 7(2),
14-36.
Altahayneh, Z. L. (2003). Effects of coaches' behaviors and burnout on the satisfaction and
burnout of athletes (Master's thesis). Retrieved from WorldCatDissertations. (Accession
No. OCLC: 54696255).
Avila, L. T., Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Positive social-comparative
feedback enhances motor learning in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(6),
849-853.
Bartholomaus, B. D. (2012). Athletes perceptions of democratic and autocratic coaching
behaviors used by high school football coaches (Master's thesis). Retrieved from
WorldCatDissertations. (Accession No. OCLC: 8306401 15).
Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. ( 1 978). Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to
non-contingent success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 405-4 17.
Bernard, D., Trudel, P., Marcotte, G., & Boileau, R. ( 1 993). The incidence, types, and
circumstances of injuries to ice hockey players at the bantam level ( 1 4- to- 1 5 years old).
In C. R. Castaldi, P.). Bishop, & E. F. Hoerner (Eds.), Safety in ice hockey: Second
volume, ASTM STP 1212 (pp. 44-55). Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
Birch, T. (20 17). Kyle Schwarber: 'I'm not going to back down at all - trust me'. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/basebaWiowa-cubs/201 7/06/27/kyle-schwarber
im-not-going-back-down-all-trust-me/429784001/
Brawley, L. R., Carron, A. V., & Widmeyer, W. N. ( 1 987). Assessing the cohesion of teams:
Validity of the Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 9, 275-294.
Brawley, L.R. & Paskevich, D.M. ( 1 997). Conducting team building research in context of sport
and exercise. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 9, 1 1-40.
Buys, C. J. ( 1 978a). On "humans would do better with out groups": A final note. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 568.
Buys, C. J. ( 1 978b). Humans would do better with out groups. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 4, 123-125.
Callow N., Smith M. J., Hardy L., Arthur C. A., & Hardy J. (2009). Measurement of
transformational leadership and its relationship with team cohesion and performance
leveJ. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 21(4), 395-4 12.
Caron, J. G., Bloom, G. A., Loughead, T. M., & Hoffmann, M. D. (2016). Paralympic athlete
leaders' perceptions of leadership and cohesion. Journal of Sport Behavior, 39(3), 2 1 9.
Carron, A. V., Brawley, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. ( 1 998). The measurement of cohesiveness in
sport groups. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology
measurement (2 13-226). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Colman, M. M., Wheeler, J., & Stevens, D. (2002). Cohesion and performance in
sport: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 168-1 88.
Carron, A. V. & Eys, M. A. (2012). Group dynamics in sport. Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Carron, A. V., Prapavessis, H., & Grove, J. R. ( 1 994). Group effects and self-handicapping.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 246-258.
Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. ( 1 985). The development of an instrument to
assess cohesion in sport teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport
Chelladurai, P. (2007). Leadership in sports. Handbook of Sport Psychology, Third Edition, 1 1 1-
135.
Chelladurai, P. & Quek, C. B. ( 1 995). Decision style choices of high school basketball coaches:
The effects of situational and coach characteristics, Journal of Sport Behaviour, 18(2),
9 1 - 108.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. ( 1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of
a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., Lee, J., & Lee, Y. (20 15). Giving and receiving autonomy support in a
high-stakes sport context: A field-based experiment during the 2012 London Paralympic
Games. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 1959-69.
Clement, D., & Shannon, V. R. (20 1 1 ) . Injured athletes' perceptions about social support.
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation, 20, 457-470.
Cogan, K. 0. & Petrie, T. A. ( 1 995). Sport consultation: An evaluation of a season-long
intervention with female collegiate gymnasts. The Sport Psychologist, 9, 282-296.

Cowan, J., Slogrove, C. L., & Hoelson, C. N. (2012). Self-efficacy and social support of
academy cricketers. South African Journalfor Research in Sport, Physical Education and
Recreation, 34, 27-39.
Crampton, S. M. and Hodge, J. W. (2007). Generations in the workplace: Understanding age
diversity. The Business Review, 9(1), 16-23.
Davis, M. C. (n.d.). The interaction between baseball attendance and winning percentage: A var
analysis. Retrieved from http://web.mst.edu/-davismc/attendance%20var.pdf
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. ( 1 985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
DeFreese, J. D., & Smith, A. L. (2013). Teammate social support, burnout, and self-determined
motivation in collegiate athletes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 258-265.
DeWinter, J. C. F. (2013). Using the student's t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical
Assessment, Research, & Evaluation, 18(10), 1 - 1 2.
Din, A., Rashid, S. A., & Noh, S. A. M. (2016). The relationship and influence of coaching
leadership style in training program towards student athletes' satisfaction.
SIPATAHOENAN, 1 ( 1 ) .
Dixon, M., Turner, M. J., & Gillman, J . (2016). Examining the relationships between challenge
and threat cognitive appraisals and coaching behaviors in football coaches. Journal of
sports sciences, 1-7.
Eisman, B. ( l 959). Some operational measures of cohesiveness and their interrelations. Human
Relations, 12, 1 83 - 1 88.

Escovar, L. A., & Sim, F. M. ( 1 974). The cohesion of groups: Alternative conceptions. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association,
Toronto.
Eys, M. A., Carron, A.V., Bray, S. R., & Brawley, L. R. (2007). Item wording and internal
consistency of a measure of cohesion: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 395-402.
Eys, M. A., Hardy, J., Carron, A. V., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2003). The relationship between
task cohesion and competitive state anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
25, 66-76.
Eys, M. A., Loughead, T. M., Bray, S. R., & Carron, A. V. (2009). Development of a cohesion
questionnaire for youth: The Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport
& Exercise Psychology, 31, 390-408.
Faunce, D., & Beegle, J. ( 1 948). Cleavages in a relatively homogeneous group of rural growth.
Sociometry, 11, 207-216.
Feltz, D. L., & Lirgg, C. D. (200 1 ). In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.),
Handbook of Sport Psychology, 2nd ed. (pp. 340-36 1). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Fielden, S. (2005). Literature review: Coaching effectiveness- a summary. Retrieved from
http://literacy.kent.edu/coaching/information/Research/NHS_CDWP
CoachingEffecti veness. pdf
Filho, E., Dobersek, U., Gershgoren, L., Becker, B . , & Tenenbaum, G. (20 14). The cohesion
performance relationship in sport: A 10-year retrospective meta-analysis. Sport Science
Health, JO, 165-177.

Fleishman, E. A. ( 1 957a). A leader behavior description for industry. In R. M., Stogclill & A. E.
Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: The
Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Fleishman, E. A. ( l 957b). The Leadership Opinion Questionnaire. In R. M. Stogdill& A. E.
Coons(Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement. Columbus, OH: The
Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Fletcher, R. B., & Roberts, M. H., (2013). Longitudinal stability of the Leadership Scale for
Sports. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 17, 89- 1 04.
Frenz, R. (20 17). Advantages & Disadvantages of Group Cohesiveness & Productivity.
Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-di sadvantages-group
cohesiveness-producti vity-25046. html
Gardner, D. E., Shields, D. L. L., Bredemeier, B. J. L., & Bostrom, A. ( 1 996). The relationship
between perceived coaching behaviors and team cohesion among baseball and softball
players. The Sport Psychologist, 10(4), 367-3 8 1 .
Getachew, D., & Assefa, A. (2014). Coaching leadership styles and team cohesion in Ethiopian
public universities male football teams. International Journal of Management, IT and
Engineering, 4(l2), 60.
Giancola, D. P., (2010). Democratic coaching: A case study (Master's thesis). Retrieved from
WorldCatDissertations. (Accession No. OCLC: 708745 1 6 1 ).
Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy Jr, E. F. (2009). Generational differences in the
workplace: Personal values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity
Management, 4(3), 1 .
Gilbert, W., Gilbert, J. N., & Trudel, P. (200 1). Coaching strategies for youth sports. JOPERD:
The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 72(5), 4 1 .
Grimes, G . (20 1 1). How generation x works. Retrieved from http://people.howstuffworks.com
/culture-traditions/generation-gaps/generation-x.htm
Gross, N., & Martin, W. (1952). On group cohesiveness. American Journal of Sociology, 57,
533-546.
Halperin, I., Chapman, D. W., Martin, D. T., Abbiss, C., & Wulf, G. (2016). Coaching cues in
amateur boxing: An analysis of ringside feedback provided between rounds of
competition. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 25, 44-50.
Halperin, !.,Williams, K.,Martin, D. T., & Chapman, D. W. (2016). The effects of attentional
focusing instructions on force production during the isometric mid-thigh pull. The
Journal of Strength and Conditioning, 30, 9 1 9-923.
Halpin, A. W. ( 1 957). The leader behavior and effectiveness of aircraft commanders. In R. M.
Stogdill & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Hardy, J. , Eys, M. A., & Carron, A. V. (2005). Exploring the potential disadvantages of high
cohesion in team sports. Small Group Research, 36(2), 166-187.
Harle, W. (2013). Benefits of teamwork in sports. Retrieved from
http://www.livestrong.com/article/ 105222-benefits-teamwork-sports/
Heydarinejad, S., & Adman, 0. (20 10). Relationship between coaching leadership styles and
team cohesion in football teams of the Iranian University League. Studies in Physical
Culture & Tourism, 17(4), 367-372.

Hodges, N., & Williams, M. A., (2012). Skill acquisition in sport: Research, theory and practice.
London, England: Routledge
Hoffman, E. C. & Czech, D. R. (2008). Preferred coaching qualities in NCAA Division I college
athletes: A qualitative analysis of basketball players from the millennial generation
(Master's thesis). Retrieved from WorldCatDissertations. (Accession No. OCLC:
246712942).
H¢igaard, R., Safvenbom, R., & T¢nnessen, F. E. (2006). The relationship between group
cohesion, group norms, and perceived social loafing in soccer teams. Small Group
Research, 37(3), 2 1 7-232.
Holt, N. L., & Sparkes, A. C. (2001). An ethnographic study of cohesiveness in a college soccer
team over a season. The Sport Psychologist, 15, 237-259.
Hooyman, A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2014). Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus
controlling instructional language on motor learning. Human Movement Science, 36,
190-198.
Hutchinson, J. C., Sherman, T., Martinovic, N., & Tenenbaum, G. (2008). The effect of
manipulated self-efficacy on perceived and sustained effort. Journal ofApplied Sport
IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Jadlow, J., & Brew, T. (2016). Jadlow: On the rebound. Schererville, IN: Hilltop30 Publishers,
LLC.
Janelle, C. M., Kim, J., Singer, R. N. ( 1 995). Subject-controlled performance feedback and
learning of a closed motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 627-634.
Jarvis, M. ( 1 999). Sport psychology. London, England: Routledge.

Jiff, B. (2016). The employees of baby boomers generation, generation x, generation y and
generation z in selected Czech corporations as conceivers of development and
competitiveness in their corporation. Journal of Competitiveness, 8( 4), 105-123.
Johnson, M. (2015). Stop talking about work/life balance! TEQ and the millennial
generation. Workforce Solutions Review, 6(2), 4-7.
Jordan, P. J., Lawrence, S. A., & Troth, A. C. (2006). The impact of negative mood on team
performance. Journal ofManagement & Organization, 12(2), 1 3 1 - 145.
Julian, J., Bishop, D., & Fielder, F. E. ( 1966). Quasitherapeutic effects of intergroup competition.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 3 2 1 -327.
Kane, S. (2015). Traditionalists (aka the silent generation). About Careers.
Retrieved from http://legalcareers.about.com/od/practicetips/a/Traditionalists.htm
Kuvaas, B . (2007). Different relationships between perceptions of developmental performance
appraisal and work performance. Personnel Review, 36(3), 378-397.
Lauber, B., & Keller, M., (2014). Improving motor performance: Selected aspects of augmented
feedback in exercise and health. European Journal of Sport Science, 14, 36-43.
Leibow, C. (2014). Work/life balance for the generations. Retrieved from
http://www. hu ffingtonpost.com/cathy-lei bow/worklife-balance-for-the
_l_b_5992766. html
Lenk, H. ( 1969). Top performance despite internal conflict: An antithesis to a functionalistic
proposition. In J. Loy Jr. & G. Kenyon (Eds.), Sport, culture and society: A reader on the
sociology of sport. Toronto: MacMiJlan.
Lenk, H. ( 1 977). Authoritarian or democratic styled coaching? In H. Lenk (Eds.), Team
dynamics. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Lerner, K. L., & Lerner, B. W. (2007). Sport coaching. World of Sport Science, 2, 675-676.
Lewthwaite, R, & Wulf, G. (2010). Social-comparative feedback affects motor skill learning.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 738-749.
Lim, S., Ali, A., Kirn, W., Kim, J., Choi, S., & Radio, S. J. (2015). Influence of self-controlled
feedback on learning a serial motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 120, 462-474.
Lu, F. J. H., & Hsu, Y. (2013). Injured athletes' rehabilitation beliefs and subjective well-being:
The contribution of hope and social support. Journal ofAthletic Training, 48, 92-99.
Lyons, S. (2005). Are gender differences in basic human values a generational phenomenon? Sex
Roles: A Journal of Research. Retrieved from
http://wwwfindarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_9-10_53/ai_n16084047/print
Marchant, D. C. & Greig, M. (2009). Attentional focusing instructions influence force
production and muscular activity during isokinetic elbow flexions. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 23, 2358-2366.
Marcos, F. L., Miguel, P. S., Oliva, D. S., & Calvo, T. G. (2010). Interactive effects of team
cohesion on perceived efficacy in semi-professional sport. Journal of Sports Science &
Medicine, 9(2), 320-325.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (200 1). A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy ofManagement Review, 26(3), 356-376.
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. ( 1 990). Development and
validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. In R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, &
D. Burton, Competitive state anxiety in sport (pp. 1 17- 1 90). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Martens, R., Flannery, T., & Retort, P. (2003). The future of coaching education in America.
Retrieved from http://www.nfhs.org/cep/articles/future_coaching.htm
Martin, C. A. (2005). From high maintenance to high productivity: What managers need to know
about Generation Y. Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), 39-44.
Martin, L. J., Carron, A. V., & Burke, S. M. (2009). Team building interventions in sport: A
meta-analysis. Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 5(2), 3 - 1 8.
McClure, B. A. & Foster, C. D. (1991). Group work as a method of promoting cohesiveness
within a women's gymnastics team. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 307-3 1 3 .
McKay, B , Lewthwaite, R . , & Wulf, G. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve performance
under pressure. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.
McKay, B., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Nordin, A. (2015). The self: Your own worst enemy? A
test of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 68, 1 9 10-1919.
Meyer, B.B. (2000). The ropes and challenges course: A quasi-experimental examination.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 1 249- 1257.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. ( 1 993). Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of applied
psychology, 78(4), 538.
Meyer, R. (2017). The rise of progressive 'fake news'. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www .theatlantic.com/technology/archive/20 1 7/02/viva-la-resistance
content/5 1 5532/
Murray, N. P. (2006). The differential effect of team cohesion and leadership behavior in
high school sports. Individual Differences Research, 4(4), 2 1 6-225.

National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). (2003). Education requirements
for athletic coaches. Retrieved from http://www.nasbe.org/ Educational_Issues/
Policy_Updates/1 1_4.html
National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS). (2016). High school sports
particpation
i increases for 27h consecutive year. Retrieved from
https://www.nfhs.org/articles/high-school-sports-participation-increases-for-27th
consecuti ve-year/
National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS). (n.d.). Mission statement.
Retrieved from https://www .ntbs.org/who-we-are/rnissionstatement
Naylor, K., & Brawley, L. R. ( 1 992). Social loafing: Perceptions and implications. Paper
presented at the joint meeting of the Canadian Association of Sport Sciences and the
Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology Association, Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan, Canada.
Neutzling, M . M. (2012). Characteristics of an effective high school volleyball coach. (Doctoral
dissertation.) Retrieved from WorJdCatDissertation (Accession No. OCLC: 8 1 3 122 144).
Pappas, C. (2016). 8 important charcteristics of Baby Boomers elearning professionals should
know. eLeaming Industry. Retrieved from https://elearningindustry.com/8-important
characteristics-baby-boomers-elearning-professionals-know
Parker, K. & Czech, D. R. (2008). Preferred coaching qualities in youth sports: A qualitative
inquiry of soccer players from generation z (Master's thesis). Retrieved from
WorldCatDissertations. (Accession No. OCLC: 6676 16681).
Patota, N., Schwartz, D. & Schwartz, T. (2007). Leveraging generational differences for
productivity gains. Journal ofAmerican Academy of Business, 11(2), 1 - 1 1 .

Pascua, L. A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2015). Additive benefits of external focus and
enhanced performance expectancy for motor learning. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33,
58-66.
Paskevich, D. M., Brawley, L. R., Dorsch, L. R., & Widmeyer, W. N. ( 1 995). Implications of
individual and group level analyses applied to the study of collective efficacy and
cohesion. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 7(Suppl.), 95.
Paskevich, D. M., Estabrooks, P. A., Brawley, L. R., & Carron, A. V. (200 1 ). Group cohesion in
sport and exercise. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 472-494). New York: John Wiley.
Phelps, T. (2010). Bob Knight: Integrity vs. hypocrisy. Retrieved from
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/43943 l -bob-knight-integrity-vs-hypocrisy
Porter, J. M., Anton, P. M., & Wu, W. F. (2012). Increasing the distance of an external focus of
attention enhances standing Jong jump performance. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research, 26, 2389-2393.
Porter, L. (2017). Russel Westbrook tearfully thanks wife Nina while accepting NBA MVP
award. Retrieved from https://www.yahoo.com/news/russell-westbrook-tearfully-thanks
wife- 163638 1 1 5.html
Post, P. G., Fairbrother, J. T., & Barros, J. A. (201 1 ). Self-controlled amount of practice
benefits learning of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82(3), 474-
48 1 .
Prapavessis, H., & Carron, A. V. ( 1997). The role of sacrifice in the dynamics of sport teams.
Group Dynamics, 1, 23 1 -240.

COACHING STYLES AND COHEION lN MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES 63
Ramzaninezhad, R., & Keshtan, M. H. (2009). The relationship between coach's leadership
styles and team cohesion in Iran football clubs professional league. Brazilian Journal of
Biomotricity, 3(2), 1 1 1 - 1 20.
Recs, T., & Freeman, P. (2007). The effects of perceived and received support on self
confidence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25, 1057-1065.
Rees, T., & Hardy, L. (2000). An investigation of the social support experiences of high-level
sports performers. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 327-347.
Rees, T., Ingledew, D. K., & Hardy, L. ( 1 999). Social support dimensions and
components of performance in tennis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 421-429
Renfro, A. (2012). Meet generation z. Getting Smart. Retrieved from
http://gettingsmart.com/2012/1 2/meet-generation-z/
Renfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013).
Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political,
economic, social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
105(6), 996- 1 0 1 2.
Richards, M., & Lee, J. (2012). Coaching education and a survey of youth sport coaches'
perceptions of their coaching efficacy. Inquiry (University OfNew Hampshire), 55-6 1 .
Riemer, H. A., & Chelladurai, P. ( 1 998). Development of the athlete satisfaction questionnaire
(ASQ). Journal of Sport &Exercise Psychology, 20(2), 127-156.
Rodriguez, F. M. (2009). Perceived leadership in swimming: Leadership styles of NCAA swim
coaches and its relationships with athletes satisfaction, turnover intension, and
commitment (Master's thesis). Retrieved from WorldCatDissertations. (Accession No.
OCLC: 60786 1733).

Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and
personality development (6th ed., pp. 57 1-645). New York: Wiley.
Saemi, E., Porter, J. M., Ghotbi-Varzaneh, A., Zarghami, M., & Maleki, F. (2012). Knowledge
of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 378-382.
Saemi, E., Wulf, G., Varzaneh, A. G., & Zarghami, M. (20 1 1 ). Feedback after good versus poor
trials enhances motor learning in children. Brazilian Journal of Physical Education and
Sport, 25, 673-68 1 .
Sage, G.H. An occupational analysis of the college coach. ( 1 975). In D.W. Ball & J.W. Loy
(Eds.), Sport and social order: Contributions to the sociology of sport. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Sanli, E. A., Patterson, J. T., Bray, S. R., & Lee, T. D. (2013). Understanding self-controlled
motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology,
3. 1-17.
Santora, J. C. (2007). Assertiveness and effective leadership: Is there a tipping point?.
Academy OfManagement Perspectives, 21(3), 84-86.
Sarkany, D., & Deitte, L. (2017). Providing feedback: Practical skills and strategies. Academic
Radiology, 24(6), 740-746.
Sherman, C. A., Fuller, R., & Speed, H. D. (2000). Gender comparisons of preferred coaching
behaviors in Australian sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 389-402.

Smith, M. J., Arthur, C. A., Hardy, J., Callow, N., & Williams, D. (2013). Transformational
leadership and task cohesion in sport: The mediating role of intrateam communication.
Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 14(2), 249-257.
Spink, K. S., Nickel, D., Wilson, K., & Odnokon, P. (2005). Using a multilevel approach to
examine the relationship between task cohesion and team task satisfaction in elite ice
hockey players. Small Group Research, 36(5 ), 539-554
Spink, K. S., Ulvick, J. D., Crozier, A. J., & Wilson, K. S. (2014). Group cohesion and
adherence in unstructured exercise groups. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 15(3), 293-
298.
Sportsfan50. (2007, November 2 1). FSN Sport Science - ep5 - out of control - coach's curse.
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k2SXcnkNtM
Stogdill, R.M. ( 1 963). Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire-Form XII.
Columbus OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, 1963.
Sullivan, P.J ., & Callow, N. (2005). A cross-cultural examination of the factor structure of
the scale for effective communication in team sports. Group Dynamics-Theory Research
and Practice, 9, 87-92
Sullivan, PJ., & Feltz, D.L. (2003). The preliminary development of the scale for effective
communication in team sports (SECTS). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33,
1693- 1 7 1 5.
Swanbrow, D. (2012). The generation x report: How many gen xers know their cosmic address?
Retrieved from http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/20908-the-generation-x-report
how-man y-gen-xers-know-their-cosmic-address
Teixeira, P. J., Carra�a, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise,
physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 78-108.
Teles, F. (20 15). The distinctiveness of democratic political leadership. Political Studies
Review, 13(1), 22-36.
Trunk, P. (2007). What generation y really wants. Time. Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9 1 7 1 , 1640395,00.html
Turman, P. D. (200 1 ). Situational coaching styles: The impact of success and athlete maturity
level on coaches' leadership styles over time. Small Group Research, 32(5), 576-594.
Turman, P. D. (2003). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective: The
influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers' preferences and perceptions of
coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education, 52(2), 73-86.
Vahdani, M., Sheikhyousefi, R., Moharramzadeh, M., Ojaghi, A., & Salehian, M. H. (2012).
Relationship between coach's leadership styles and group cohesion in the teams
participating in the 10th sport Olympiad of male students. European Journal of
Experimental Biology, 2(4), 1 0 1 2- 1 0 1 7.
Van Gastel, C. (2010). The Leadership Scale for Sport (LSS). SPORTPSYCH Unpublished, 1 - 1 3.
Wattie, C. (2015). Coaching leaders: Keys for success. NZ Business + Management, 29(8), M27-
M30.
Weil, N. (2008). Welcome to the generation wars: As boomer bosses relinquish the reins of
leadership to generation x both are worrying about generation y. For the good of the
enterprise, everyone needs to do a better job of getting along. CIO, 21(8).

Weir, A. (20 17). Collective love as public freedom: dancing resistance. Ehrenreich, Arendt,
Kristeva, and idle no more. Hypatia, 32( 1), 19-34.
Weirsma, L. & Sherman, C. (2005). Volunteer youth sport coaches' perspectives of coaching
education/certification and parental codes of conduct. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 76(3), 324-338.
Weisz, B. M., Quinn, D. M., & Williams, M. K. (2016). Out and healthy: Being more "out"
about a concealable stigmatized identity may boost the health benefits of social support.
Journal of Health Psychology, 2 1 ( 1 2), 2934-2943.
Westre, K. R. & Weiss, M. R. ( 1991). The relationship between perceived coaching behaviors
and group cohesion in high school football teams. The Sport Psychologist, 5, 4 1 -54.
Wiedmer, T. (2015). Generations do differ: Best practices in leading traditionalists, boomers, and
generations x, y, and z. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 82( 1 ), 5 1 -58
Widmeyer, W. N., & Williams, J. M. ( 1991). Predicting cohesion in a coaching sport. Small
Group Research, 22, 548-570.
Wood, L., Matheson, A., & Franklin, S. (2017, January). Fostering student introspection through
guided reflection forms. In APS April Meeting Abstracts.
Wooden, J., Yaeger, D., & Maxwell, J. C. (20 1 1). A game plan for life: The power of mentoring.
United States: Bloomsburry.
Wulf, G. (2007). Self-controlled practice enhances motor learning: Implications for
physiotherapy. Physiotherapy, 93, 96- 1 0 1 .
Wulf, G . (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 1 5 years. International
Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 77-104.

Wulf, G. (2016). Why djd Tjger Woods shoot 82? A commentary on. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 22, 337-338
Wulf, G. & Adams, N. (2014). Small choices can enhance balance learning. Human Movement
Science, 38, 235-240.
Wulf, G.,Chiviacowsky, S., & Cardozo, P. L. (2014). Additive benefits of autonomy support and
enhanced expectancies for motor learning. Human Movement Science, 37, 1 2-20.
Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2015). External focus and autonomy support: Two
important factors in motor learrung have additive benefits. Human Movement Science, 40,
176-184.
Wulf, G., Freitas, H. E . , & Tandy, R. D. (2014). Choosing to exercise more: Small choices
increase exercise engagement. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 268-27 1 .
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and
attention for learning: The optimal theory of motor learning. Psyclwnomic Bulletin &
Review, 1-33.
Wulf, G., Raupach, M., & Pfeiffer, F. (2005). Self-controlled observational practice enhances
learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 1 07-1 1 1 .
Wulf, G. & Su, J. (2007). An external focus of attention enhances golf shot accuracy in
beginners and experts. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78(4), 384-389.
Yukelson, D. ( 1 997). Principles of effective team building interventions in sport: A direct
services approach at Penn State University. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 9, 73-
96.
Zachry, T.,Wulf, G.,Mercer, J., & Bezodis, N. (2005). Increased movement accuracy and
reduced EMG activity as the result of adopting an external focus of attention. Brain
Research Bulletin, 67, 304-309.

Appendices
Appendix A
Student-Athlete Demographic Questionnaire

*The following questions are demographic questions only*
1. What is your age?
2. What year are you in High School? (circle one)
Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior
3. How many years have you played the sport that you participate in?
4. What sport do you play?
5. What ethnicity do you identify with? (circle one)
Caucasian
Hispanic or Latino
African American
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Prefer not to respond

Appendix B
Leadership Scale for Sports (Student-Athlete Version)

Using the following scale, please circle a number from 1 to 5 Indicate your level of
agreement with each of the statements regarding your COACH.
1 2 3 4 5
Never Seldom Occasionally Often Atn:fs
25% of 50% ot 75% of
the time the time the time
My coach ...
1. Sees to it that every athele is working to his/her capacity. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Explains to each athlete the techniques and tactics of the sport. 1 2 3 4 5
3. Pays special attention to correcting athelet's mistakes. 1 2 4
3 5
4. Makes sure that his/her part in the team is understood by all the
athletes. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Instructs every athlete individually in the skills of the sport. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Figures ahead on what should be done. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Explains to every athlete what he/shre should and what he/she
should not do. 1 2 3 4 5
8. Expects every athlete to carry out his assignment to the last detail. 1 2 3 4 5
9. Points out each athlete's strengths and weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5
1 o. Gives specific instructions to each athlete as to what he/she should
do in every situation.
1 2 3 4 5
1 1 . Sees to it that the efforts are coordinated. 1 2 3 4 5

12. Explains how each athete's contribution fits into the total picture. 1 2 3 4 5
13. Specifies in detail what is expected of each athlete. 1 2 3 4 5
14. Asks for the opinion of the athletes on strategies for specific compe-
titions. 1 2 3 4 5
15. Gets group approval on important matters before going ahead. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Lets his/her athletes share in decision making. 1 2 3 4 5
17. Encourages athletes to make suggestions for ways of conducting
practices.
1 2 3 4 5
18. Lets the group set its own goals. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Lets the athletes try their own way even if they make mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5
20. Asks for the opinion of the athletes on important coaching matters. 1 2 3 4 5
2 1 . Lets athletes work at their own speed. 1 2 3 4 5

22. Lets the athletes decide on the plays to be used in a game. 1 2 3 4 5
23. Works relatively independent of the athletes. 1 2 4
3 5
24. Does not explain his/ her action. 1 2 3 4 5
25. Refuses to comprosie a point. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Keeps to himself/herself. 1 2 3 4 5
27. Speaks in a manner not to be questioned. 1 2 3 4 5
28. Helps the athletes with their personal problems. 1 2 3 4 5
29. Points out each athlete's strengths and weaknesses. 1 2 3 4 5
30. Looks out for the personal welfare of the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5
3 1 . Does personal favors for the athletes. 1 2 3 4 5
32. Expresses affection he/she feels for his/her athletes. 1 2 3 4 5
33. Encourages the athlete to confide in him/her. 1 2 3 4 5
34. Encourages close and informal relations iwth athletes. 1 2 3 4 5
35. Invites athletes to his/her home. 1 2 3 4 5
36. Compliments an athlete for his performance In front of others. 1 2 3 4 5
37. Tells an athlete when he/she does a particularly good job.
1 2 3 4 5
38. Sees that an athlete is rewarded for a good performance. 1 2 3 4 5
39. Expresses appreciation when an athlete performs well. 1 2 3 4 5
40. Gives credit when credit is due. 1 2 3 4 5
Dimensions
Training and instruction (item # 1 to #13)
Democratic behavior (item #14 to #22)
Autocratic behavior (item #23 to #27)
Social support (item #28 to #35)
Positive feedback (item #36 to #40)
Note: Add the item score to obtain a score for that particular dimension. Divide by the
number of items per dimension to get a score out of 5.
Appendix C
Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire

Youth Sport Environment Questlonare•
Directions: The following questions ask about your feelings toward your team.
Please CIRCLE a number from 1 to 9 to show how much you agree with each statement.
1 . We all share the same commitment to our team's goals.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree
2. I invite my teammates to do things with me.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3. As a team, we are all on the same page. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
4. Some of my best friends are on this team.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5. I like the way we work together as a team.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
6. We hang out with on another whenever possible.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
7. As a team. we are united.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
8. I contact my teammates often (phone. text message, internet).2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
9. This team gives me enough opportunities to improve my own performance. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 0. I spend time with my teammates.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 . I am going to keep in contact with my teammates after the season ends.2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly DINgree Strongly Agree
12. I am happy with my team's level of desire to win.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
13. We stick together outside of practice.2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
14. My approach to playing is the same as my teammates. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly DiNgree Strongly Agree
15. We contact each other often (phone. text message. internet).2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
16. We like the way we work together as a team. 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strongly DiNgree Strongly Agree
1 Task cohesion item · Add all together to get a task cohesion score out of 72.
2 Social cohesion item • Add all together to get a task cohesion score out of 72.
'The questionnaire can be found 1n the following article · l:.ys. M .. Loughead. T.. Bray S. R
. .. & Carron. A. v. (2009).
Oevel
o pmeoto facohe si
o nQ u est
ionnair f ryoum·T
eo hey
out
hsp
orte
oyj
roomeot
Q u
estj
ooo
aar
e, Journal of Sport
se Psychology. 31. 390-408.
and Exerci
Appendix D
Coach's Demographic Questionnaire

*The following questions are demographic questions only*
1. What i s your age?
2. How many years have you coached at your current school?
3. How many years have you coached the sport you currently coach?
4. What sport do you coach?
5. What ethnicity do you identify with? (circle one)
Caucasian
Hispanic or Latino
African American
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other
Prefer not to respond

Appendix E
Leadership Scale for Sports (Coach's Perception Version)


(Coach's Perception of Own Behavior)
Each of the following statements describe a specific behavior that a coach my exhibit. For each statement
there are five alternatives:
1. ALWAYS
2. OFTEN (about 75% of the time)
3. OCCASIONALLY (50% of the time)
4. SELDOM (about 25% of the time)
5. NEVER
For each item please check the appropriate response indicating which behavior best represents your
leadership style in coaching. There are no right or wrong answers. Your first response is most likely the
best response. Your spontaneous and honest responses are important for the success of the study.
Thank you for participating!
As a coach I: Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always Never
1 . See to it that athletes work to

capacity. D D D D D D
2. Ask for the opinion of the

athletes on strategies for specific D D D D D D
competitions.
3. Help athletes with their person

al problems. D D D D D D
4. Compliment an athlete for

good performance in front of
D D D D D D
others.
5. Explain to each athlete the

techniques and tactics of the D D D D D D
sport.
6. Plan relatively independent of

the athletes. D D D D D D
7. Help members of the group

settle their conflicts. D D D D D D
8. Pay special attention to

correcting athletes· mistakes. D D D D D D
9. Get group approval on import-

ant matters before going ahead. D D D D D D
10. Tell an athlete when the

athlete does a particularly good
D D D D D D
job.
COACH1NG STYLES AND COHEION 1N MALE STUDENT-ATHLETES 84
As a coach I: Never Seldom Ocx:asionally Often Always Never
1 1 See to it that athletes work to

D D D
.
capacity. D D D

athletes on strategies for specific D D D D D D
competitions.
13. Help athletes with their

personal problems. D D D D D D
14. Compliment an athlete for

good performance in front of
D D D D D D
others.
15. Explain to each athlete the

techniques and tactics of the D D D D D D
sport.
16. Plan relatively independent of

17. Help members of the group

settle their conflicts. D D D D D D
18. Pay special attention to

correcting athletes' mistakes. D D D D D D
19. Get group approval on

important matters before going D D D D D D
ahead.
20. Tell an athlete when the

athlete does a particularly good D D D D D D
job.
21. Let the athletes set their own

goals.
D D D D D D
22. Express any affection fell for

23. Expect every athlete to carry

out one's assignment to the last D D D D D D
detail.
24. Let the athletes try their own

way even if they make mistakes. D D D D D D
As a coach I: Never Seldom Occasionally Often Always Never
25. Encourage the athlete to

confide in the coach. 0 0 0 0 0 0
26. Point out each athlete's

strengths and weaknesses.
D D D D D D
27. Refuse to compromise on a

point. D D D D D D
28. Express appreciation when

an athlete performs well.
D D D D D D
29. Give specific instructions to

each athlete on what should be 0 D 0 0 0 0
done In every situation.

athletes on important coaching D D 0 D 0 0
matters.
31. Encourage clase and informal

relations with athletes. D 0 0 0 D 0
32. See to it that the athletes'

efforts are coordinated. 0 D 0 D D D
33. Let the athletes work at their

own speed. 0 0 0 0 D 0
34. Keep aloof from the athletes. 0 0 0 0 0 0

35. Explain how each athlete's
contribution fits into the total 0 0 0 0 0 0
picture.
36. Invite the athletes home. 0 D 0 0 D D

37. Give credit when it is due. 0 0 0 0 0 0
38. Specify in detail what is
expected of athletes. 0 0 0 D 0 D
39. Let the athletes decide on

plays to be used In a game.
D 0 0 0 0 0
40. Speak in a manner which

discourages questions. 0 0 D D D 0

Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High School Male Student-Ath

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High School Male Student-Ath

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Eastern Illinois University

Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High

FOR: Graduate Candidates Completing Theses in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree

RE: Preservation, Reproduction, and Distribution of Thesis Research

Your signatures affirm the following:

Graduate Candidate Signature Faculty Adviser Signatu�

Printed Name Printed Name

Graduate Degree Program

Please submit in duplicate.

Matthew Robert Warner

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THIS THESIS BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING

THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE THESIS COMMITTEE MEMBER DATE

Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High School Male Student-Athletes

Matthew Robert Warner

Eastern Illinois University 2017

Matthew Robert Warner

Coaching Styles and Team Cohesion in High School Male Student-Athletes

similar perceptions of coaching styles used.

Introduction ................ ............................................................................................................ 1

Statement of Problem .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................... 1

Statement of Purpose ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... 6

Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 7

Basic Assumptions . . . .. .. . .... . . .

Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................... ......... 8

Review of Literature .............................................................................................................. l 0

Coaching Styles .... . ............... . .............................................................. . .

Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) . .......... . .... . ...................... . ............... . .

Democratic Coaching Style . . . . . . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Autocratic Coaching Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Social Support . .. . .... . .... . .... . ..

Positive Feedback . .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . .... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................................ 14

Attentional Focus ................ . . .

Autonomy Support .... . .

Feedback Valence ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................. . . .. . . . . . . . . ......................... 18

Training and Instruction ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Coaching of Different Generations ........... . . . . . . . . . .............. . ............... . ........ . ................ 21

Baby Boomers .... . .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ . ....... . ............................ 22

Generation X . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . .. .

Generation Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ........... . .... . ............................ . . . . . . . . . . ........................ 24

Team Cohesion ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... .. .. .. .... . .......................................... 25

Group Environment Questionnaire (GEQ) ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. 25

Youth Sport Environment Questionnaire (YSEQ) ............................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Task Cohesion ........................ . . ... .... . . .. .... . ................................................... . . . . . . ..... . 27...

Social Cohesion ..................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ . ..... . ........................................ 28

Negatives of Team Cohesion . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................... 29

Coaching Styles and Their Effect on Team Cohesion . ......... . .................................... 31

Summary of Literature Review . .. ..... . . .

Methodology ...................................... ....... . ..... . .

Participants and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . .

Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ..... . ................................................................... 35

Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS) ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Data Collection ........................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .... . ..... . .

Data Analysis . . . . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . ..... . .... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 39

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................. .................. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 40

Demographics . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................... 40

Correlation between Coaching Styles and Cohesion .... . ........... . . . . . . . .

Comparison between Athlete's & Coach's Perception of Coaching Styles . . . . . . . . . . .43

Future Research ................. . .. .. .. . . . . ........... . . . . . . ............. . ............. . ... ..... . ................ . . . . . . . 48

Implications ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . ............... . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix A Student-Athlete Demographic Questionnaire ....................................... 71

Appendix B Leadership Scale for Sports (Student-Athlete Version) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73