59 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 TALENTED ATHLETES’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE ATHLETE-COACH-PARENTS RELATIONSHIPS ZAZNAVANJE MEDOSEBNIH ODNOSOV ŠPORTNIK-TRENER-STARŠI S STRANI NADARJENIH ŠPORTNIKOV Paul Wylleman 1 Paul De Knop 1 Hedwig Sloore 1 Yves Vanden Auweele 2 Martha E. Ewing 3 Abstract The interpersonal perceptions of 265 talented athletes of the relationships between themselves, their coaches, and their parents were studied as a function of athletes’ gender, age and athletic experience. Athletes perceived these relationships to be positive and constructive, and, on average, to be free of major conflicts. Stepwise mul- tiple regression and discriminant analysis revealed ath- letes’ gender to be related to the perception of a higher need for emotional support from parents, while athle- tes’ age and athletic experience were associated with perceptions of more distant relationships with parents and coaches. This study revealed not only that talented athletes have a clear perception of the interactions wit- hin their primary psychological network, but also that their interpersonal perceptions are related to individual characteristics. Finally, recommendations for further re- search with regard to the quality of the interpersonal re- lationships in the athletic triangle are provided. Key words: interpersonal relationships, athletic triangle, Sport Interpersonal Relationships Questionnaire, parents, coach 1 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium 2 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium 3 Michigan State University, USA Contact address: Paul Wylleman Faculty of PE and Physiotherapy (L413) Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, B1050 Brussel, Belgium Tel: +32 2 629.27.65/27.44 Fax: +32 2 629.28.99 E-mail: Paul.Wylleman@vub.ac.be Izvleček V študiji smo proučevali, kako nadarjeni športniki zazna- vajo medsebojne odnose, odnose s svojimi trenerji ter starši, in sicer kot funkcijo spola, starosti in izkušenosti športnika. Športniki (n=265) so te medosebne odnose zaznavali kot pozitivne in konstruktivne ter v povprečju brez večjih konfliktov. Postopna multipla regresija in di- skriminanta analiza sta pokazali povezavo med spolom športnika in večjo potrebo po čustveni podpori staršev, medtem ko je bilo zaznavanje večje razdalje v odnosih s starši in trenerji povezano s starostjo in izkušenostjo športnika. Raziskava je pokazala, da nadarjeni športniki jasno zaznavajo interakcije v svoji primarni psihološki mreži in da je njihovo zaznavanje medosebnih odnosov povezano s posameznimi značilnostmi. V prispevku so podana tudi priporočila za nadaljnjo raziskavo na po- dročju kakovosti medosebnih odnosov v t.i. športnem trikotniku. Ključne besede: medosebni odnosi, triadni odnosi v špor- tu, Sport Interpersonal Relationships Questionnaire, star- ši, trener (Received: 14. 10. 2002 – Accepted: 15. 12. 2002) 60 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 INTRODUCTION Competitive sport has been recognized as a com- plex social system in which relationships play an im- portant role (Hellstedt, 1995; Kirk, O’Connor, Carl- son, Burke, Davis, & Glover, 1997). For example, in a recent study on the importance of social support perceived by high-level sports performers, Rees and Hardy (2000) concluded that there was a need to recognize »that important others can play a cru- cial role in the life of the performer, and that the consequences of performers being isolated from support are damaging.« (p. 344). While important to adults, relationships are signifi- cant to children and youth involved in competitive sports. This significance has been underlined by the fact that specific relationships of young athletes have become known and labeled as one social net- work, namely the athletic triangle (Smith, Smoll, & Smith, 1989), or the primary family of sport (Scan- lan, 1988) – both of which refer to young athletes’ relationships with their parents and coaches, as well as to parents and coaches mutual relationships. Research into the Quality of Interactions in the Athletic Triangle Notwithstanding the fact that young athletes’ inte- ractions have been acknowledged as going a long way in determining the quality of talented athletes’ sport experiences (Brustad, 1993, 1996; Coakley, 1993; DeFrancesco & Johnson, 1997; Smith, Smoll, & Smith, 1989; Weiss, 1993), the research on the influence of the relationships within this triangle re- mains limited. Athlete-Parents Relationships The limited research into the interactions between young athletes and their parents has been linked to the fact that »… research on family influences is complex and difficult, and that a quantitative met- hodology is often unable to explore the intricacies of the family processes that exist in athlete families« (Hellstedt, 1995, p. 119). Studies show that paren- tal encouragement and support not only enhances athletes’ level of enjoyment and perceived compe- tence (Brustad, 1993; Ommundsen & Vaglum, 1993; Power & Woolger, 1994), but may also crea- te a special bond between young elite athletes and their parents (Bakker, De Koning, Van Ingen Sche- nau, & De Groot, 1993; Carlson, 1988). However, parents can also be a source of stress or discoura- gement to young athletes, by worrying about physi- cal injuries, by formulating unrealistic expectations, or by overt »pushing« (Hellstedt, 1995; Lee & Mac- Lean, 1997). Young athletes’ competitive trait an- xiety was also related to parental expectations and evaluations of performance (e.g., Brustad, 1988). Overzealousness, parental stress, intrusiveness, and extreme and/or maladaptive behavior were some of the negative parental behaviors leading young athletes away from active involvement in competi- tive sport (Iso-Ahola, 1995; Martens, 1993). Finally, although the role of parents has generally been situated during the initiation stage (e.g., Kirk et al., 1997; Régnier, Salmela, & Russell, 1993), re- search has shown more and more that athletes per- ceive parental involvement to be salient throughout the athletic lifespan. For example, Hellstedt (1987, 1990) found that 12- and 13-year-old elite ski racers perceived their parents to have a strong influence on their athletic development. Additionally, Ewing and Weisner (1996) interviewed parents of regio- nally ranked 12- to 15-year-old tennis players and found that parents consistently reported a direct in- volvement with their children’s development as competitive tennis players, even though each child had a coach from one of the in their local clubs. In a study in which 8- to 21-year-old athletes were stu- died over a 2-year period, Würth (2001) found that athletes who perceived they had a successful tran- sition from one athletic career stage to another re- ported that their parents provided more sport-rela- ted advice and emotional support than did athletes who did not make the transition. These findings confirmed the results reported by Carlson (1988) that parents of successful Swedish elite tennis pla- yers had, in comparison to parents of players who did not make it to world level, been supportive by not putting their children under too much pressu- re to achieve. Athlete-Coach Relationships While many studies investigated how coaches inte- ract with their – generally adult – athletes, less has been conducted on coaches’ interactions with young athletes. The available research has shown that, similar to parents’ influence, coaches’ interac- tions with young athletes are significant to youth’s participation in competitive sports. This significan- ce is best illustrated in Smith and Smoll’s (1996) coach effectiveness training studies which revea- led that young athletes who played for coaches, 61 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 who generally rewarded them for the effort they put in rather than for the result itself, were percei- ved to be more encouraging and more supportive to athletes to remain in sport. Black and Weiss (1992) also found that among 12- to 18-year-old swimmers, a relationship existed between their per- ceptions of the coach’s behaviors and their own self-perceptions, enjoyment, and perceived com- petence. Martin, Jackson, Richardson, and Weiller (1999) found that 10- to 13- and 14-to-18-year-old athletes preferred coaching behaviors including possibilities for greater participation in making de- cisions pertaining to group goals, practice met- hods, and game tactics. They also preferred the coach to develop warm interpersonal relations with team members and create a positive group atmosp- here. Alfermann and Würth (2001) conducted a 2- year study of 11- to 15-year-old handball, basket- ball, and hockey players and found that players, who perceived their coaches to give them instruc- tion and feedback, made a more successful transi- tion into the next athletic stage compared to pla- yers coached by less attentive coaches. However, the quality of the coach’s behaviors can also be ne- gatively related to athletes’ responses such as hig- her anxiety and burnout, contributing to an unsuc- cessful transition to the next athletic stage. At the high school level, athlete burnout was related to lo- wer social support, positive feedback, training and instruction, and democratic decision making (Price & Weiss, 2000), whereas at the collegiate level, ath- lete burnout was primarily due to a lack of coach empathy and praise and a greater emphasis on win- ning (Vealey, Armstrong, Comar, & Greenleaf, 1998). Finally, the athlete-coach relationship has also been shown to evolve throughout an athlete’s sports ca- reer. For example, while during the development stage of the athletic career, coaches are more per- sonally involved, emphasize more the technical proficiency of the young athletes, and expect pro- gress through discipline and hard work, in the ma- stery stage, coaches place greater demands upon their elite-level athletes (Bloom, 1985). Also Serpa and Damasio (2001) recognized this change in coaching behaviors in their study of 13- to 30- year- old trampoline athletes: although the coach was perceived by athletes to remain friendly toward them, the coach’s dominating role was perceived to diminish during the latter stages of the athlete’s sport career in favor of a more equal partnership. Coach-Parents Relationships This third and final relationship in the athletic trian- gle has largely been neglected as a topic of study (Wylleman, 2000). One of the very few studies sho- wed that coaches and parents perceived themsel- ves to have a good relationship if coaches worked with their athletes toward reaching a higher level of athletic achievement (Vanden Auweele, Van Mele, & Wylleman, 1994). Needs in Interpersonal Research After analyzing the available research on interper- sonal relationships in competitive sports, Wylleman (2000) concluded that relationships in the athletic setting had as yet not been approached in a syste- matic and structured way. This was largely attribu- ted to an insufficient delineation of interpersonal relationships, as well as a lack of conceptualization and research methodology. In particular, Wylleman noted: – the almost exclusive use of a uni-directional pers- pective – for example, most researchers focused on the coach-to-athlete interactions, largely ne- glecting the athlete-to-coach interactions; – a heavy emphasis on the coach-athlete relations- hip with an under-emphasis on the parents-ath- lete and the coach-parents relationships; – a focus on one particular relationship of the ath- letic triangle (i.e., athlete-coach relationship), without any link to the two other legs of the trian- gle (athlete-parents and coach-parents relations- hips); – the operationalization of interpersonal behavior in terms of generally task-oriented behaviors, lar- gely neglecting relationship- or socio-emotio- nally oriented interpersonal behaviors which deal with the mutual affective-emotional influen- ces experienced by the actors in a relationship. In line with these needs for future research, the cur- rent study aimed at investigating how young athle- tes perceive all three relationships in the athletic triangle, using a bi-directional perspective. In parti- cular, the question was asked how young athletes perceive the quality of the athlete-to-parents, pa- rents-to-athlete, athlete-to-coach, coach-to-athlete, coach-to-parents, and parents-to-coach interac- tions. 62 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 Methods Subjects Participants were 265 athletes 1 (51.4% male; 48.4% female; M age = 17.5 years, SD age = 3.6), recogni- zed as talented athlete by their sports federation (track and field, judo, kayak, swimming, tennis, triathlon, squash, rowing, cycling, golf, gymnastics, powerlifting, sailing, wu-shu) and/or Belgian Olym- pic and Interfederal Committee, and competing at national (66.4%) or international (33.6%) level for at least two consecutive seasons. Athletes compe- ted in their sport for an average of 7.4 years (SD=3.6), trained on average 10.7 hours (SD=5.4) per week, and participated on average in 7.4 (SD=3.6) competitions per season. Instruments and Procedure A general information questionnaire gathered da- ta on participants’ age, gender, sport discipline, ath- letic (i.e., years of participation in their sport, hours of training per week), and competitive experience (i.e., number of competitions per season, current competitive level). Participants’ interpersonal per- ceptions were measured using three forms of the Sport Interpersonal Relationships Questionnaire (SIRQ; Wylleman, Vanden Auweele, De Knop, Sloore, & De Martelaer, 1995): the »Athlete-Coach« (SIRQ-AC), »Athlete-Parents« (SIRQ-AP), and »Ath- lete on Parents-Coach« (SIRQ-Apc) forms. The SIRQ is a sport-specific self-report questionnaire, developed upon a three facet-analytical framework, closely related to Schutz’s (1958) three dimensio- nal theory of interpersonal behavior. It enables ath- letes to rate their own perceptions of the bi-direc- tionally interpersonal behaviors in one particular relationship of the athletic triangle. SIRQ-items were generated and made sport-specific from rela- tionship-specific instruments, complemented with items stemming from qualitative data (i.e., inter- views with athletes, parents, coaches) (Wylleman, 1995). Exploratory factor analyses revealed factor- solutions explaining a percentage of total variance ranging between 34.19% and 49.40%, and resul- ted in scales with acceptable to good indices of ho- mogeneity (α = .62 ∼.93). Content validity was shown to be adequate in that a strong correspon- dence was found between SIRQ scales and sub- jects’ responses to open-ended questions. Conver- gent validity was established via confirmation of hypothesized correlations between SIRQ scales, and existing measures on relationships in sport (e.g., Leadership Scale for Sports [LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980]), as well as two measures on the quality of relationships (r = -.44 ∼.76). Divergent va- lidity was shown to exist as hypothesized low, non- significant correlations between SIRQ-scales and the Anxiety Thermometer (Houtman & Bakker, 1989) (r = -.08 ∼.19) were confirmed. Four-week test-retest correlations revealed acceptable exter- nal reliability for all SIRQ scales (r = .52∼.95). Ath- letes rate items, which reflect a particular interper- sonal behavior for a specific relationship, on two Likert-type scale (never=1; always=5): as it really or actually occurs, as well as athletes would prefer that behavior to occur. As athletes are able to indicate how they would like a specific type of behavior in a relationship to change toward a personal or so- cial desirable level, it was deemed that this proce- dure would reduce a social desirability answering tendency (Wylleman, 1995). Questionnaires were presented, individually or in group, during a two hour session before or after a training session at a national training camp 2 . Participation was volun- tary. Athletes completed the questionnaires without coaches or parents being present. Participants were assured that their answers would be kept strict confidential, more particularly, that their answers would not be shared with parents or coaches, or that they would not be used for selection purpo- ses). Table 1 summarizes content, number of items, internal consistency and test-retest indices for each SIRQ. Results Athletes’ Perceptions of the Interpersonal Be- haviors High scale scores on Acceptance and Caring, as well as low scores on Closed and Criticizing, ref- lected athletes’ perceptions of having open and constructive relationships with their coach, gene- rally free of major conflicts (Table 1). The low dis- crepancy between actual and preferred scale sco- res, showed athletes to be satisfied with the current 1 Of the original pool of participants solicited to participate in this study fourteen declined due to (a) negative experiences while participating as a subject in earlier studies (N=2), (b) wanting to use the time sche- duled for the testing, as time to consult the physiotherapist (N=6), (c) interdiction by the personal coach to participate (N=2), and (d) sudden illness or injury (N=4). 2 Participants were asked to assess their relationship with the coach with whom they interacted most frequently, while athletes who had no living parent(s), only one, or step-parents, or who were coached by a parent were excluded from further analysis. 63 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 Scale Content (a) Items Cronbach Test - Actual Preferred Example of item alpha retest Behaviors Behaviors M (SD) M (SD) SIRQ-AC: Athlete on Athlete-Coach Closed Athlete behaves in negative, detached way, possibly 14 .88 .72* 1.75(.57) 1.60(.58) (CA) avoiding contact due to feelings of distrust or inferiority. Example: »I am very negative towards my coach« Acceptance Athlete behaves in attentive way, trusting and following 8 .83 .69* 4.23(.53) 4.35(.57) (AC) closely coach's advice, asking for more advice if in doubt. Example: »I do exactly what my coach asks of me« Assertive Athlete behaves in assertive way, speaking freely his/her 5 .66 .79* 2.40(.61) 2.99(.72) (AS) mind, remaining on point of view in discussions. Example: »I always want to be right when I argue with my coach« SIRQ-AC: Athlete on Athlete← ←Coach Caring Coach shows interest in, appreciation for, and active 16 .91 .83* 3.95(.67) 4.12(.58) (CB) willingness to help. Example: »The coach is very concerned about me« Criticizing Coach behaves very critically toward athlete, sometimes 7 .79 .63* 1.36(.63) 1.48(.64) (CN) becoming angry, possibly resulting in conflict. Example: »The coach can be very mad at me« Permissive Coach behaves in permissive, indulgent, and easy way. 9 .69 .77* 2.70(.55) 2.73(.57) (PR) Example: »The coach easily gives in« SIRQ-AP: Athlete on Athlete → → Parent (Father/Mother) (c) (d) Need support Athlete expresses need for parental emotional support (NS) and advice. Example: »I ask my parent to encourage me during a match« Athlete → Father 9 .87 .81* 2.55(.73) 2.58(.72) Athlete → Mother 11 .86 .86* 2.73(.71) 2.88(.77) Open Athlete behaves in trustful and positive way toward parent, (OC) discussing personal problems or point of view. Example: »I easily confer with my parent about my sport« Athlete → Father 14 .90 .77* 3.43(.70) 3.64(.66) Athlete → Mother 6 .85 .84* 3.68(.82) 3.89(.77) Animosity Athlete behaves as feeling unfairly treated or let down by (AN) parent, argues with, or even avoids parent with regard to competitions. Example: »I try to keep out of the way of my parent« Athlete → Father 17 .77 .79* 1.58(.58) 1.43(.63) Athlete → Mother 10 .79 .57* 1.60(.52) 1.48(.60) Assertive Athlete behaves in assertive way, speaking freely his/her (AS) mind to the mother, remaining on point of view in discussions. Example: »I do what I like to do irrespective of what my mother thinks I should do« Athlete → Father / / / / / Athlete → Mother 6 .69 .59* 3.39(.76) 3.38(1.02) SIRQ-AP: Athlete on Athlete ← ← Parent (Father/Mother) (d) Supportive Parent behaves supportive towards athlete's sport (PS) involvement, showing interest for training sessions and competitions. Example: »My parent encourages me to participate in competitive sport« Athlete ← Father 15 .92 .88* 3.57(.82) 3.63(.75) Athlete ← Mother 14 .89 .79* 3.11(.76) 3.21(.77) Restrictive Parent behaves in restrictive, authoritarian, hard-nosed way. (RP) Example: »My parent is hard-nosed when criticizing me« Athlete ← Father 11 .79 .81* 2.38(.54) .04(.52) Athlete ← Mother 12 .83 .75* 2.28(.56) 1.97(.51) Table 1: Psychometric characteristics, means and standard deviations for actual and preferred scores of SIRQ-AC, SIRQ- AP, SIRQ-APC scales 64 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 Scale Content (a) Items Cronbach Test - Actual Preferred Example of item alpha retest Behaviors Behaviors M (SD) M (SD) Punishing Parent behaves very critically, sometimes punishing, (PU) regarding performances at competitions, deciding what is best for athlete. Example: »My parent forces me to compete« Athlete ← Father 4 .62 .70* 1.27(.46) 1.27(.65) Athlete ← Mother 8 .83 .68* 1.43(.52) 1.42(.69) Incompetent Father behaves in an incompetent way with regard to (IN) athlete’s sport, without qualities or time to assist athlete. Example: »My parent feels incompetent to help me in my sport« Athlete ← Father 6 .74 .65* 1.98(.67) 1.83(.75) Athlete ← Mother ///// SIRQ-APC: Athlete on Parent (Father/Mother) → → Coach Consultative Parent behaves in confidential and helpful way towards the (MC) coach. Example: »My parent discusses my problems with my coach« Father → Coach 16 .93 .92* 2.70(.77) 2.90(.66) Mother → Coach 16 .92 .89* 3.11(.91) 3.46(.84) Inferior Parent behaves in inferior way, is manipulated by coach. (IF) Example: »My parent feels kept under tutelage by my coach« Father → Coach 5 .72 .62* 1.47(.57) 1.48(.71) Mother → Coach 5 .65 .41 1.56(.64) 1.48(.69) Independent Parent behaves in assertive and independent way, telling (ID) coach what to do. Example: »My parent decides what is good for my sport participation irresepective of my coach« Father → Coach 7 .72 .73* 1.99(.68) 1.48(.71) Mother → Coach 4 .74 .58* 2.17(.75) 2.29(.81) Negative Parent does not agree with coach, gets tired of coach’s (NA) remarks, have arguments with coach. Example: »My parent openly criticizes my coach« Father → Coach 9 87 .77* 1.53(.58) 1.50(.68) Mother → Coach 10 ..88 .80* 1.38(.53) 1.33(.60) SIRQ-APC: Athlete on Coach → → Parent (Father/Mother) (e) Consultative Coach consults with, and feels supported by parent. (MC) Example: »My coach feels supported by my parent« Coach → Father 16 .93 .52* 2.99(.93) 3.16(.87) Coach → Mother 17 .93 .95* 2.94(.89) 3.15(.86) Inferior Coach behaves in inferior way, is suspicious of parent. (IF) Example: »My coach feels inferior with regard to my parent« Coach → Father 13 .88 .80* 1.48(.57) 1.43(.59) Coach → Mother 7 .81 .72* 1.41(.54) 1.40(.64) Independent Coach behaves in assertive and independent way, keeping (ID) to point of view and principles in discussion with parent. Example: »My coach keeps to his/her principles when in discussion with my parent « Coach → Father 6 .74 .81* 2.80(.83) 2.84(.80) Coach → Mother 4 .67 .44 3.54(.95) 3.66(.90) Negative Coach does not agree, and easily gets in row with mother. (NA) Example: »My coach takes a stand towards to my parent« Coach → Father ///// Coach → Mother 10 .81 .76* 1.53(.55) 1.50(.56) (a) Description Based On Highest Loading Items. (b) 1 = Never; 5 = Always. (c) Scale »Assertive« Exclusive To Athlete→Mother relationship. (d) Scale »Incompetent« Exclusive To Athlete←Father relationship. (e) Scale »Negative« Exclusive To Coach→Mother relationship. * p<.0001 65 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 quality of athlete-coach interactions. Strong and significant inter-scale correlations (Table 2) revea- led a positive athlete-coach relationship to consist of (a) athletes behaving in an accepting way toward their coaches, (b) coaches being perceived to care for their athletes, and (c) athletes and coaches avoi- ding closed or criticizing attitudes. Athletes percei- ved themselves as having open and supportive re- lationships with both parents. Athletes’ need for parental emotional support was perceived by ath- letes to be provided for, as reflected in the high interscale correlations with fathers and mothers providing support (Table 2). Athletes assessed emo- tional parental support provided to be adequate. High scale scores reflected athletes’ perceptions of behaving in an assertive way toward their mothers. Strong significant interscale correlations were found between athletes’ perceived animous beha- vior toward both parents, and their perceptions of parents’ restrictive or punishing behaviors. Athle- tes perceived parents and coaches to behave gene- rally in a mutual consultative way. The small discre- pancy between actual and preferred scores indicated athletes’ satisfaction with these interac- tions. While coaches were perceived to behave in an independent way toward both parents, athletes also assessed coaches to act more independently toward the mothers. It should be noted that inters- cale correlations showed that these consultative and independent interpersonal behaviors were not perceived as being opposite or mutually exclusive. Strong and significant interscale correlations were SIRQ-AC Athlete → Coach Athlete ← Coach CA AC AS CB CN PR Athlete → Coach CA – AC –.56* – AS .17 –.19 – Athlete ← Coach CB –.72* .62* .03 – CN .50* –.44* .22 –.37* – PR –.05 –.18 .03 –.02 –.05 – SIRQ-AP Athlete → Parent (Father/Mother) Athlete ← Parent (Father/Mother) NS OC AN AS PS RP PU IN Athlete → Parent (Father/Mother) NS – OC .64*/.55* – AN –.22/.04 –.53*/–.29* – AS –/–.47* –/–.28* –/–.01 – Athlete ← Parent (Father/Mother) PS .80*/.79* .65*/.55* –.18/–.02 –/–.35* – RP –.18/–.17 –.51*/–.42* .66*/.58* –.22/.12 –.22/–.22 – PU .05/–.10 –.23/–.43* .54*/.71* –/.02 .01/–.20 .41*/.62* – IN –.48*/– –.62*/– .51*/– – –.54*/– .39*/– .20/– – SIRQ-APC Parent (Father/Mother) → Coach Coach → Parent (Father/Mother) MC IF ID NA MC IF ID NA Parent (Father/Mother) → Coach MC – IF .19/.14 – ID .52*/.40* .20/.26* – NA –.05/–.08 .19/.20 .31*/.26 – Coach → Parent (Father/Mother) MC .87*/.90* .14/.15 .53*/.44* –.09/–.07 – IF .16/.06 .34*/.23* .52*/.31* .66*/.53* .15/.09 – ID .48*/.50* .34*/.14 .45*/.21 .30*/.15 .43*/.51* .35*/.01 – NA –/.27* –/.41* –/.38* –/.59* –/.29* /.52* –/.34* – Table 2: Inter-scale correlations for the SIRQ-AC, SIRQ-AP, and SIRQ-APC *p < .0001. 66 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 also found between a strong parental negative at- titude and coaches behaving in an inferior way to- ward both parents. Associations Between Athletes’ Characteristics and Perceptions of Interpersonal Behaviors Stepwise multiple regression and stepwise discri- minant analysis (forward estimation method) (Hair, Anderson, & Tatham, 1987) were used to select step-by-step (at significance level of .05) the contri- bution of each SIRQ-scales as a function of athle- tes’ gender, age, athletic, and competitive expe- rience. Three scales were found to have the most discriminating power regarding athletes’ gender (Table 3). This analysis revealed female athletes to perceive significantly more than male athletes, a need for emotional parental support, while male athletes perceived more than female athletes their fathers to behave in an inferior way toward the coach. A stepwise multiple regression model on athletes’ age (33% explained variance) showed that the older athletes, the less they perceived their fat- hers to provide them with emotional support, and behaving in a less restrictive way (Table 4). Older athletes also perceived their fathers to behave less in a consultative way toward the coach, while the coach was perceived to behave in a more indepen- dent way toward mothers. A stepwise multiple re- gression model on athletes’ years of participation in their sport (15% explained variance), revealed that the more years athletes had trained, the less they perceived their coaches to behave in a caring way toward them, while their mothers were percei- ved on the one hand to provide less emotional sup- port, but on the other hand to be also less restric- tive toward their children (see Table 4). As athletes’ level of athletic experience increased, the stronger athletes’ perceptions of their coaches to take on a more independent attitude toward their mothers. A four-scale model (15% explained variance) showed that, as training intensity increased, athletes percei- ved themselves to solicit less support from their mothers, as well as to behave in an assertive way to- ward their coach. Furthermore, the coach was per- ceived to take on a more permissive attitude to- ward them while their fathers were perceived to be less consultative with the coach (see Table 4). A stepwise regression model (12% explained varian- ce) showed that the more athletes competed, the less they perceived to solicite their mothers for emotional support (see Table 4). These highly in- volved athletes also perceived their fathers to act in a more independent, and in a less inferior way to- ward their coaches, while the coaches behaved more independently, especially toward athletes’ mothers. Finally, a stepwise discriminant model re- vealed that athletes, who had not yet reached inter- national level, perceived themselves to solicit more support from their mothers in comparison to tho- se who competed already at international level. The latter assessed themselves to behave more in an accepting, and yet at the same time, more asserti- ve way toward their coaches than the former (see Table 3). Discussion Taking into account that the current findings are discussed on the basis of group averages, it can be concluded that the talented athletes in this study perceive the interactions within the athletic trian- gle to be positive and constructive, and generally free of major relationship-related conflicts. While Table 3: Stepwise discriminant analyses for SIRQ scales and athletes' gender, and athletes' competitive level Step Relationship: Wilks' No. Scale entered Partial R 2 Fp Lambda p Class Means Scales Athletes' Gender (a) Male Female 1A →M: Need Support .09 24.72 .0001 .912 .0001 3.73 4.24 2A →F: Need Support .03 7.49 .0066 .886 .0001 2.35 2.74 3F →C: Inferior .02 6.56 .0110 .864 .0001 1.53 1.37 Athletes' Competitive Level (b) Sub-national National International 1A →M: Need Support .03 4.05 .0186 .967 .0186 2.87 2.80 2.57 2A →C: Acceptance .03 4.18 .0163 .939 .0028 4.17 4.20 4.34 3A →C: Assertive .03 3.81 .0234 .911 .0006 2.27 2.35 2.52 (a) Male: N = 133, Female: N = 126; Wilks' Lambda = .864, F(3,255) = 13.372, p < .0001. (b) Sub-national: N = 27, National: N = 147, International: N = 86; Wilks' Lambda = .911, F(6,510) = 4.029, p < .0006. 67 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 these results are in line with recommendations for interpersonal relationships to enhance talented ath- letes’ psychological development (ASEP, 1994; Eu- ropean Federation of Sport Psychology, 1995; Ro- tella & Bunker, 1987), they do go into the grain of reports that the relationships in the athletic trian- gle are characterized by exploitation by adults, adults’ personal gain, and abuse (Hellstedt, 1990; Ryan, 1988). One possible explanation may be found in the socio-cultural variability between the European and North-American competitive sport setting, in which the latter is more confronted with (extreme) negative types of interactions in the ath- letic triangle. It can also be hypothesized that the participants in the current study may have already solved major interpersonal conflicts earlier in their athletic career. Methodological issues may also be pointed out, such as, the averaging out of negative interpersonal behaviors when using group scores, or the »selective« nature of the participants (i.e., athletes experiencing severe interpersonal prob- lems may already have dropped out from compe- titive sports). This study provides insight into the importance awarded by talented athletes to the interpersonal relationships in the athletic triangle, and more par- ticularly, to parents’ involvement. Generally situated during the initiation phase of the athletic career (Régnier, Salmela, & Russell, 1993), current findings show, in concurrence with other research on talen- ted young athletes (e.g., Feltz, Lirgg, & Albrecht, 1992), that talented athletes perceive parental in- volvement to remain salient throughout the deve- lopment and perfection phases of the athletic ca- reer. Once athletes perceive the significance of their parents to reduce, athletes assess themselves to behave in a rather assertive way toward one pa- rent, namely, the mother. It could be hypothesized that talented athletes experience the separation-in- dividuation process, in comparison to their non- Step Relationship: Model estimates No. Scale entered Partial R 2 Model R 2 Fp Parameter Standardized (B) (b) Age (a) 1A ←F: Supportive .15 .15 43.9 .0001 -.11 -.34 2A ←F: Restrictive .05 .20 16.2 .0001 -.13 -.21 3A →M: Assertive .03 .23 9.2 .0026 .12 .14 4F →C: Consultative .02 .25 5.7 .0017 -.18 -.42 5C →M: Independent .04 .29 14.6 .0002 .26 .25 6C →F: Consultative .02 .31 6.2 .0138 .06 .22 7C →M: Negative .01 .32 4.6 .0327 -.08 -.12 Years of participation (b) 1A ←M: Supportive .04 .04 11.8 .0007 -.09 -.23 2C →M: Independent .04 .08 12.1 .0006 .29 .28 3A ←C: Caring .04 .12 13.7 .0003 -.09 -.24 4A ←M: Restrictive .02 .14 5.6 .0190 -.08 -.14 Hours per week training (c) 1A →M: Need Support .08 .08 21.0 .0001 -.15 -.20 2F →C: Consultative .03 .11 8.7 .0033 -.07 -.18 3A →C: Assertive .03 .14 7.8 .0057 .32 .18 4A ←C: Permissive .01 .15 4.3 .0385 .14 .12 Competitions per season (d) 1F →C: Independent .05 .05 10.9 .0011 1.82 .25 2C →M: Independent .03 .08 7.27 .0076 1.54 .19 3A →M: Need Support .02 .10 5.02 .0261 -.58 .15 4F →C: Inferior .02 .12 4.83 .0291 -1.58 -.14 Table 4: Stepwise regression analyses for SIRQ scales and athletes' age, years of participation, training intensity, and num- ber of competitions per year (a) N = 242; F(7,242) = 16.523, p < .0001; R = .57, R 2 = .329, adjusted R 2 = .309 (b) N = 263; F(4,259) = 11.396, p < .0001; R = .39, R 2 = .149, adjusted R 2 = .136 (c) N = 256; F(4,256) = 10.971, p < .0001; R = .38, R 2 = .148, adjusted R 2 = .135 (d) N = 256; F(4,215) = 7.291, p < .0001; R = .35, R 2 = .119, adjusted R 2 = .103 68 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 athletic peers, later during their psychosocial deve- lopment (Dusek, 1987). Moreover, athletes’ search for autonomy and detachment from their parents seems to be translated or »channeled« via asserti- ve behavior directed toward the parent who gene- rally has been, on a day-to-day basis, the most ac- tively involved parent since athletes’ initiation in competitive sports – in this case, athletes’ mothers. While parents and coaches’ interaction are percei- ved to become less consultative, and more inde- pendent, as athletes become older and gain more competitive experience, they do also perceive the parent-coach relationships generally to be mutual consultative in nature – an interaction pattern dee- med to improve the quality of athletes’ sport expe- rience (Byrne, 1993; Rowley, 1986; Smoll, 1993). While this decrease in consultative interactions may seem to reflect a deterioration in the quality of the parent-coach relationships (e.g., due to power struggles over the athlete) (Hellstedt, 1995; Lee & MacLean, 1997), it is argued that this is also a ref- lection of a quantitative change in the parent-coach interactions: as athletes mature and gain, or, are awarded, more and more responsibility for their own sport involvement, the need for highly fre- quent parent-coach interactions may decrease–a decrease which may then be perceived by athletes as an increase in independent behavior, and a de- crease of mutual consultative interactions. In view of the delimitations of the current study (e.g., the use of group average scale sores) future research needs, not only to confirm current fin- dings, but also to verify the different hypotheses and explanations offered. More attention should be paid to other groups of athletes (e.g., girls vs. boys, team players, non-competitive athletes). Furt- her analyses, which take into account the cogniti- ve, social, and emotional periods of development, need to be conducted to determine developmen- tal differences in athletes’ perceptions of their rela- tionships with parents and coaches relative to age- related periods (e.g., puberty, early adolescence, later adolescence, young adulthood). Finally, the grounding of research into broader conceptual fra- meworks, such as, Ames’ achievement goals (Ames, 1992) or Eccles’ expectancy-value appro- ach (Eccles, Adler, Futterman, Goff, Kaczala, Mee- ce, & Midgley, 1983), could increase the understan- ding of how, among others, the motivational climate impact, and is impacted by, athletes’ inter- personal perceptions. Taking into account these de- limitations, it is deemed that with this study, an ini- tial step has been taken in making more visible the interactions in the relationships of the athletic trian- gle in competitive sports for youth and adolescents. References 1. Alfermann, D., & Würth, S. (2001). Coach-athlete interaction in youth sport. In A. Papaioannou, M. Goudas, & Y. Theodorakis (Eds.), In the dawn of the new millennium. Programme and pro- ceedings of the 10 th World Congress of Sport Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 165-166). Thessaloniki, Greece: Christodoulidi Publ. 2. Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and motivational process. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 161-176). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 3. Bakker, F.C., De Koning, J.J., van Ingen Schenau, G.J., & De Groot, G. (1993). Motivation of young elite speed skaters. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 432-442. 4. Black, S. J., & Weiss, M. R. (1992). The relationship among percei- ved coaching behaviors, perceptions of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 309-325. 5. Bloom, B.S. (Ed.), (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. 6. Brustad, R. J. (1988). Affective outcomes in competitive youth sport: The influence of intrapersonal and socialization factors. Jour- nal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 307-321. 7. Brustad, R. J. (1993). Youth in sport: Psychological considerations. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 695-717). New York: MacMil- lan. 8. Brustad, R. J. (1996). Parental and peer influence on children’s psychological development through sport. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport. A biopsychosocial pers- pective (pp. 112-124). Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark. 9. Byrne, T. (1993). Sport: it’s a family affair. In M. Lee (Ed.), Coac- hing children in sport: Principles and practice (pp. 39-47). London, Great Britain: E&FN Spon. 10. Carlson, R. (1988). The socialization of elite tennis players in Swe- den: An analysis of the players’ backgrounds and development, Sociology of Sport Journal, 5, 241-256. 11. Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader beha- vior in sports. Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2(1), 34-45. 12. Coakley, J. (1993). Social dimensions of intensive training and par- ticipation in youth sports. In B. R. Cahill, & A. J. Pearl (Eds.), Inten- sive participation in children’s sports (pp. 77-94). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 13. DeFrancesco, C., & Johnson, P. (1997). Athlete and parent percep- tions in junior tennis. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 29-36. 14. Dusek, J. B. (1987). Adolescent development and behavior. Engle- wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 15. Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, C. A., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., & Midgley, C. (1983). Expectations, values, and aca- demic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achieve- ment motivation (pp. 75-146). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 16. European Federation of Sport Psychology (FEPSAC) (1995, May). FEPSAC Position Statement 2. Children in Sport, Lund, Sweden. 17. Ewing, M. E., & Weisner, A. (1996). Parents’ perceptions of the role of sport in the development of youth. Published abstracts of the Conference Program of the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Williamsburg, VA. 18. Feltz, D. L., Lirgg, C. D., & Albrecht, R. R. (1992). Psychological im- plications of competitive running in elite young distance runners: A longitudinal analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 128-138. 19. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate da- ta analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 69 Wylleman, P., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., Auweele, Y. V., & Ewing, E. M. (2002). Talented athletes’ perceptions … KinSI 8(2), 59–69 20. Hellstedt, J.C. (1987). The coach/parent/athlete relationship. The Sport Psychologist, 1, 151-160. 21. Hellstedt, J. C. (1990). Early adolescent perceptions of parental pressure in the sport environment. Journal of Sport Behavior, 13, 135-144. 22. Hellstedt, J. C. (1995). Invisible players: A family systems model. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), Sport psychology interventions (pp. 117- 146). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 23. Houtman, I. L. D., & Bakker, F. C. (1989). The anxiety thermome- ter: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(3), 575-582. 24. Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1995). Intrapersonal and interpersonal factors in athletic performance, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Scien- ce in Sports, 5, 191-199. 25. Kirk, D., O’Connor, A., Carlson, T., Burke, P., Davis, K., & Glover, S. (1997). Time commitments in junior sport: Social consequences for participants and their families. European Journal of Physical Edu- cation, 2, 51-73. 26. Lee, M., & MacLean, S. (1997). Sources of parental pressure among age group swimmers. European Journal of Physical Educa- tion, 2, 167-177. 27. Martens, R. (1993). Psychological perspectives. In B.R. Cahill, & A.J. Pearl (Eds.), Intensive participation in children’s sports (pp. 9- 17). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 28. Martin, S. B., Jackson, A. W., Richardson, P. A., & Weiller, K. H. (1999). Coaching preferences of adolescent youths and their pa- rents. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 247-262. 29. Ommundsen, Y., & Vaglum, P. (1993). Soccer competition, an- xiety and enjoyment in young boys. The influence of perceived competence and emotional involvement of significant others. In W. Duquet, P. De Knop, & L. Bollaert (Eds.), Youth sport - A social approach (pp. 110-117). Brussel, Belgium: VUBPress. 30. Power, T.G., & Woolger, C. (1994). Parenting practices and age- group swimming: A correlational study. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65(1), 59-66. 31. Price, M. S., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Relationships among coach burnout, coach behaviours, and athletes’ psychological respon- ses. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 391-409. 32. Rees, T., & Hardy, L. (2000). An investigation of the social support experiences of high-level sports performers. The Sport Psycholo- gist, 14, 327-347. 33. Régnier, G., Salmela, J., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Talent detection and development in sport. In Singer, R. N., Murphey, M. & Tennant, L. K. (Eds), Handbook on Research in Sport Psychology (pp. 290- 313). New York: MacMillan. 34. Rotella, R. J., & Bunker, L. K. (1987). Parenting your superstar. Champaign, IL: Leisure Press. 35. Rowley, S. (1986). The role of the parent in youth sport. In G. R. Gleeson (Ed.), The growing child in competitive sport (pp. 92-99). Sevenoaks, Great-Britain: Hodder and Stoughton Educational. 36. Ryan, A. J. (1988). Pespective on children’s sports with suggestions for future directions. In E. W. Brown, & C. F. Branta (Eds.), Compe- titive sports for children and youth (pp. 309-314). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 37. Scanlan, T. K. (1988). Social Evaluation and the competition pro- cess: A developmental Perspective. In F. L. Smoll, Magill, R. A. & Ash, M. J. (Eds.) Children in sport (pp. 135-148). Champaign, IL: Hu- man Kinetics. 38. Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interper- sonal behavior. New-York: Rinehart. 39. Serpa, S., & Damasio, L. (2001). Relationship coach-athlete during the athletes’ career. In J. Mester, G. King, H. Strüder, E. Tsolakidis, & A. Osterburg (Eds.), Perspectives and profiles. Book of abstracts of the 6 th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Scien- ce (p. 57). Cologne, Germany: Sport und Buch Strauss. 40. Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. (1996). The coach as focus of research and intervention in youth sports. In F. L. Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial perspective (pp. 125-141). Dubuque, IA: McGraw-Hill. 41. Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, N. J. (1989). Parents’ complete guide to youth sports. Costa Mesa, CA: HDL. 42. Smoll, F. L. (1993). Enhancing coach-parent relationships in youth sport. In J. M. Williams (Ed.), Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance (pp. 58-67). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. 43. Vanden Auweele, Y., Van Mele, V., & Wylleman, P. (1994). La re- lation entraîneur-athlčte [The relationship coach-athlete]. Enfance, 2-3, 187-202. 44. Vealey, R. S., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C. A. (1998). Influence of perceived coaching behaviours on burnout and com- petitive anxiety in female college athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 297-318. 45. Weiss, M. R. (1993). Psychological effects of intensive sport parti- cipation on children and youth: Self-esteem and motivation. In B. R. Cahill & A. J. Pearl (Eds.), Intensive participation in children’s sports (pp. 39-69). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 46. Würth, S. (2001). Parental influences on career development. In A. Papaioannou, M. Goudas, & Y. Theodorakis (Eds.), Proceedings 10 th World Congress of Sport Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 21-23). Thes- saloniki, Greece: Christodoulidi Publ. 47. Wylleman, P. (1995). Talented young athletes and the interperso- nal relationships in the athletic triangle. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 48. Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: Unchar- ted territory, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 1-18. 49. Wylleman, P., Vanden Auweele, Y., De Knop, P., Sloore, H., & De Martelaer, K. (1995). Elite young athletes, parents and coaches: relationships in competitive sports. In F. J. Ring (Ed.), The 1st Bath Sports Medicine Conference (pp. 124-133). Bath, United Kingdom: Centre for Continuing Education and contributors. Author Note This manuscript was realized during the first author’s post-doctoral sabbatical leave at the Institute for the Study of Youth Sports (Michigan State University) supported by a grant of the J. Hoover Foundation of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and of the Vlaamse We- tenschappelijke Stichting (Flemish Scientific Society). The authors would like to thank Dr. Maureen Weiss of the Curry School of Education (University of Vir- ginia) for her comments to an earlier version of this article.