Gemini IA a noté :
Dafotec Récupération De Données

Le 2025-04-26 04:56:41

Players' Responses to and Primary Caregivers' Perceptions of Authoritarian and Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City Players' Responses to and Primary Caregivers' Perceptions of Authoritarian and Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City Renee Brown Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd Recommended Citation Brown, Renee, "Players' Responses to and Primary Caregivers' Perceptions of Authoritarian and Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City" (2017). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports. 5269. https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/5269 This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu. Players’ Responses to and Primary Caregivers’ Perceptions of Authoritarian and Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City Reneé Brown Dissertation submitted to the College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences at West Virginia University in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Coaching and Teaching Studies/ Positive Youth Dynamics Ryan Flett, Ph.D., Chair Sean Bulger, Ph.D. Andrea Taliaferro, Ph.D. Suzanne Hartman, Ph.D. Department of Coaching and Teaching Studies Morgantown, West Virginia 2017 Keywords: Positive youth development, inner-city, coaching styles, coaching Copyright 2017 Reneé Brown Abstract Players’ Responses to and Primary Caregivers’ Perceptions of Authoritarian and Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City Reneé Brown An abundance of research in sport-based positive youth development (PYD) indicates that coaches should be positive, promote autonomy-supportive and authoritative coaching styles, and caution the use of authoritarian leadership, while too often ignoring elements of authoritarian leadership such as discipline and structure. However, most of the studies conducted targeted middle-upper socioeconomic status (SES) suburban, White populations, with little emphasis on the inner-city underserved context. Parenting and teaching literature provides strong support for authoritarian styles in the underserved setting (Hartman & Manfa, 2015; Smetana, 2011). Similarly, the few studies conducted in the underserved sport settings show support of authoritarian styles (Brown et al., in preparation; Cowan et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2013; Richardson, 2012). The purpose of this study is to extend the previous year’s season-long qualitative study of a single girl’s basketball team (Brown et al., in preparation) to include perspectives from parents of that team and quantitative surveys from players across the league. Participants included five head coaches with 14.2 years of experience and 80 players from the five teams in the league. The study incorporated interviews with six parental/primary caregivers from Team C; and quantitative surveys for players in the league. An abductive approach was used to develop thematic categories from the interview data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Quantitative results revealed that players are improving life skill development over time. Additionally, in order for coaches to have the biggest impact, they must use authoritative coaching styles and foster a caring and mastery climate. More importantly, results indicated that authoritarian coaching was a unique predictor of life skills development, however, it did not affect life skill development in a negative or positive manner. Qualitative results revealed that parents/primary caregivers relied on the coach as a unique source of support and guidance to supplement, complement or compensate their adolescent’s home life. Additionally, parents/primary caregivers strongly preferred authoritarian coaching combined with authoritative components to instill values and positively influence life skill development. iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to give the praise, honor and glory to God for allowing me this opportunity to grow as a person, mentally, physically, spiritually, emotionally, and giving me the strength to endure through all odds. I am forever grateful and thankful for my advisor, Dr. Ryan Flett, because without your commitment, intuitive feedback, and immeasurable help, I would not have been able to complete this process without you. Throughout the years, you have been in my corner supporting me with everything whether it was academics, personal life, and exposed me to different opportunities to help develop me into the person that I am today. Dr. Flett, I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate and respect all that you do, because you go above and beyond the traditional role of a chair and I think more professors should strive to be more student-centered like you. To Dr. Hartman, I am so grateful that you were a part of the entire process. Your positive reinforcement, encouragement, and open-door policy helped motivate me through my dark times. I will forever remember the words you said to me, “If it was easy, then everyone would do it.” To Dr. Taliaferro, I am so happy that you were willing to be a part of the committee because the thing I valued most was that you were straight-forward and did not sugar coat anything and it was from a place of love, which reminded me of my mother. To Dr. Bulger, thank you for having a listening ear and reminding me that everyone has breakdowns at one point in time, but the most important thing is that you get back up and little did you know; it was those very words that kept picking me up. I would also like to acknowledge Stephanie McWilliams for her assistance in the qualitative analysis and all participants in the study. I am grateful that you all allowed me your time to help me complete the study, given all the other iv tasks and responsibilities you had going on. Without you all, none of this would be possible. There is an old African proverb which states “it takes a village to raise a child” little did you know, you were all that village and an extension of my family. If I could do everything over again, without changing one thing, I would; because I value each of you and because of your ideas and feedback made this a stronger dissertation. To my parents, Cardell Nino Brown Sr., and Reneé Bernice Drummond-Brown, WVU has made me understand without a shadow of a doubt that none of my accomplishments would have been possible without parents like you. Your patience, trainings and beliefs helped shaped me into the person I am today. I know it has been rough over the years, and we did not always see eye to eye, but you never gave up on me because you both seen something greater in my future. Thank you for making sacrifices that you did and I hope that I have made you proud. To my grandfather, Peter Charles Drummond, thank you pap-pap for loving me unconditionally, and being present at all of my presentations. To my siblings, Cardell Nino Brown Jr. and Raven Chardell Brown, although, you could not be there at times physically, because of jobs and travel; you were always there with me in spirit. To Anthony Antonelli and Family, thank you for the love, support and kindness you have shown me throughout the years. The Antonelli family will forever hold a special place in my heart. v To my late grandmother, Barbara Ann Drummond, this degree is for you. I cannot thank you enough because it was you and mom who both challenged and inspired me to pursue a PhD. While at WVU as you both requested, I held on to this scripture, 2Timothy 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth,” I hope I made you proud! I love you! To all my extended family and supportive friends (too numerous to mention) please know, that I am grateful for your love, support and prayers throughout the education process, you also hold a special place in my heart. To God be the glory for the things He has done in my life. vi Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................................iii CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Inner-City Context and Issues ........................................................................................................................ 2 PYD, Sport, and Underserved Inner-City Youth ...................................................................................... 4 The Coach’s Role in Inner-City Underserved Settings ......................................................................... 5 Statement of Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 10 Statement of Significance .............................................................................................................................. 11 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................................... 11 Key Terminology .............................................................................................................................................. 13 CHAPTER II............................................................................................................................................. 16 Extended Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 16 Positive Youth Development ....................................................................................................................... 17 Framing Key Literature in Theory............................................................................................................. 23 Effective Coaching, Mentorship, and Sport Issues .............................................................................. 30 Coaches’ Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 39 Underserved Context and Sport ................................................................................................................. 45 Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 53 CHAPTER III ........................................................................................................................................... 57 Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 57 vii Design .................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Setting ................................................................................................................................................................... 58 Participants ......................................................................................................................................................... 59 Measures .............................................................................................................................................................. 61 Pilot Testing ........................................................................................................................................................ 66 Procedure ............................................................................................................................................................ 68 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 72 CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................................................... 79 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 79 Participant Numbers, Measurement Reliabilities, and Assumptions ......................................... 79 Descriptive Data and Correlations ............................................................................................................ 82 Research Question 1: Developmental Outcomes and Related Factors ..................................... 85 Research Questions 2: Common and Comparison of Coaching Style in Context .................. 92 Research Question 3: How Parents View Sport and/or Coaches ................................................ 93 Summary of qualitative findings ............................................................................................................. 106 CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................................................... 108 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 108 Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................... 108 Limitations ....................................................................................................................................................... 113 Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................................. 115 References ............................................................................................................................................ 117 Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................... 135 viii APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................... 139 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................ 142 Appendix D ........................................................................................................................................... 147 Appendix E............................................................................................................................................ 156 AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 1 CHAPTER I Introduction The current dissertation is grounded in the ecological systems theory (EST) and expands Brown, Hayes, Goodson, Hartman, and Flett’s (in preparation) season-long ethnography and interview study to include parental/primary caregiver perspectives and the other high school girls’ basketball teams within the same city league. The purpose of this study is four-fold. First, it will inform the reader of the coaching styles used in the underserved setting. Second, it will explore the impact of the coaching style and objectively track developmental outcomes throughout the season. Third, it will explore the use of authoritarian strategies in the underserved setting, which is under-represented in the sport literature. Lastly, it will investigate parental/primary caregivers’ perceptions of the coaching style used in the underserved setting, the intentionality of the coach, whether life skills (LS) are transferred from the sport setting to other domains of life, and how the coach supplements or augments parental/primary caregivers’ efforts in this context. In summary, the purpose of this study is to expand the previous year’s season long qualitative study of a single girls’ basketball team to include perspectives from parents of that team and quantitative surveys from players across the league. Positive youth development (PYD) is especially important in underserved communities because youth are less likely to have positive emotional, social, and cognitive developmental experiences (Flett, Gould, & Lauer, 2013; Smetana, 2011). Sport is an avenue for youth to engage in PYD; however, PYD occurs from positive experiences and coaching, not from sport alone (Thomas-Fraser, Côté, & Deakin, 2005). AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 2 The sport-based PYD literature encourages coaches to create autonomy-supportive climates, be “positive” with their players, and cautions the use of authoritarian, controlling coaching styles (Cowan, Taylor, McEwan, & Baker, 2012). PYD research typically focuses primarily on white, middle- to high-class populations with limited research on coaches in underserved urban settings. Based on strong support from parenting literature—and to a lesser extent, the teaching literature—authoritarian styles may be the most developmentally effective approach in underserved settings. This chapter will provide a basic overview of the literature and issues in inner-city contexts, PYD in sport, and the coach’s role in the underserved setting, and will conclude with definitions of key terminology. Inner-City Context and Issues The underserved setting can be defined as those individuals that are provided with low levels of access, inadequate services (i.e. health services, low rates of insurance, etc.) and face a multitude of barriers in everyday life (Walsh, 2008). This context can be characterized by high-risk factors such as poverty, high crime rates, and lack of support. Youth who grow up in this setting are more likely to be at a developmental disadvantage socially, emotionally, and cognitively because they are not afforded the same opportunities as higher socioeconomic (SES) communities (Smetana, 2011). Underserved youth are more likely to face challenges such as broken homes, racism, poverty, lower quality health care, poor education, gang violence, crime, and limited extracurricular activities (Martinek & Hellison, 1997; Martinek & Schilling, 2003; Walsh, 2008). Experts have argued that youth living in the underserved settings are in the greatest need AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 3 of PYD-support because they are more likely to lack developmental experiences and support systems (Flett et al. 2013; Walsh, 2008). Parents and primary caregivers are responsible for socializing and teaching their children the socially desirable behaviors of the culture. However, parenting styles differ from home to home. Furthermore, Coakley (2002) indicated that upper-middle income, predominately White families place emphasis on upward mobility, as compared to an underserved minority family which emphasizes control and discipline. Research in parenting literature shows strong support for Coakley’s claim and revealed that parents in the underserved setting are more likely to use authoritarian parenting styles because they are developmentally effective and serve as a protective factor to underserved youth (Eamon, 2002, Smetana, 2011). For example, Eamon’s two-year longitudinal study with participants living in poverty found that the use of physical punishment prevented anti social behavior. In a similar study, Dearing (2004) found that authoritarian parenting served as a protective factor for youth living in a neighborhood characterized by rape, robbery, burglary, larceny, and aggravated assault. The authors also found that the authoritarian parenting style had a positive effect on academic performance. Research in teaching literature describes that the utilization of an authoritarian approach by staff and teachers toward youth living in poverty is associated with fewer child-behavior concerns (Hartman & Manfra, 2015; Higgins & Moule, 2009). For example, Hartman and Manfra conducted a year-long study to explore the relation between the quality of childcare and behavioral development with low-income underserved Latino children. The findings revealed that a controlling and strict (i.e. authoritarian) approach improved child behavior and decreased behavior concerns. In AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 4 sum, some research indicates that authoritarian styles are developmentally effective for youth living in the underserved settings. PYD, Sport, and Underserved Inner-City Youth PYD is a holistic strength-based approach that focuses on enhancing pro-social norms and optimizing personal development, and engaging youth within their family, school, and community contexts. This leads to involvement in extracurricular activities and develops and refine youth skills (Coakley, 2011). Experts emphasize that organized sport participation could be beneficial and aid in PYD (Deakin, 2005). Sport is considered the most popular and time-consuming activity in high schools (Hansen & Larson, 2007), and is typically available to underserved populations. Many believe that sport is an appropriate activity for enabling PYD because it can serve as a protective factor, enhance personal and interpersonal development, and provide opportunities for youth to build rapport with adults, such as coaches (Cowan et al., 2012; Flett, Gould, Griffes, & Lauer, 2012; Flett et al., 2013; Gould, Flett, & Lauer, 2012; Richardson, 2012). Research shows that sport can have positive outcomes such as physical health (Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007), teamwork/cooperation opportunities (Gould et al.), positive relationships with adults (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010) and positive self-esteem (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). However, other researchers found sport to have negative outcomes on youth such as increased stress (Merkel, 2013), emotional abuse (Stirling & Kerr, 2013), poor cooperation, and negative peer influence (Dworking & Larson, 2006). In other words, PYD does not occur from sport participation alone; other social contextual factors (i.e. coaches) contribute to the fostering of PYD (Petipas, Cornelius, Van Raalte & Jones, 2005; Holt, 2008). AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 5 The Coach’s Role in Inner-City Underserved Settings As stated earlier, PYD does not occur from sport alone; coaches play a pivotal role in player development through their coach-athlete relationship (Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004; Petipas et al., 2005; Smith & Smoll, 2011) motivational climate, coaching style, and coaching behavior, especially in the underserved settings. Coach-Athlete Relationship. In underserved settings, interpersonal relationships within non-familial adults (such as coaches) are important (Levine & Munsch, 2016). The coach-athlete relationship is essential because coaches have the ability to become role models and mentors to their athletes due to the consistency and time spent in games, practices, and off-court activities (Jaime et al., 2015). Furthermore, research shows that athletes’ perceptions of strong coach-athlete relationships are linked to positive developmental experiences (Jowett, 2008). Richardson’s (2010) study in the underserved context of New York City showed that caring and trust was built between players and coaches through consistent interactions during practices and off-court activities. As a result, the coach was able to reduce risk, promote resiliency, and provide safety to players through mentorship. In addition, the coach kept players occupied with various activities and talked to players about their actions and choices. Experts emphasized the importance of the caring element when it comes to working with underserved youth. Motivational Climate and Caring Climate. Another important factor that has a direct impact on player experience is the motivational climate. Coaches are responsible for creating and structuring an environment that is beneficial to PYD. Research strongly supports the idea of using a mastery climate because success is based on personal improvement, effort, helping others, learning through cooperation, and hard work (Cox, AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 6 2002). Furthermore, studies have shown that mastery climates increased positive attitudes towards sport and coach (Fry & Newton, 2003), decreased burnout (Vitali et al., 2015), decreased athlete anxiety (Fry & Newton, 2003), and increased personal and social development. Gould et al. (2012) found that a mastery-oriented climate has the most positive impact on underserved youth. However, Gould et al. (2012) also found that “kids don’t care what you know, unless they know you care,” (p.86) and hypothesized that the caring climate defined by Newton et al. (2007, p.70) as "the extent to which individuals perceive a particular setting to be interpersonally inviting, safe, supportive, and capable of providing the experience of being valued and respected” is more important than a motivational climate and is more likely to influence PYD. The caring climate is an important factor in PYD because if players perceive the feelings of being cared for (feelings of support, safety, value, and respect) then they are more likely to value the perspective of their coach (Gano-Overway et al., 2009). In other words, coaches who create a caring climate can impact their players’ beliefs and foster prosocial behaviors. Similar to Richardson’s (2010) study, Gould et al. found that building rapport, caring, and supporting the athletes allowed the coach to be more effective in their personal and social development (e.g. teamwork, physical skills, initiative, cooperation). Additionally, Fry and Gano-Overway (2010) found that players who perceived a caring climate reported having higher enjoyment and more positive attitudes towards the coach and teammates. Coaching style. Coaches in urban, underserved settings are believed to be more authoritarian, controlling and militaristic towards their athletes because they want to protect and prepare their players for the ways of the world as opposed to creating an AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 7 autonomy-supportive climate (Flett et al., 2013). For example, Flett et al. (2012) conducted a qualitative comparison study in inner-city Detroit with 12 youth coaches from six different sports. The authors used ethnographic methods and interviews to observe the coaches 14 times in practice and game settings before conducting in-depth interviews with each coach. Findings indicated that coaches who utilized an authoritarian, militaristic coaching style were invested in their athletes lives and knew the personal struggles the athletes faced (e.g. gang violence, crime, abuse, uninvolved parents, dangerous neighborhoods, etc.). Furthermore, coaches wanted to prepare players for the ways of the world with “tough-love.” The coaches who utilized this approach disciplined the players out of love and went to the extremes to protect their athletes from negative outcomes. In addition, the authors found that discipline may be effective in the urban underserved settings, which is consistent with the parental literature. However, the same sample of coaches tended to use authoritarian styles in overly harsh, ineffective ways. Discipline and toughness used by these coaches were understandable and justified, but extreme anger, harsh verbal attacks and emotional manipulations were unjustifiable. The study did not investigate the coaches’ behavior over a long period of time, did not interview parents, and this particular study did not incorporate quantitative measures or a more generalizable sample size. Cowan et al. (2012) conducted a case study in the underserved setting of Scotland to explore coaching behaviors and the common assumption that autonomy-supportive coaching is adaptive, versus controlling coaching which is considered to be maladaptive. The sample included two male head coaches and 18 athletes from two teams between the ages of 16 to 19 years. The authors found that the coaches were considered to be AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 8 controlling and militaristic. However, the coach used humor to help buffer the negative outcomes associated with his authoritarian, controlling coaching style. In addition, the authors found that the provision of choice to the players was maladaptive in this setting because players lacked confidence and self-esteem. The study was limited because the authors were not immersed into the culture of the team but instead relied on non participant observations. This underserved setting may also differ from North American high school sport. Although the context may differ, the fact remains that an authoritarian coaching style was effectively used in an underserved setting. Based on the few studies published about underserved sport-based PYD, results suggest that authoritarian coaching styles play a significant role in underserved PYD (Cowan et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2013; Gould et al., 2012; Richardson, 2012). Brown et al. (in preparation) conducted a season-long in-depth ethnographic study to observe a coach’s style and impact on players in the underserved setting. In addition, the study included interviews to assess the coach and players’ perceptions of the developmental environment, the coach’s perceived role/responsibilities, and the rationale for coaching style/strategies. In an effort to address multiple gaps in the literature, this study focused on a high school girls’ basketball team, was conducted over an entire year, and the primary investigator was embedded within the team as a volunteer coach (and had already coached with that team for a full season before this research study). As such, the data collected in this dissertation represents the author’s third year with the team and second year researching them and the city-league. The results of Brown et al. (in preparation) indicated that the coach was characterized as highly authoritarian and controlling, but also highly caring and sensitive AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 9 to the needs of the players. Together, these attributes are indicative of what the authors term a “tough-love” approach: caring, understanding, and supportive, yet disciplined, demanding, and lacking autonomy support. The coach consumed and controlled much of the player’s time in order to develop academics, life skills, and character while keeping them from threats in the community. Player and coach-interviews revealed that the coach had high expectations for the players and disciplined them out of love. The coach used physical tactics such as Charlie Horsing (light jabs in the arm), “popping” (i.e. slapping players in the head), and “socking” (i.e. punching) to get players back on task, to motivate, and to keep their attention. All players believed the coach used physical contact in a positive and humorous manner, never in a negative manner, because the coach cared for the players. Critical to the literature, results indicated that players generally supported the coach’s use of an authoritarian approach, and expressed a desire for even more disciplinary, controlling, and strict leadership (in order to manage newer and more unruly girls). However, the study was limited in its design because the authors focused on one team in the league and did not make comparisons to other teams. In addition, they did not obtain quantitative assessments of developmental outcomes or perceived coaching style. Parents of the players also expressed an interest in being interviewed so that they could share their perspectives on the coach, context, and their daughter’s development. What works for one context may be maladaptive in another context. Authoritarian styles used in underserved, high-crime/-violence, and disadvantaged settings are more likely to facilitate resilience and positive outcomes in youth (Cowan et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2013; Gould et al., 2012; Hartman & Manfra, 2015; Richardson, 2012). Additionally, authoritative styles in these settings may be considered harmful and AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 10 maladaptive. Coaching styles should be context-specific and focus on players’ needs (Flett et al., 2016). After reviewing the foundational articles related to coaching in the underserved settings, future research needs to explore parental/caregiver views on the coaching style and how it impacts child development, the transfer of life skills, and the use of authoritarian strategies. The current sport-PYD literature is not representative of the underserved context and the unique challenges they face in everyday life. As stated earlier, parenting literature and to an extent, some teaching literature shows strong support for authoritarian (controlling, monitoring, and strict) styles in the underserved setting. However, coaching literature typically cautions the use of authoritarian styles and supports the use of positive, choice-based, autonomy-supportive (i.e. authoritative) styles for PYD—but may be overgeneralizing their findings. Furthermore, the current sport-PYD literature needs to expand and become more culturally and socioeconomically diverse. Additionally, the literature must progress and change from streamlining and stating that the use of authoritarian coaching and parenting is wrong. More importantly, the most valuable question that needs to be answered is: How can authoritarian styles of coaching be used most effectively, especially in the underserved settings? Statement of Purpose In summary, the purpose of this dissertation will address the lack of underserved PYD research; address the need for more longitudinal mixed-method studies; objectively measure and track developmental outcomes throughout a season; and better understand coaching styles used and how they impact PYD in the underserved setting (Cowan et al. AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 11 2012; Flett et al. 2012 and 2013). In addition, the dissertation will answer the question “what combination of coaching style factors has the strongest influence for PYD in the underserved setting?” Lastly, it will look at parental/caregiver perceptions and preferences of coaching styles, the intentionality of the coach, and transferable life skills. Statement of Significance The following dissertation contributes to the existing sport-based PYD literature by exploring a multitude of coaching styles used in the underserved settings of the inner city. To the knowledge of the primary investigator (PI), this study is the first to objectively measure authoritarian and authoritative coaching in sport (in the underserved or any other setting). Additionally, the current study will assess life skill outcomes at two time periods, which differs from the current sport-based literature utilizing one time of data collection. This study is informed by not only the sport literature but also parental and teaching literature. Research Questions This study will use quantitative measures to survey teams across the city league located in an urban underserved setting in the North East United States, and in-depth interviews with parents/primary caregivers from one team (Team C) within this league. The research questions and sub-questions guiding the study are as follows: 1. Do life skills (LS) improve from participation, and what coaching style factors influence those LS outcomes? 1.1 Do quantitative measures of life skills show improvement for players across the season (Do scores change over time)? AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 12 1.2 Do quantitative measures of coaching style change over the basketball season (between Time 1 and Time 2)? 1.3 Are certain coaching styles greater for LS development (i.e. authoritarian, authoritative, caring, mastery, ego)? 1.4 If you were to combine all coaching style factors, which have the strongest influence on LS? 1.5 What influence does authoritarian coaching have on LS when combined with each of the other three coaching style factors (i.e. caring, mastery, ego), one at a time (i.e. authoritarian + caring; authoritarian + mastery; and authoritarian + ego). 1.6 What influence does authoritative coaching have on LS when combined with each of the other three coaching style factors (i.e. caring, mastery, ego), one at a time (i.e. authoritative + caring; authoritative + mastery; and authoritative + ego). 2. What is the common style of coaching in the city league? 2.1 What is the common coaching style in the city league? 2.2 How does Coach DD’s (Team C) style compare to other coaches’ styles in the city league? 3. Is this coach (Coach DD, Team C) developing LS through basketball, and if so, what skills and how does she develop them? 3.1 What developmental outcomes do parents think occur from participation with this coach and team (i.e. life skills development, intentionality, and transferability)? AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 13 3.2 Does the coach foster youth development intentionally? If so, how does she intentionally develop LS? 3.3 Do parents feel they can provide concrete examples of transferrable LS? If so, how are they being transferred? 3.4 Do parents think the sport or coach supplement psychosocial development in the players’ home lives? If so, how does the coach or sport supplement psychosocial development in the players’ home lives? Key Terminology Adolescents. Youth who are in the transitional stage concerning childhood and adulthood between the ages of 13 to 19 years. Authoritarian. A person who is characterized as highly demanding, less responsive, controlling, and rarely provide rationales (Baumrind, 2013). Authoritarians tend to create a disciplined environment with clear rules, and monitor behaviors, and activities of youth (Holt, Tamminen, Black, Mandigo & Fox, 2009). Authoritative. A person who is characterized as highly demanding, responsive, consistent, and provides rationales (Baumrind, 2013). In addition, authoritative people are assertive, and use supportive rather than disciplinary actions (Holt et al. 2009). Autonomy-supportive. “A style that actively supports self-initiated strivings and creates conditions for athletes to experience a sense of volition, choice, and self endorsement (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Thøgersen-Ntoumani 2010).” In addition, an autonomy-supportive style allows youth to feel that they initiate their actions rather than feeling coerced to act in a certain manner (Grolnick, 2003). AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 14 Caring climate. “The extent to which individuals perceive a particular setting to be interpersonally inviting, safe, supportive and capable of providing the experience of being valued and respected” (Newton et al., p.70). Positive youth development. A holistic intentional approach that engages youth in all contexts (i.e. school, home, work, etc.) while enhancing pro-social norms and helping youth reach their full potential (Holt, 2008; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). Sport. Structured physical activity governed by a set of rules and facilitated by a coach or instructor that is implemented in an individual or group setting. Tough-love. A formal, established definition for this term is not available from the literature, but because the term is frequently used in this dissertation, it is important to provide clarity it. The term has emerged from research by Flett et al. (2013) and Brown et al. (in preparation). Tough-love is meant to describe a highly caring and respectful approach to authoritarian, or more controlling, coaching. Such an approach would not be “entirely” authoritarian in that there could be elements of autonomy-supportive and authoritative behaviors. Finally, based on Flett et al.’s work, it is important to clarify that a tough-love approach is not angry, unregulated, out of control coaching. A tough-love coach is able to model life skills and positive psychosocial attributes. Underserved. According to the American Journal of Managed Care (2013), underserved populations are defined as vulnerable populations that include the economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, the uninsured, low-income children, the elderly, the homeless, those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and those with other chronic health conditions, including severe mental illness. It may also AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 15 include individuals who often encounter barriers to accessing healthcare services. The vulnerability of these individuals is enhanced by race, ethnicity, age, sex, and factors such as income, insurance coverage (or lack thereof), and absence of a usual source of care. Their health and healthcare problems intersect with social factors, including housing, poverty, and inadequate education. For the purpose of the dissertation, underserved will be characterized as those who are socially disadvantaged, living in poverty, and face many unique challenges such as racial discrimination, gang violence, substance abuse, and cultural barriers (see, Flett, Gould, & Lauer, 2013; Richardson, 2012; Walsh, 2008). AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 16 CHAPTER II Extended Literature Review This dissertation addresses the need for research on sport coaches and positive youth development (PYD) in the underserved setting. The study will explore inner-city coaching styles throughout the season and their impact on developmental outcomes. In addition, the study will examine parents’/primary caregivers’ perceptions of the coaching style in the city league, and intentionality and transferability of life skills. While an authoritative style and positive coaching strategies (e.g., autonomy support) are staples of a PYD approach to coaching, authoritarian parenting and teaching styles are more developmentally effective in underserved settings. Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, and Thøgersen-Ntoumani (2010) argued that coaches can use a mixture of both autonomy-supportive and controlling strategies simultaneously and still be considered adaptive. Youth from underserved settings are in the greatest need of PYD because of the unique challenges they face in their everyday life (Walsh, 2008). Researchers believe that underserved youth may also be less likely to have positive developmental experiences in sport (Flett, Gould & Lauer, 2012; Flett, Gould, Griffes, & Lauer 2013; Richardson, 2012). Sport is a popular activity in high school and many perceive it to be an effective activity to enhance personal development and serve as a protective factor for underserved youth (Coakley, 2011). Sport provides underserved youth the opportunity to develop interpersonal relationships and build rapport with peers and non-familial adults, such as coaches. AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 17 The purpose of this chapter is to explain the importance of PYD and how it relates to this study. Additionally, this chapter will discuss the context needed for PYD to occur in sport and explain the importance of girls’ participation in sport. The chapter will then focus on the ecological systems theory (EST), which will help explain the importance of interpersonal relationships throughout different contexts, and how they play an enormous role in player psychosocial development. Furthermore, it will then focus in depth on effective coaches, with specific emphasis on the coaches’ role, style, and the created motivational and caring climate. Lastly, the chapter will review the scant literature in sport and the underserved setting, address gaps, and discuss future directions. Positive Youth Development In the past, traditional youth development was reactive and focused on minimizing and reducing problems such as teen pregnancy, sexual involvement, substance abuse, problem behaviors and delinquency during adolescence in targeted populations (Holt, 2008). This traditional approach provided intervention programming and treated youth as beneficiaries as opposed critical resources and solutions. Pittman et al. (2011) noted that problem-free youth are not fully prepared to be productive members of society. Larson (2000) argued that healthy development involves more than reducing and minimizing problem behaviors. In addition, Holt (2008) and others argued that a comprehensive, holistic approach is more beneficial and would achieve long lasting results for youth. As a result, a shift has been made from a traditional deficit reduction approach to a humanistic positive youth development approach. PYD is a holistic, strength-based approach that engages all youth within their families, school, and community context. PYD has no singular definition. It concentrates AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 18 on enhancing pro-social norms, helping youth reach their full potential (U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2007), fostering positive relationships (Strachan, Côté, & Deakin, 2009), and viewing youth as contributing members of society and critical resources to be developed as opposed to problems to be solved (Holt, 2008; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Within the PYD field, several researchers have outlined key components needed for optimal development. Larson (2000) believed that there needs to be a match between experiences of adolescents and requirements of the adult word. He argued that youth need three important characteristics to function as healthy adults: initiative, empowerment and leadership opportunities. Damon (2009) believed youth need to have a “purpose” in life, which, in turn, helps adolescents cope and allow them to be optimistic no matter the situation. The Five C’s Model of PYD created by Lerner and colleagues (2005) address psychological, behavioral, and social characteristics in youth including: competence, confidence, connection, character and caring. Youth who acquire the Five C’s are considered to be thriving and will develop a sixth C, described as contribution to self, family, and community (Zarrett & Lerner, 2008). Similarly, the Search Institute identified 40 developmental assets, also known as “building blocks” for human development. These assets help youth to become more healthy, caring, and responsible adults. The developmental assets are organized into two components, internal assets and external assets, with eight domains. Internal Assets are sets of skills, links to the personal development, competencies, and values within a person and are grouped into four categories: 1) positive identity, 2) positive values, 3) social competencies, and 4) commitment to learning (Benson et al., 2011). External AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 19 assets describe the environmental, contextual and relational assets (formation of strong bonds and relationships with the developing person), and are likewise grouped into four categories: 1) empowerment, 2) support, 3) constructive use of time, and 4) boundaries and expectations (Benson et al., 2011; Brofenbrenner, 2009). In order to develop these assets, youth must positively and effectively interact within various contexts (family, school, and community) to build important relationships and foster opportunities to enhance their skills (Strachan et al., 2009). Research shows that adolescents who acquire multiple assets have a greater chance of developing in a healthy manner (Benson et al., 2006; Strachan, Fraser-Thomas, & Nelson-Ferguson, 2016). Fraser-Thomas, Côté and Deakin (2005) implied that organized sport participation could benefit youth and help them grow into caring and responsible adults. Sport and PYD. PYD engages youth through multiple contexts (family, school, and community) and provides youth the opportunity to get involved in various extracurricular activities, like sport, to develop and refine their skills. In almost every school, sport is the most popular and time-consuming activity (Hansen & Larson, 2007). In the United States, approximately 21.5 million youth between the ages of 6 to 17 participate in organized team sports annually (Kelley & Carchia, 2013). The late Nelson Mandela stated: Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire, it has the power to unit people in a way that little else does. It speaks to youth in a language they understand. Sport can create hope, where once there was only despair (Laureus World Sports Awards, Monaco 2000). AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 20 Organized sport enhances personal development more so than informal activities such as hanging out with friends (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000), or hanging out at the mall (Osgood & Anderson, 2004). According to Perkins et al. (2007), “Time spent in youth programs is the most consistent predictor of youth thriving,” and research supports that youth participating in organized sport are more likely to experience positive developmental outcomes in comparison to those who do not participate in organized sport (Larson, 2000). Empirical findings have shown that organized sport can lead to healthy social, psychological, and physical developmental outcomes such as an increase in physical health (Bailey, 2006; Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007), self-esteem (Bailey, 2006; Smith, Smoll & Curtis, 1979), decreased stress (Smith, Smoll, & Cumming, 2007), leadership opportunities (Gould & Carson, 2008), teamwork/cooperation opportunities (Gould et al., 2012), increased academic achievement (Bailey), character development (Donnelly & Coakley, 2007; Gould, Collins, Lauer, & Chung, 2007), responsibility (Hellison & Cutforth, 1997) and the establishment of positive relationships with adults (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010; Strachan et. al, 2009). The cultural and structural context of sport influences personal and social development (Theokas, Danish, Forneris, Hodge, & Heke, 2008). Factors such as personal characteristics of the athletes and coach (Peterson, 2004), actions of the coaches (Smith& Smoll, 2002), and the environmental context (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010; Holt, Sehn, Spence, Newton & Ball, 2012; Martinek & Hellison, 1997) play a role in developmental outcomes in sport. Larson, Hansen, and Montea (2006) contend that positive outcomes of sport will likely occur when it is intentional, structured, and systematic because sport is more likely to enhance external and internal assets in AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 21 adolescents (Hodge, 1989; Petipas, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Jones, 2005). However, sport participation alone is not the “magic ingredient” to enhance PYD. Negative outcomes and best-practices. Although many studies show that sport can be beneficial to PYD, negative outcomes can occur if PYD is not intentional. If sport is not conducted in the right manner, it has the potential to deter youth from personal and social development and result in eating disorders (Reel, SooHoo, Petrie, Greenleaf, & Carter, 2010), elevated use of alcohol (Lisha, Crano, & Delucchi, 2014; Veliz, Boyd, & McCable, 2015), sport injuries (Vitali, Bortoli, Bertinato, Robazza, & Schena, 2015), decrease in self-esteem and confidence (Stirling & Kerr, 2013), athlete burnout (Vitali et al.), increased stress (Gould & Carson, 2010), poor sportsmanship (LaVoi, & Stellino, 2008), emotional abuse (Stirling & Kerr), and/or poor cooperation and negative peer influence (Dworkin & Larson, 2006). These negative outcomes are believed to occur because of parents, youth, and coaches placing too much emphasis on sport outcomes (i.e. winning, losing, and playing time), lack of formal education for coaches, and sport susceptibility to adult domination (Gould & Carson, 2008). The research presented shows empirical support for both positive and negative outcomes that may result from sport participation. As stated earlier, sport participation alone is not the “magic ingredient” to enhance PYD. Coakley (2011) argued that, “By itself, the act of sport participation among young people leads to no regularly identifiable developmental outcomes” (p. 309). In an effort to reduce negative experiences, Petipas et al. (2005) created a PYD sport framework grounded in research findings and best practices in the field of youth development (Larson, 2000; Smith & Smoll, 2002). Petipas et al. indicated that PYD will AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 22 occur when youth a) are engaged in a desired activity within the appropriate context, b) are surrounded by positive, caring external assets, and c) have the opportunity to learn and acquire internal assets. In addition, Lerner and Lerner (2006) indicated that structure and physical/psychological safety of athletes are critical factors to instilling PYD. In the teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) framework, Martinek and Hellison (1997) suggested that youth development programs should develop a sense of values, purpose, and empowerment; respect diversity; promote safety; and develop resiliency. In other words, youth programs need to create and maintain a physically, psychologically, emotionally, and socially safe setting where coaches provide opportunities to teach youth the necessary skills and instill positive values needed for sport and other domains (i.e. school life, home life, and work life). The current study looks at how coaching styles, sport participation, and intentionality of the coach may promote PYD. Girls in sport. This study will look at PYD in the context of high school girls’ basketball teams. A generation ago, sport literature focused primarily on male involvement because girls participating in sport were not culturally accepted nor acknowledged. Within the past 40 years, there has been an increase in girls participating in sports in America due to Title IX of the Educational Act of 1972, which prohibits gender discrimination in any federally funded education program or activity (Paule-Koba, Harris, & Freysinger, 2013). Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving financial assistance” (Title IX and Sex Discrimination, 2015). As a result, Title IX increased athletic opportunities for girls and women. Women participating in sports has become more AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 23 culturally accepted and celebrated (Cooky, 2010). Research shows that sport and physical activity positively impact the physical and psychosocial well-being of girls and women (Staurowksy et al. 2009). Sport can potentially increase girls’ self-confidence, prevent eating disorders, and enhance their physical health (Kane et al., 2007). In addition, sport participation is associated with a positive body image (Hausenblas & Fallon, 2006; Huang et al. 2007), an increase in educational achievement (Coakley, 2011), and a decrease in teen pregnancy and substance abuse (Staurowsky et al.). Allen (2003) implies that a sense of belongingness and enjoyment is the motivator for girls in sport. Furthermore, Allen (2003) also provided support that girls prefer social, “fun” activities, and opportunities to learn concepts and skills as motivators for their participation (Passmore & French, 2001; Perkins et al., 2007). Despite Title IX and increased athletic opportunities, sport participation gaps for underserved African American girls still exist in urban and rural communities (Sabo & Veliz, 2008). Sabo (2009) suggested that the lack of participation in urban and rural communities can be explained by multiple contextual factors that include family income, race and ethnicity, and the type of community. Sport may be helpful to achieve PYD for underserved girls, but as stated earlier it is not the only ingredient (Coakley, 2011; Hartmann & Kwauk 2011). Coakley (2011) argued that other factors within and outside the sport program help to foster developmental benefits. Framing Key Literature in Theory Multiple theories have been used in sport PYD literature to explain the positive and negative outcomes of sport. Due to the pragmatic approach for this dissertation, the theory used for the current study is grounded in the ecological systems theory (EST). The AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 24 current study uses the EST (Brofenbrenner, 2009) to organize the review of literature and as the rationale for including parents and other teams from this league as participants in this study. EST allows the researcher to look at a broader picture of how an inner-city girls’ basketball team functions in relation to the entire league and the parents’/primary caregivers’ point of view. Ecological System Theory. Brofenbrenner’s (1977; 2009) EST suggests that human development and human behavior occur from person to context interactions. EST provides a framework to understand the significance of social interactions within and between various contexts, such as the home, school, and work environments. EST has been used across several research domains (e.g. sport, public health, psychology, child development, sport, etc.) to understand the bidirectional influence between youth and their context (Lerner et al., 2011). Within the EST framework, the ecological systems model is organized into four nested systems that include: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. The microsystem represents one’s immediate context that directly impacts development (e.g. home, school, church, team). The mesosystem represents regular social interactions and interconnectedness between the microsystems (i.e. the relationship between a coach and player). The exosystem represents the relation between a social setting and one’s immediate context, which the individual does not have an active role in (i.e. the coach’s relationship with the player’s parents). Lastly, the macrosystem represents the cultural context, such where one lives (e.g., neighborhood), SES, poverty and ethnicity. EST is relevant to the sport domain because it takes into account the bidirectional influence of individual, environmental, and program characteristics, rather than studying the AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 25 individual in isolation. Integrating EST into the design of this study reinforces the PYD perspective, because PYD is grounded in an ecological systems approach to youth development (Holt, 2008). The family, school, and community contexts of PYD are considered below. Family context. Within the family context (microsystem), parenting strategies and techniques are used to socialize and teach their children appropriate behaviors of the culture. Parenting styles differ throughout cultures and vary from home to home. Coakley (2002) emphasized that upper- middle income, predominantly White families have different ideas about PYD and believe that outcomes should emphasize achievement and upward mobility, in comparison to underserved minority families who emphasize control and discipline. Baumrind (2013) created a typology that described four different parenting styles grounded in research findings: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive and disengaged. For the purpose of this paper, authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles will be defined and emphasized as they relate to coaching in the inner-city. Authoritarian parenting styles are described as highly structured with clear stated rules, high control, and militaristic with the use of physical discipline such as spanking (Deater-Deckard, Lansford, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, 2003; McLoyd, Kaplan, Hardaway & Wood, 2007). Parents who utilize this style are considered to be high in demand and low in acceptance and responsiveness to their child. These types of parents often have a large number of rules that they expect their children to obey and rarely provide rationales for their rules and expectations. On the other hand, authoritative parenting styles are described as parents being highly demanding and highly accepting/responsive to their children. Unlike AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 26 authoritarian parenting styles, authoritative parents tend to provide rationales for their rules/expectations and listen to their child more (Baumrind, 2013). Experts suggest that authoritative parenting styles are linked to positive PYD outcomes; however, these findings may not be generalizable to other contexts because the majority of these studies examined white, middle-class populations. Coll and Pachter (2002) advised researchers studying African American or other minority populations to use a historical and cultural lens to try to account for their experiences (i.e. slavery, racism, and poverty). Similar to EST, sociocultural theorist Vygotsky believed “development occurs over time within the context of the culture” (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008, p. 302). In other words, learning and development occurs through context and social events, and cannot be separated from cultural, historical, and social contexts in which they are situated (Wang, Bruce, & Hughes, 2011). This paradigm looks at how social interaction and participation in organized activity play a role in psychological development (Scott & Palinscar, 2009). According to Thompson (2004), “African Americans in urban communities are socialized very differently from Whites from middle-class communities” (p. 72). Research has shown that authoritarian parenting practices used in low-income families correlate with lower levels of child behavior problems. For example, Eamon (2002) conducted a two-year longitudinal study with a sample of 963 participants between the ages 10 to 12 years old. Results showed that poverty was strongly related to neighborhood problems more than parental and peer influences. In addition, Eamon found that authoritarian parenting styles and the use of physical punishment for kids living in poverty buffered anti-social behavior. Similarly, Dearing (2004) conducted a longitudinal study in Massachusetts with three ethnic groups AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING 27 (i.e. African American, Latino American, and European American) living in an underserved setting plagued by rape, robbery, burglary, larceny, and aggravated assault. The purpose of the study was to examine how neighborhood characteristics moderated associations between parenting and child outcomes. Results showed that restrictive/controlling (authoritarian) parenting styles were a protective factor and had a positive effect on academic performance for African American and Latino American children, but had a negative effect on European American children. Furthermore, research shows that minority parents living in dangerous and impoverished neighborhoods are typically more controlling and use authoritarian parenting styles because this style protects a