COACHES 'BEHAVIOUR AND ITS INFLUENCES ON FEMALE ATHLETES' SATISFACTION

151 Publisher: EDUCATION GENIUS SOLUTIONS Review Type: Double Blind Peer Review Vol. 3 No.4 2025 Research Consortium Archive P(ISSN) : 3007-0031 E(ISSN) : 3007-004X https://rc-archive.com/index.php/Journal/about COACHES ‘BEHAVIOUR AND ITS INFLUENCES ON FEMALE ATHLETES’ SATISFACTION Maryam Zahid FG Degree College for Women, Kharian Cantt Email: maryamzahid200[email protected] Toseer Ahmed Muslim Youth University, Islamabad Email: [email protected] Muhammad Talha Iftikhar (Corresponding Author) Assistant Professor, FG Degree College for Women, Kharian Cantt Email: [email protected] Muhammad Tahir Nazeer Professor, Department of Sports Sciences, University of the Central Punjab, Lahore Email: tahir[email protected] 152 This study investigates coaching behaviors and their influence on female athletes‘ satisfaction. Although coaching behaviors have been widely examined, limited research has compared the self-assessed behaviors of male and female coaches in relation to female athletes‘ satisfaction. To address this gap, the present study adopts a non-experimental quantitative design to determine whether satisfaction levels among female athletes differ based on their coach‘s gender and to identify which coaching styles are more strongly associated with athlete satisfaction. The mean age of female athletes coached by males was M = 19.97, while those coached by females had a mean age of M = 19.23. Data were collected through an online survey using two instruments: the Coaching Behavior Questionnaire for coaches‘ self-assessment and the Coaching Behavior Feedback Questionnaire for athletes‘ perceptions. Ethical approval was obtained from the relevant institution. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Independent t-tests. The findings revealed no significant differences between male and female coaches in self-assessed behaviors, nor in female athletes‘ satisfaction levels. However, descriptive statistics indicated slightly higher satisfaction among athletes coached by males. These results offer important implications for enhancing coaching strategies and improving female athletes‘ experiences in Pakistan. This research contributes to the literature by emphasizing the role of gender dynamics in coaching behaviors and their impact on female athlete satisfaction. Keywords: Coach-Athlete Relationship, Female Athlete Satisfaction, Coaching Behaviors, Gender Dynamics Introduction Sports coaching provides an environment that enables athletes to achieve progress and success in their sporting careers (Purnomo et al., 2024). Coaching has been described as both an art and a science, as it requires balancing the personal and professional development of athletes while delivering quality training sessions to prepare them for competition (Short & Short, 2005). Research has further emphasized that coaching approaches influence athlete motivation and behavior. For example, Hodge and Lonsdale (2011) found that autonomy-supportive coaching increases athletes‘ selfmotivated behaviors, whereas controlling behaviors are associated with decreased motivation. The role of the coach extends beyond technical instruction to encompass leadership, communication, and relationship-building. Kwon et al. (2010) and Rupert and Buschner (1989) highlighted differences in how teacher-coaches and sport coaches prioritize instruction, showing the importance of context in shaping coaching effectiveness. Similarly, Jowett (2003, 2017) argued that the coach-athlete relationship is central to coaching effectiveness, defining it as a dynamic and reciprocal process shaped by mutual trust, respect, and collaboration. Fouraki et al. (2020) confirmed that athletes perceive coaches who provide instruction, guidance, social support, and constructive feedback more positively, leading to enhanced performance and stronger relationships. Effective communication has also been shown to foster trust, motivation, and openness, allowing athletes to engage more productively with training and feedback (Purnomo et al., 2024). Athlete satisfaction, defined as a ―positive emotional situation arising from a complex evaluation of structures, processes, and outcomes of athletic experience‖ (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1997), has been widely studied as an indicator of coaching effectiveness. ABSTRACT 153 Satisfaction is enhanced when coaches provide guidance, encouragement, and support (Chelladurai, 1993). Importantly, satisfaction is not solely dependent on performance outcomes such as win-loss records, but also on athletes‘ perceptions of their experiences and relationships with their coaches. Cranmer and Sollitto (2015) further demonstrated that social support from coaches whether informational, emotional, or esteem-related contributes significantly to athletes‘ satisfaction and well-being. Female athletes, like their male counterparts, are highly competitive but may have distinct preferences in coaching approaches. When coaches recognize and adapt to these differences, they create a positive environment that enhances both performance and satisfaction (Stewart, 2016). Theoretical frameworks such as Social Cognitive Theory (Smith & Smoll, 1997) and Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) have been applied to understand these dynamics. Supportive and instructional coaching behaviors are consistently linked to higher athlete self-esteem (Horn, 1985; Lemonidis et al., 2014), while negative behaviors are associated with reduced motivation and satisfaction (Allen & Howe, 1998). The multidimensional leadership model (MacLean & Chelladurai, 1995 and Chelladurai, 2012) further identifies five key dimensions of coaching, training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback—all of which influence athlete outcomes. Gender dynamics play a particularly important role in the coach-athlete relationship. Research has shown that female athletes often report higher satisfaction when coached by females, citing empathetic communication, role modeling, and supportive behaviors (Bekiari & Syrmpas, 2015; Stewart, 2016). Conversely, other studies suggest that female athletes may perceive male coaches as more authoritative but less emotionally supportive, which can affect satisfaction negatively (Tomlinson & Yorganci, 1997; Jowett & Nezlek, 2012). These contrasting findings highlight the need for further investigation, especially in under-researched contexts such as Pakistan, where cultural factors may influence perceptions of coaching behavior. The purpose of this study is to examine female student-athletes‘ perceptions of their coach-athlete relationships and their satisfaction with coaching behaviors. Specifically, it seeks to determine whether there are significant differences in satisfaction based on coach gender, and to identify which coaching behaviors (e.g., directing, informing, challenging, supporting) are most positively received. By addressing this gap, the study contributes to the body of knowledge on coaching effectiveness and athlete satisfaction, with implications for improving coaching strategies and supporting female athletes in Pakistan. To guide this research, the following hypotheses were proposed: H1: Female athletes report higher satisfaction levels with the coaching behaviors of male coaches compared to female coaches. H0: There are no significant differences in the influence of coaching behaviors between male and female coaches on female athletes‘ satisfaction. Materials and Methods Participants The study sample comprised 128 participants, including 120 female athletes and 8 coaches (4 male and 4 female). Each coach was responsible for 15 female athletes, who provided feedback on their perceptions and satisfaction with their respective coach‘s behaviors. The mean ages of female athletes coached by males and females were 19.97 and 19.23 years, respectively. All athletes were female, aged 16–25 years, with an average of 3–4 years of experience under their current coach. Participants 154 were recruited from universities, academies, and sports institutions across the region, representing diverse educational and athletic backgrounds. Instruments Two instruments were used in the study: 1. Coaching Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ): Originally developed by John Heron (1975) and later modified by Erik and Viktor (2017) at Ashridge Business School, the CBQ was used to assess coaches‘ self-perceptions of their behaviors. The questionnaire consists of 60 items across six dimensions: Directing, Informing, Challenging, Releasing, Supporting, and Discovering. Coaches completed this self-assessment. 2. Coaching Behavior Feedback Questionnaire (CBFQ): Adapted from the Ashridge Coaching Behaviors Survey (developed by Richard Phillips and later modified by Erik), the CBFQ was administered to athletes to evaluate their satisfaction with their coach‘s behaviors. The instrument also includes 60 items distributed across the same six dimensions as the CBQ. Both questionnaires were structured on a 6-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 5 = very often), allowing respondents to rate the frequency of specific coaching behaviors. Together, the CBQ and CBFQ provided a dual perspective—capturing both coaches‘ self-assessment and athletes‘ perceptions—thereby ensuring a comprehensive analysis of coaching behaviors and athlete satisfaction. Procedure Data collection was conducted using Google Forms in 2024. Coaches received personalized survey links for both their self-assessment (CBQ) and for distribution to their athletes (CBFQ). Each coach was instructed to forward the athlete questionnaire link to 20 of their female athletes. However, due to challenges in participant availability and cooperation, only 15 athletes per coach completed the survey, resulting in 120 completed athlete responses. Detailed instructions and consent information were included at the beginning of both questionnaires. Coaches and athletes were informed about the study‘s purpose, confidentiality measures, and the importance of providing honest responses. Each questionnaire required approximately 10–15 minutes to complete. Completed responses were stored securely within the Google Forms platform, ensuring confidentiality and efficient data management. Ethical Considerations Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the institutional review board. Participants were informed of the voluntary nature of their involvement and were assured that their responses would remain confidential. Consent was obtained electronically before survey completion. The study adhered to ethical principles of respect, confidentiality, and minimization of harm. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using SPSS software. Descriptive statistics were first computed to summarize participant demographics. One-way ANOVA was employed to examine whether significant differences existed in coaching behaviors between male and female coaches based on self-assessment (CBQ). Statistical significance was determined using a threshold of p < 0.05.To assess athlete satisfaction, independent 155 samples t-tests were conducted on CBFQ data, comparing satisfaction levels of female athletes with male versus female coaches. The tests examined differences across each of the six behavioral dimensions. Results: One-Way ANOVA Analysis: Table 4.1 presents the one-way ANOVA results examining the impact of coach gender on six coaching behaviors: Directing, Informing, Challenging, Releasing, Discovering, and Supporting. The analysis reveals no statistically significant differences between male and female coaches across all six behavioral dimensions examined. Table 4.1: One-Way ANOVA Analysis of Coaching Behaviors by Coach Gender Factors Sum of Squares (Between) Df (Between) Mean Square (Between) Sum of Squares (Within) Df (Within) Mean Square (Within) F Sig. Directing 364.5 1 364.5 517.5 6 86.25 4.23 0.09 Informing 300.125 1 300.13 704.75 6 117.46 2.56 0.16 Challenging 242 1 242 465.5 6 77.583 3.12 0.13 Releasing 136.125 1 136.13 926.75 6 154.46 0.88 0.38 Discovering 288 1 288 460 6 76.67 3.76 0.10 Supporting 392 1 392 840 6 140 2.8 0.15 Note: Sig. = significance value (α = 0.05); F = variation between groups; df = degrees of freedom Table 4.1 shows six coaching behaviors demonstrated p-values greater than 0.05, indicating no statistically significant differences between male and female coaches. Specifically, Directing behavior (p = 0.09), Informing behavior (p = 0.16), Challenging behavior (p = 0.13), Releasing behavior (p = 0.38), Discovering behavior (p = 0.10), and Supporting behavior (p = 0.15) all failed to reach statistical significance. However, it is noteworthy that Directing (p = 0.09) and Discovering (p = 0.10) behaviors approached the significance threshold, warranting further investigation in future studies. Descriptive statistic Table 4.2 presents descriptive statistics for all six coaching behaviors, revealing remarkably similar distribution patterns across behavioral dimensions. Table 4.2: All behaviors' distribution scores are quite similar to each other. Factor N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Directing 120 12.00 50.00 39.09 ±7.77 Informing 120 12.00 50.00 39.60 ±7.80 156 Challenging 120 11.00 50.00 36.42 ±7.75 Releasing 120 12.00 56.00 35.83 ±9.56 Discovering 120 12.00 50.00 37.99 ±7.79 Supporting 120 12.00 50.00 39.94 ±7.42 Table 4.2 shows the descriptive statistics, providing an overview of the distribution and central tendency of scores for each coaching behavior among the sample of 120 female athletes. The mean scores across all six behaviors are notably similar, ranging from 35.83 to 39.94, suggesting relatively consistent coaching behavior patterns regardless of specific behavioral dimensions. This similarity in means reinforces the finding that no statistically significant differences exist between male and female coaches' behaviors. Regarding variability, Releasing behavior exhibited the highest standard deviation (SD = 9.56), indicating greater inconsistency in how this behavior manifests across different coaching contexts. Conversely, Supporting behavior demonstrated the lowest standard deviation (SD = 7.42), suggesting more uniform application of supportive coaching practices across both male and female coaches. Group Statistics: Table 4.3 presents group statistics comparing male and female coaches across all six behavioral dimensions, based on ratings from female athletes. Factor Coach Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Directing Male 60 39.85 ±6.05 0.78 Female 60 38.33 ±9.16 1.18 Informing Male 60 40.98 ±6.09 0.79 Female 60 38.20 ±9.04 1.17 Challenging Male 60 36.57 ±6.69 0.86 Female 60 36.28 ±8.74 1.13 Releasing Male 60 36.33 ±8.30 1.07 Female 60 35.33 ±10.72 1.38 Discovering Male 60 38.20 ±6.79 0.88 Female 60 37.78 ±8.73 1.13 Supporting Male 60 40.47 ±5.94 0.77 Female 60 39.42 ±8.67 1.12 157 Table 4.3 shows the group statistics reveal subtle patterns in how female athletes perceived male versus female coaches' behaviors. For directing behavior, male coaches received slightly higher mean scores (M = 39.85, SD = 6.05) compared to female coaches (M = 38.33, SD = 9.16). The lower standard deviation among male coaches suggests greater consistency in directing behaviors and marginally higher satisfaction among female athletes. Similarly, for informing behavior, male coaches demonstrated higher mean scores (M = 40.98, SD = 6.09) compared to female coaches (M = 38.20, SD = 9.04), with lower variability indicating more consistent informing practices. For Challenging behavior, both male and female coaches achieved nearly identical mean scores (M = 36.57 vs. M = 36.28), though male coaches again showed lower standard deviation (SD = 6.69 vs. SD = 8.74), suggesting more predictable challenging behaviors. This pattern continued across Releasing behavior, where male coaches recorded slightly higher means (M = 36.33 vs. M = 35.33) with lower standard deviation (SD = 8.30 vs. SD = 10.72). The higher variability in female coaches' scores indicates that the average may be less reliable due to greater inconsistency. For Discovering behavior, male coaches again showed marginally higher and more consistent scores (M = 38.20, SD = 6.79) compared to female coaches (M = 37.78, SD = 8.73). Finally, for Supporting behavior, male coaches achieved higher mean scores (M = 40.47, SD = 5.94) than female coaches (M = 39.42, SD = 8.67), with lower standard deviation suggesting greater consistency and slightly higher satisfaction in supporting behaviors. Independent t-test samples: Table 4.4 presents the results of independent samples t-tests examining whether the observed Differences in group statistics reach statistical significance. Table 4.4: Independent Samples T-Test Results Note: * indicates significant Levene's test (p < 0.05), suggesting unequal variances; df = degrees of Freedom Table 4.4 shows independent samples t-test analysis revealed that despite the descriptive differences observed in group statistics, none of the coaching behaviors Factor Levene‘s Test for Equality of Variances T-Test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference F Sig. t Directing 91.15 0.003 1.070 Informing 4.72 0.032 1.979 Challenging 2.34 0.129 -0.199 Releasing 3.25 0.074 -0.571 Discovering 1.56 0.214 -0.292 Supporting 5.28 0.023 1.050 158 demonstrated statistically significant differences in satisfaction levels between male and female coaches. All p-values exceeded the conventional threshold of 0.05. Specifically, for Directing behavior, Levene's test indicated significantly different variances (F = 9.15, p = 0.003), yet the t-test showed no significant difference in means (t = 1.070, df = 118, p = 0.287). Challenging behavior (t = -0.199, df = 118, p = 0.842), Releasing behavior (t = -0.571, df = 118, p = 0.569), Discovering behavior (t = -0.292, df = 118, p = 0.771), and Supporting behavior (t = 1.050, df = 118, p = 0.441) all demonstrated non-significant results. Notably, Informing behavior approached statistical significance (t = 1.979, df = 118, p = 0.050), representing a borderline result that merits attention in future research. However, at the conventional alpha level of 0.05, this result remains non-significant. Discussion The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of coaches‘ behaviors on female athletes‘ satisfaction, with a focus on identifying significant differences between male and female coaches‘ behaviors and the corresponding satisfaction levels of their athletes. In addition, the study explored coaches‘ self-assessments to determine whether differences existed between male and female coaches‘ reported behaviors. The discussion is organized around the study‘s hypotheses. H1: Female athletes report higher satisfaction levels with the coaching behaviors of male coaches compared to female coaches. This hypothesis sought to determine whether female athletes‘ satisfaction could be predicted by the behaviors exhibited by male and female coaches. According to Chelladurai and Saleh (1980), coaching effectiveness and athlete satisfaction both strongly influenced by leadership style and situational circumstances. The findings revealed that overall satisfaction levels were similar regardless of the coach‘s gender. However, descriptive statistics indicated slightly higher satisfaction with male coaches, evidenced by higher mean scores and lower standard deviations across most coaching behaviors These results suggest that male coaches demonstrate slightly more consistent coaching behaviors than female coaches as Horn‘s (2008) in his study argues that athletes satisfaction mostly depends on perceived competence and communication rather than coach gender. Moreover, Côté & Gilbert (2009) suggest various proposed definitions, but one of them is about the coach‘s consistency, which can lead to improved athlete performance, competence, confidence, connection, and character in response to their athletes‘ needs or satisfaction. However, this consistency does not translate into statistically significant differences in female athletes‘ satisfaction. Instead, the findings indicate that female athletes are generally satisfied with both male and female coaches, with only minor variations. Group statistics further supported this interpretation, showing slight differences in consistency but no major differences in coaching effectiveness. Thus, the hypothesis was only partially supported, as descriptive results favored male coaches, but inferential analyses confirmed no significant difference. H0: There is no significant difference in the influence of coaching behaviors between male and female coaches on the satisfaction of female athletes. Overall, the findings support the null hypothesis, confirming that there are no statistically significant differences between male and female coaches‘ behaviors or their influence on female athletes‘ satisfaction (Horn, 2002; Frey, Czech, Kent, & Johnson, 2006; Kavussanu, Boardley, Jutkiewicz, Vincent, & Ring, 2008). The near- 159 significance of Informing and Discovering behaviors indicates potential areas for future exploration, as these categories may capture subtle gendered differences in coaching style. According to Lyle and Cushion (2017) and Jowett and Cockerill (2003), their studies align by stating that behavioral styles may vary slightly because both male and female coaches can be equally effective when they promote trust, open communication, and respect. These results strengthen the concepts that effective coaching surpasses gender and relies more heavily on interpersonal, motivational, and instructional qualities (Horn, 2008; Jowett, 2017; Iftakhar et al, 2022). Interpretation and Implications the absence of significant differences suggests that both male and female coaches exhibit broadly comparable behaviors and achieve similar levels of athlete satisfaction. This may reflect standardized coaching programs and shared cultural expectations, which minimize gender-based differences. Additionally, female athletes may prioritize specific behaviors, such as support and guidance, over the gender of the coach. The findings highlight the importance of focusing on effective coaching behaviors valued by athletes, rather than on gender-based assumptions. Institutions should establish mechanisms for athlete feedback to encourage continuous improvement in coaching practices and to strengthen the coach athlete relationship. Limitations and Future Directions This study faced several limitations. The sample size was relatively small, limiting the generalizability of the findings. The geographical scope also constrains the applicability of results to broader populations. Furthermore, self-assessments by coaches may be influenced by bias, while time constraints during data collection could have affected response quality. Despite these limitations, the study provides important insights. The results imply that coaching effectiveness is not inherently tied to gender but rather to specific behaviors. However, given that Directing and Discovering behaviors approached significance, future research should examine these areas in greater depth. Directing behaviors align with authoritative styles, while Discovering behaviors reflect more facilitative approaches. Investigating how these styles influence female athletes‘ satisfaction and performance could enrich the understanding of gender dynamics in coaching. Conclusion This study concludes that there are no statistically significant differences between male and female coaches in self-assessed behaviors or in the satisfaction levels of female athletes. These findings support the null hypothesis and emphasize the need to move beyond gender stereotypes in coaching. Future studies should expand the sample size, broaden the geographic scope, and incorporate athlete performance outcomes alongside satisfaction to provide a more comprehensive perspective on how coaching behaviors shape the athlete experience. References: Allen, J. B., & Howe, B. L. (1998). Player ability, coach feedback, and female adolescent athletes' perceived competence and satisfaction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 280–299. Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2015). Exploring the independent and interactive effects of autonomy-supportive and controlling coaching behaviors on adolescent athletes‘ motivation for sport. Sport, Exercise, and Performance