Female athletes' perceptions of head coaches' communication competence.

Haselwood Denise M. ; Joyner, A. Barry ; Burke, Kevin L. 等

Communication plays a vital role in the world of athletics (Burke, 1997; Burke, 2005; Hardy, Burke, & Crace, In Press). In fact, Wang and Ramsey (1997) claim that the ability to communicate is one of the most critical skills in becoming a successful coach. Coaches must be able to convey their goals and expectations for their team (Shelley & Sherman, 1997) and take into account individual differences among athletes to be able to bring their team together to achieve these goals (Anshel, 1997). Coaches are likely to find themselves in situations where they must motivate athletes, manage conflicts among players on their team, and provide instruction, all of which are facilitated with effective communication skills.

A significant amount of research has been devoted to understanding athletes' preferences for various coaching behaviors, such as whether they favor autocratic or democratic coaching styles, and the type of feedback that works best for them (e.g., Chelladurai & Arnott, 1985; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980; Terry & Howe, 1984). In another study, collegiate coaches rated themselves on their interpersonal communication skills, such as their listening ability, perceived ability to disclose, ability to cope with anger, and ability to handle differences in opinions (Vealey, Armstrong, Comar, & Greenleaf, 1998). Results indicated that a relationship existed between the coaches' lack of ability to communicate and the burnout levels of the athletes on their team. This further demonstrates the critical role of the communication that takes place between coaches and athletes. Additional research has confirmed a relationship between coach-athlete communication and athletic performance (Di Berardinis, Barwind, Flaningam, & Jenkins, 1983). Specifically, coaches and athletes on a women's collegiate track and field team underwent a 36-week training program to develop interpersonal communication skills, and the enhancement of these skills was shown to relate to the coaches' increasingly positive assessments of athletic performances. Therefore, it is evident that communication plays an important part in the coach-athlete relationship and coaches and athletes should strive to become efficient in the sending and receiving of messages to communicate effectively and achieve communication goals.

Communication competence has been described as "the ability to communicate in a personally effective and socially appropriate manner" (Trenholm & Jensen, 1996, p. 11). According to Trenholm and Jensen, a competent communicator is one who is able to communicate effectively in two dimensions. The first dimension is on the surface level, referred to as performative competence, which involves the performance of daily behaviors. The second dimension is referred to as process competence. Process competence involves all the previous knowledge required for effective performance of communication behaviors. Rubin, Martin, Bruning, and Powers (1993) defined interpersonal communication competence as "a person's ability to interact flexibly with others in a dyadic setting so that the communication is seen as appropriate and effective for the context" (p. 210).

Pavitt and Haight (1986) determined the most effective method for studying communication competence is from the perspective of the perceiver. In other words, using a perceiver-oriented approach reflects the individuals' verbal and nonverbal interactions, as opposed to the perceptions of the observer. To measure the perceptions of the receiver in an organizational setting, Monge, Bachman, Dillard and Eisenberg (1981) created the Communicator Competence Questionnaire (CCQ). According to Monge et al., when assessing the competence of others, people use two domains related to the sending and receiving of messages.

Rubin et al. (1993) developed a self-efficacy model of communication using the Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale (ICCS). According to Bandura (1977; 1989), self-efficacy is determined by one's perceptions and influences one's thoughts, goals, level of effort, and self-esteem. Based on this conceptualization, it is assumed that self-efficacy should also influence individuals' perceptions about their ability to communicate with others (Rubin et al.). The initial test of this model revealed that college students' confidence in accomplishing interpersonal goals led to more rewarding communication experiences. Further, self-efficacy predicted self-ratings of interpersonal communication competence, indicating that a relationship does exist between these variables.

Communication plays a critical role in the interactions that take place between coaches and athletes. Specifically, studies have measured the effects of coaches' abilities to communicate on athletes' performances and burnout levels (Di Berardinis, 1983; Vealey et al., 1998). Further, the importance of understanding self-perceptions as well as the perceptions of others has been noted (Trenholm & Jensen, 1996). However, there is a lack of research on whether coaches and their athletes have similar perceptions of the coaches' abilities to communicate.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between head coaches' and athletes' perceptions of the head coaches' communication competence based on Trenholm and Jensen's (1996) view of the competent communicator. Specifically, this study questioned (a) whether there is a significant difference between male and female head coaches' communication competence, (b) whether there is a relationship between head coaches' perceptions of communication competence and the athletes' perceptions of their coaches' communication competence, and if the gender of the coach affects this relationship, and (c) according to the coaches' responses, whether there is a relationship between the dimensions of the CCQ and the SECTS, as well as between the dimensions of the CCQ and the ICCS.

Method

Participants

The participants were male (n=6) and female (n=7) NCAA Division I head coaches and female athletes (n=134) from teams at two universities in the Southeastern United States. The average age of the coaches was 35.62 (SD=9.59) years old. The average total years of coaching experience was 13.87 (SD=8.76) while time employed at the current university ranged from 1 to 24 years.

Female varsity athletes who participated in the study ranged in age from 18 to 23 years and were from the sports of basketball (n=24), volleyball (n=18), softball (n=30), track and field (n=31), tennis (n=7), and soccer (n=23). Seniors and juniors comprised 50.6% of the athletes, and 68.4% of the athletes played for the head coach 2.5 years or less. Further, 39.2% had participated in their respective sport for 10 years or more.

Instrumentation

The 12-item Communicator Competence Questionnaire (CCQ, Monge et al., 1981) was designed to measure sending (encoding) and receiving (decoding) skills. Using all factors and comparing the supervisor competence with subordinate competence, the convergent validity of the original instrument's mean for all coefficients was .73. Reliability for this instrument was not reported.

The Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale (ICCS, Rubin et al., 1993), a self-report 30-item scale, measures 10 dimensions of interpersonal communication competence (immediacy, expressiveness, empathy, altercentrism, supportiveness, social relaxation, environmental control, assertiveness, self-disclosure, and interaction management). The internal consistency and reliability was acceptable ([alpha] = .85) and the dimensions were shown to relate to cognitive and behavioral communication flexibility.

A modified version of the Scale for Effective Communication in Sports Teams (SECTS, Sullivan, 2000) was used to measure specific behaviors of the coach according to three factors: considerate communication (acceptance), close communication (distinctiveness), and angry communication (positive conflict and negative conflict). Sullivan found Cronbach's alphas to be .83, .74, and .76, for each factor respectively.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted to examine the reliability of the instruments in the sport context. The reliability coefficient for the revised CCQ in the pilot study was .71 (n=18). Analysis of the pilot study resulted in a reliability coefficient of .71 for the SECTS (n=18). Therefore, the instruments were deemed reliable for the purposes of this study. Feedback from the athletes and coaches in the pilot study was positive with both groups evaluating the questionnaires positively for the readability and clarity of the directions.

Procedures

After securing permission from Senior Athletic Administrators at each university, the coaches were contacted by e-mail during the beginning of the spring semester to invite them and the athletes from their team to participate. The purpose of the study was presented to the coach and the athletes and a written summary was distributed with the questionnaires. Coaches and athletes were given all three questionnaires, with the understanding that participation in the study was optional. Submitting completed questionnaires was considered consent to participate. Coaches were not present while the athletes completed the inventories, and data were collected from the athletes as a group. All participants were given as much time as needed to complete the questionnaires and were assured that all responses would be kept confidential.

Results

Gender Differences Between Male and Female Coaches

Independent t-tests were performed to determine if any significant gender differences were present. There were no significant differences between male and female head coaches for the encoding and decoding dimensions of the CCQ. According to the ICCS there was a significant difference (t(11) = 2.37, p< .05) between males and females for the dimension of self-disclosure. An analysis of mean scores revealed higher perceptions for female coaches (M = 11.29, SD = 2.17) than male coaches (M = 8.50, SD = 2.17). The dimensions of the ICCS were rank-ordered and revealed that both male and female coaches ranked highest in immediacy and lowest in interaction management. (See Table 4).

Coaches' Perceptions versus Athletes' Perceptions

An analysis of mean scores on the CCQ revealed that coaches perceived their encoding (M = 40.62, SD = 3.55) and decoding (M = 27.92, SD = 4.42) skills as positive. Mean scores of the athletes' perceptions were slightly lower than the coaches' perceptions on the encoding subscale (M = 37.14, SD = 8.09) and the decoding subscale (M = 26.41, SD = 5.50). There was a significant difference (t(26) = 2.88, p< .05) between coaches and athletes on the encoding subscale, however, there was no significant difference for the decoding subscale.

According to the athletes' perceptions, a significant difference existed between male and female coaches on the distinctiveness subscale of the ICCS (t(131) = 3.78, p<.05). An analysis of mean scores on the ICCS indicated higher perceptions for male coaches (M = 11.85, SD = 4.31) than female coaches (M = 9.22, SD = 3.72) on the distinctiveness subscale. There were no other significant gender differences for the other dimensions of the ICCS.

The mean encoding score for male head coaches, as reported by the athletes was 36.50 ([+ or -] 8.18) and 37.69 ([+ or -] 8.02) for female coaches, with the highest possible score being 49. Means for the decoding dimension were 25.82 ([+ or -] 5.35) and 26.92 ([+ or -] 5.79), out of 35 for male and female coaches respectively.

Relationship Between Inventory Dimensions

There were significant positive correlations between the encoding and decoding dimensions (r = .78) reported by head coaches on the CCQ. Decoding had a significant positive correlation to the assertiveness (r = .76) and immediacy (r = .76) subscales of the ICCS. A significant positive relationship was also found between the ICCS domains of expressiveness and environmental control (r = .84) and immediacy and self-disclosure (r = .72), and a moderate positive correlation was shown between immediacy and expressiveness (r = .58). (See Table 1).

Gender-specific correlations revealed significant relationships between several dimensions of the CCQ and ICCS. For male head coaches there were significant positive correlations between encoding and decoding (r = .81), immediacy and self-disclosure (r = .83), and expressiveness and environmental control (r = .93). (See Table 2).

Correlations of dimensions for female head coaches were both positive and negative. There were significant positive relationships between immediacy and decoding (r = .84), self-disclosure and immediacy (r = .80), empathy and immediacy (r = .94), empathy and expressiveness (r = .87), empathy and decoding (r = .76), self-disclosure and expressiveness (r = .80), immediacy and expressiveness (r = .82), and between encoding and decoding (r = .82). Significant negative correlations existed between interaction management and decoding (r = -.78), and interaction management and encoding (r = -.86). (See Table 3).

For male head coaches, there was a significant positive relationship between encoding and decoding (r = .84). Both encoding and decoding dimensions also had significant positive correlations with acceptance (r = .80, r = .70 respectively). (See Table 6).

There was a significant positive relationship between encoding and decoding (r = .78) for female head coaches. Significant negative relationships were present between negative conflict and the dimensions of acceptance (r = -.49) and positive conflict (r = -.41). (See Table 7).

Discussion

The three purposes in this study were to examine (a) the differences between male and female coaches' communication competence, (b) the relationship between coaches' and athletes' perceptions of the coaches' communication competence, and (c) the relationship between the coaches' responses on the dimensions of the inventories.

Gender Differences Between Male and Female Coaches

The only significant gender difference in the coaches' perceptions was on the self-disclosure dimension of the ICCS. Specifically, female coaches scored higher on this subscale, indicating that they are more likely than male coaches are to share personal information with others.

Coaches' Perceptions Versus Athletes' Perceptions

There was a significant difference in the perceptions of coaches and athletes regarding the sending, or encoding, component of communication competence. This finding suggests that these coaches had stronger perceptions, compared to the athletes, that their messages were clear, easy to understand, and that they had a good command of the language (Monge et al., 1981).

There was a significant difference between athletes' perceptions of male and female head coaches on the distinctiveness dimension of the SECTS, suggesting that athletes believe male coaches are more effective than female coaches at being more distinct in their communication to other athletes.

The significant difference between male and female head coaches was found in the distinctiveness component- behaviors related to a shared identity. The results suggested that male head coaches were perceived as more effectively communicating an "inclusive, shared identity" (Sullivan, personal communication, November 4, 2002).

Relationship Among Inventory Dimensions

As stated by Monge et al. (1981) there is a strong correlation between the sending and receiving dimensions of the CCQ. This relationship holds true regardless of the perception from which it is viewed. Coaches who were perceived as being easy to understand and able to clearly express themselves were also perceived as being attentive and good listeners by the athletes and by the coaches own perceptions.

Coaches who perceived themselves as good listeners also perceived themselves as being assertive and demonstrating behaviors of immediacy. The coaches also believed they were self-disclosing, meaning that in interpersonal communicative settings, they are comfortable opening up and revealing personal information. According to Rubin and Martin (1994) self-disclosure is a "critical skill" in interpersonal communication competence.

Examining the perceptions of head coaches by gender, different sets of relationships emerged. For male head coaches a strong relationship between expressiveness and environmental control was present. Male coaches, who perceived themselves as expressing emotions well, both verbally and non-verbally, were also perceived to be skilled at achieving a personal communicative agenda while remaining conscious of the needs of others. This relationship was unique to male head coaches.

Based on the perceptions of the athletes, male head coaches who were perceived as being good at sending clear messages were also perceived as being effective at communicating support and encouragement to the athletes. These relationships present an argument against the stereotype society has of men and the idea that men should not coach women (Andersen, 2002). Young (1990) found that male coaches of female athletes believed that male coaches should be less demanding and more supportive.

Female head coaches reported socially facilitative behaviors as interrelated. The relationships among the dimensions were both positive and negative. The negative relationships were all related to interaction management. A negative relationship existed between receiving and interaction management. This association could be the result of the perceived differences between the role the coach holds in relationships or conversations. When working with athletes, coaches may feel more in control of the situation because of the roles.

Athletes perceived female coaches to be accepting and positive in situations of conflict. In additions, female coaches were rated as being clear "in the sending of messages as well as attentive listeners. In general, athletes viewed female coaches as personable, effective communicators who handle situations of conflict in a positive manner. These results support related findings that female coaches may use a more participatory leadership style (Chelladurai & Arnott, 1985).

Future studies may delve into the attitudes, communication styles or the expectations of coaches or athletes. Attitude and communicator style and expectations of the observer have been shown to impact the perceived communication competence of the communicator (Eadie & Paulson, 1984; Pavia, 1989). The context of the situation and the norms involved also may impact the perceptions of communication competence (Trenholm & Rose, 1981).

There are many components of team dynamics that may play a part in the sending and receiving of messages. Future investigations should attempt to focus on communication parameters that may play important roles in sport communication.

References

Andersen, Mark B. (2002). Helping college student-athletes in and out of sport. In Van Raalte, & Brewer (Eds.), Exploring Exercise and Sport Psychology (pp. 373-393). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Burke, K. L. (In Press). Dealing with Coach and Team Communication Quagmires. In Mark B. Andersen (Ed.), Practicing sport psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Burke, K. L. (1997). Communication in sports: Research and practice. Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Physical Education, 2, 39-52.

Chelladurai, P., & Arnott, M. (1985). Decision styles in coaching: Preferences of basketball players. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56, 15-24.

Chelladurai, P. & Saleh, S.D. (1980). Dimensions of leadership behavior in sorts: Development of a leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34-45.

Di Berardinis, J., Barwind, J., Flaningam, R. R., & Jenkins, V. (1983). Enhanced interpersonal relation as predictor of athletic performance. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 14, 243-251.

Duran, R. L., & Zakahi, W. R. (1988). The influence of communicative competence upon room mate satisfaction. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 135-146.

Eadie, W. F., Paulson, J. W. (1984). Communicator attitudes, communicator style, and communication competence. The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 48, 390-407.

Hardy, C. J., Burke, K. L., Crace, R. K. (2005). Coaching: An Effective communication system. In Shane Murphy (Ed.), Breakthrough Sport Psychology. (pp. 191-212),Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1981). Communicator competence in the workplace: Model testing and scale development. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 5 (pp. 505-527). New Brunswick, NJ: International Communication Association.

Pavitt, C. (1989). Accounting for the process of communicative competence evaluation: A comparison of predictive models. Communication Research, 16, 405-433.

Pavitt, C., & Haight, L. (1986). Implicit theories of communicative competence: Situational and competence level differences in judgments of prototype and target. Communication Monographs, 53, 221-235.

Rubin, R. B., Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of interpersonal communication competence. Communication Research Reports, 11, 33-44.

Rubin, R. B., Martin, M. M., Bruning, S. S., & Powers, D. E. (1993). Test of a self-efficacy model of interpersonal communication. Communication Quarterly, 41, 210-220.

Shelley, G.A. & Sherman, C.P. (1997). Communication in coaching and athletics: Guidelines to promote successful interactions. Applied Research in Coaching and Athletics Annual, 12, 109-129.

Sullivan, P. J. (2000). The preliminary development and validation of the effective communication in sport scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Terry, P. & Howe, B. (1984). Coaching preferences of athletes. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 9, 188-193.

Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (1996). Interpersonal Communication (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Trenholm, S., & Rose, T. (1981). The compliant communicator: Teacher perceptions of appropriate classroom behavior. The Western Journal of Speech Communication. 45, 13-26.

Vealey, R.S., Armstrong, L., Comar, W., & Greenleaf, C.A. (1998). Influence of perceived coaching behaviors on burnout and competitive anxiety in female college athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 297-318.

Wang, J. & Ramsey, J. (1997). Interpersonal communication--Overcoming barriers and improving coach and athlete relationships. Journal of the International Council for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport, and Dance, 34, 35-37.

Young, J. (1990). Comparisons of leader style, behaviors, and effectiveness of male and female coaches. Psychology and Sociology of Sport: Vol. 4 (pp. 221-234). NY: AMS Press.

Address Correspondence To: Kevin L. Burke, Ph.D.. Dept. of Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Sciences, Box 70654, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN 37614-1701. Phone: 423-439-4362, Email: burkek@etsu.edu

Denise M. Haselwood and A. Barry Joyner

Georgia Southern University

Kevin L. Burke

East Tennessee State University

Chris B. Geyerman, Daniel R. Czech, Barry A. Munkasy and A. Drew Zwald

Georgia Southern University Table 1 Overall Coach Correlations En De SD Em Encoding 1.0 1.0 .23 .47 Decoding .78 * 1.0 .52 .51 Self- .23 .52 1.0 .14 Empathy .47 .51 .14 1.0 Social .18 .26 .35 .01 Assertiveness .43 .76 ** .22 .29 Interaction -.52 -.25 .44 -.21 Altercentrism -.23 -.17 .37 -.05 Expressiveness .50 .42 .34 .54 Supportiveness -.09 .21 .20 -.11 Immediacy .54 .76 ** .72 ** .45 Environmental .57 * .33 .05 .45 SR Assert IM Alter Encoding .18 .43 -.52 -.23 Decoding .26 .76 ** -.25 -.17 Self- .35 .22 .44 .37 Empathy .01 .29 -.21 -.05 Social 1.0 .20 .18 .40 Assertiveness .20 1.0 -.20 -.18 Interaction .18 -.20 1.0 .53 Altercentrism .40 -.18 .53 1.0 Expressiveness .13 .15 .14 .37 Supportiveness .10 .08 .17 .09 Immediacy .18 .40 .05 .33 Environmental .34 .26 -.06 .18 Ex Supp Immed EC Encoding .50 -.09 .54 .57 * Decoding .42 .21 .76 * .33 Self- .34 .20 .72 ** .05 Empathy .54 -.11 .45 .45 Social .13 .10 .18 .34 Assertiveness .15 .08 .40 .26 Interaction .14 .17 .05 -.06 Altercentrism .37 .09 .33 .18 Expressiveness 1.0 .16 .58 * .84 *** Supportiveness .16 1.0 .33 -.01 Immediacy .58 * .33 1.0 .24 Environmental .84 *** -.01 .24 1.0 * P<.05: ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 2 Male Coach Correlations En De SD Em Encoding 1.0 .81 * .32 .16 Decoding .81 * 1.00 .28 .22 Self-Disclosure .32 .28 1.0 -.52 Empathy .16 .22 -.52 1.0 Social Relaxation .26 .08 .67 -.23 Assertiveness .39 .76 -.04 .68 Interaction Management -.14 .06 .61 .12 Altercentrism -.10 -.15 .80 -.32 Expressiveness .78 .57 .45 .42 Supportiveness .69 .67 .28 -.37 Immediacy .52 .68 .83 -.23 Environmental Control .69 .38 .17 .58 SR Assert IM Alter Encoding .26 .39 -.14 -.10 Decoding .08 .76 .06 -.15 Self-Disclosure .67 -.04 .61 .80 Empathy -.23 .68 .12 -.32 Social Relaxation 1.0 -.13 .48 .41 Assertiveness -.13 1.0 .34 -.13 Interaction Management .48 .34 1.0 .79 Altercentrism .41 -.13 .79 1.0 Expressiveness .43 .47 .39 .33 Supportiveness -.16 .11 -.43 -.16 Immediacy .30 .42 .54 .59 Environmental Control .38 .36 .23 .13 Ex Supp Immed EC Encoding .78 .70 .52 .69 Decoding .57 .67 .68 .38 Self-Disclosure .45 .28 .83 .18 Empathy .42 -.37 -.23 .58 Social Relaxation .43 -.16 .30 .38 Assertiveness .47 .11 .43 .36 Interaction Management .39 -.43 .54 .23 Altercentrism .33 -.16 .59 .13 Expressiveness 1.00 .20 .55 .93 ** Supportiveness .20 1.00 .54 .00 Immediacy .55 .54 1.00 .21 Environmental Control .93 .00 .21 1.0 * p<.05; **p<01; ***p<.001 Table 3 Female Coach Correlations En De SD Em Encoding 1.0 .82 * .27 .63 Decoding .82 * 1.0 .62 .76 * Self-Disclosure .27 .62 1.0 .75 Empathy .63 .76 * .75 1.0 Social Relaxation .20 .21 -.03 .13 Assertiveness .48 .75 .23 .17 Interaction Management -.86 ** -.78 * -.07 -.33 Altercentrism -.37 -.16 .22 .14 Expressiveness .20 .45 .80 * .87 ** Supportiveness -.50 -.10 -.03 .03 Immediacy .58 .84 * .80 * .94 ** Environment Control .57 .53 .06 .50 SR Assert IM Alter Encoding .20 .48 -.86 ** -.37 Decoding .21 .75 -.78 * -.16 Self-Disclosure -.02 .23 -.07 .22 Empathy .13 .17 -.33 .14 Social Relaxation 1.0 .21 -.19 .62 Assertiveness .21 1.0 -.73 -.21 Interaction Management -.19 -.73 1.0 .56 Altercentrism .62 -.21 .56 1.0 Expressiveness .19 -.10 .11 .48 Supportiveness .05 .00 .32 .34 Immediacy .11 .37 -.44 .04 Environment Control .85 * .31 -.48 .36 Ex Supp Immed EC Encoding .20 -.50 .58 .57 Decoding .45 -.12 .84 * .53 Self-Disclosure .80 * -.03 .80 * .06 Empathy .87 ** .03 .94 ** .50 Social Relaxation .19 .05 .11 .85 * Assertiveness -.10 .00 .37 .31 Interaction Management .11 .32 -.44 -.48 Altercentrism .48 .34 .04 .36 Expressiveness 1.01 .28 .82 * .36 Supportiveness .28 1.0 .17 .07 Immediacy .82 * .17 1.0 .44 Environment Control .36 .07 .44 1.0 * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 4 Gender Rankings of ICCS Domains Male Mean SD Immediacy 12.0 1.79 Expressiveness 11.0 2.45 Empathy 10.83 0.98 Altercentrism 10.67 1.50 Supportiveness 10.50 0.84 Social Relaxation 10.17 0.75 Environment Control 10.00 2.10 Assertiveness 9.50 1.05 Self-Disclosure 8.50 * 2.17 Interaction Manage 8.50 0.84 Female Mean SD Immediacy 12.36 1.60 Self-Disclosure 11.29 * 2.06 Social Relaxation 11.29 1.70 Supportiveness 10.93 1.17 Empathy 10.57 1.40 Altercentrism 10.43 1.33 Expressiveness 10.43 1.33 Assertiveness 10.00 1.41 Environment Control 9.71 0.76 Interaction Manage 9.43 0.98 * p<.05 Table 5 SECTS and CCQ Correlations for All Coaches Accept Distinct Pos. Confl. Acceptance 1.0 .17 .85 *** Distinctiveness .17 1.0 .16 Positive Conflict .85 *** .16 1.0 Negative Conflict -.11 .29 *** -.05 Encoding .77 *** .04 .69 *** Decoding .69 *** -.04 .62 *** Neg Confl. Enc. Dec. Acceptance -.11 .77 *** .69 *** Distinctiveness .29 *** .04 -.04 Positive Conflict -.05 .69 *** .62 *** Negative Conflict 1.0 -.24 ** -.25 ** Encoding -.24 ** 1.0 .81 *** Decoding -.25 ** .81 *** 1.0 * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 6 SECTS and CCQ Correlations for Male Coaches Accept. Distinct. Pos. Confl. Acceptance 1.0 .26 * .80 *** Distinctiveness .26 * 1.0 .23 Positive Conflict .80 *** .23 1.0 Negative Conflict .27 * .30 * .34 ** Encoding .80 *** .12 .68 *** Decoding .70 *** .05 .59 *** Neg. Confl. Enc. Dec. Acceptance .27 * .80 *** .70 *** Distinctiveness .30 * .12 .05 Positive Conflict .34 ** .68 *** .59 *** Negative Conflict 1.0 .07 .01 Encoding .07 1.0 .84 *** Decoding .01 .84 *** 1.0 * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001 Table 7 SECTS and CCQ Correlations for Female Coaches Accept. Distinct. Pos. Confl. Acceptance 1.0 .08 .88 *** Distinctiveness .08 1.0 .10 Positive Conflict .88 *** .10 1.0 Negative Conflict -.41 *** .32 *** -.41 *** Encoding .76 *** .01 .65 *** Decoding .70 *** .05 .65 *** Neg. Confl. Enc. Dec. Acceptance -.49 *** .76 *** .70 *** Distinctiveness .32 ** .01 -.05 Positive Conflict -.41 *** .72 *** .65 *** Negative Conflict 1.0 -.60 ** -.56 *** Encoding -.60 ** 1.0 .78 *** Decoding -.56 *** .78 *** 1.0 * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001