USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
APA Syle 12point font double spaced 3 pages ( so thats only a page and half 🙂 Only use the article enclosed, no outside sources .. JUST USE THE ARTICLE and cite from that article only.
Intro, Body, Conclusion syle you can use your opinion and knowledge of the area and cite the article approiatately
Journal of Applied Psychology
1979, Vol. 64, No. 4,
391
-400
Scrutinizing the Skipper:
A Study of Leadership Behaviors in the Dugout
Bill Curtis
General Electric Company
Arlington, Virginia
Ronald E. Smith and Frank L. Smoll
University of Washington
The Coaching Behavior Assessment System was used by trained observers to
classify the behaviors of coaches toward their players into 12 categories. Sam-
ples of 51 and 31 coaches in a boys’ baseball program were observed during
the 1976 and 1977 seasons, respectively. Players were interviewed at the end
of the season concerning perceptions of their coach’s behaviors and attitudes
toward their experience. Significant relationships were found at the team level
among coaching behaviors as recorded by observers and perceived by players.
The degree of punitiveness was an important factor in these relationships. Be-
havioral data provided by observers and players also related significantly to
the won-lost record and team attitudes toward both the coach and team. Per-
ceptions of their own behavior by coaches were unrelated to the data provided
by observers and players.
A controversial issue surrounding organized
sports programs for children concerns how a
coach’s behavior affects the experience of
players. For example, coaches are often ac-
cused of overemphasizing the importance of
winning to the detriment of their players’ en-
joyment of sports. Although the public media
focuses attention on this topic, little scientific
The research culminating in this report was sup-
ported in part by Grant MH-24248 from the Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health to Ronald E.
Smith, principal investigator. Portions of the data
reported here were presented at the annual meet-
ings of the American Psychological Association in
San Francisco (August 1977) and Toronto (August
1978). Work from which this report was drawn was
performed while Bill Curtis was a research assis-
tant professor at the University of Washington.
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance
and
support of H. E. Pohlman (District Administrator,
Washington District 8, Little League Baseball, Inc.).
We also recognize the contributions of our col-
league Earl Hunt in the design of this research,
of our research assistants David Coppel, Samuel
Clarke, and Nolan Zane in data collection and
analysis, and of Allan Jones in commenting on a
previous draft.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Bill
Curtis, Software Management Research, General
Electric-ISP, Suite 200, 1755 Jefferson Davis High-
way, Arlington, Virginia 2 2 2 0 2 .
evidence is available concerning the impact
of coaching behaviors on children (Smith &
Smoll, 1978).
Studying interactions between coaches and
players holds implications not only for the
psychology of sports, but also for the field of
leader-group relations. In fact, sports offer
an excellent setting for studying the behaviors
of leaders. Ilgen and Fujii (1976) stressed
the importance of field studies relating group
performance and morale to behavioral data on
leaders. They suggested that ‘both the greater
importance of a leader’s behavior to subordi-
nates and the increased time for interactions
may produce stronger relationships in a field
setting than have been obtained in the lab-
oratory.
To study coach-player interactions, Smith,
Smoll, and Hunt (1977b) developed the
Coaching Behavior Assessment System
(CBAS). Using this system, trained observers
can record the ongoing behaviors of
coaches
into one of 12 categories. These categories
are divided into two classes, reactive behaviors
(responses to a player’s behavior) and spon-
taneous behaviors (self-initiated responses,
not requiring prior activity by a player).
Coaching behaviors are distinguished partly
Copyright 1979 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0021-9010/79/6404-0391$00.75
391
392 B. CURTIS, R. SMITH, AND F. SMOLL
in terms of events immediately preceding the
behavior because the situational context sur-
rounding interactions between coaches and
players presumably sets the stage for the psy-
chological effect of the behavior.
In a mediational model of leadership in
athletic situations, Smoll, Smith, Curtis, and
Hunt (1978) proposed that the effect of
coaching behaviors on team attitudes is de-
termined by how players perceive these be-
haviors. That is, the effects of coaching behav-
iors are mediated by the meaning
players
attribute to them. For instance, players may
respond not only to the informational content
of technical instruction, but also to some
message a coach unwarily communicates
through the manner or timing of such instruc-
tion. Thus, players’ attitudes should be more
closely related to their perceptions of a
coach’s behavior than to his actual behavior.
This mediational approach is more than a
recursive causal model, however, since it al-
lows for reciprocal interactions among relevant
variables (Heise, 1975). Significant relation-
ships may indicate not only that coaching
behaviors affect team performance or morale
but also that the subsequent behaviors of the
coach may be influenced by these outcomes.
In this study, behavioral data on Little
League Baseball coaches were obtained from
trained observers, players, and the coaches
themselves. In addition, data were collected
on won-lost records and players’ attitudes
toward their experience. Data were collected
over two seasons, allowing a replication of
the first year’s results. These data also al-
lowed a field replication of the results ob-
tained by Ilgen and Fujii (1976) in a lab-
oratory simulation concerning different sources
of information on leader behavior.
Method
Sample
Coaches of Little League Baseball teams in the
Seattle area were studied during the 1976 and 1977
seasons. The 1976 sample consisted of 51 male
coaches who had given their permission to be ob-
served during league games, and 542 of their play-
ers (all boys) who were available for interviews
at the close of the season. Of the 64 coaches
originally contacted, 13 did not give permission to
be observed. The coaches studied had from 0 to 17
years of coaching experience (M = 6.8, SZ) = 4.3).
The S42 boys (8-15 years of age) constituted 83%
of the players on the 51 teams. Most of the un-
interviewed boys were on vacation or had moved
after the season. Fewer than \% were not given
permission by their parents to be interviewed. The
51 teams were drawn from three levels of compe-
tition separated by age: minors (8-9 years), ma-
jors (10-12 years), and seniors (13-15 years).
The 1977 sample was limited to teams in the
majors and seniors divisions. All 31 coaches from
the leagues selected were observed, 19 of whom had
been included in 1976 sample. These coaches had
from 0 to 22 years of coaching experience (M =
8.3, SD-6A). From these 31 teams, 325 boys
were interviewed at the close of the season (82%
of all players).
Coaching Behavior Assessment System
The CBAS, designed by Smith et al. ( 1 9 7 7 b ) ,
is a data collection technique that permits the
classification of coaching behaviors into 12 cate-
gories. These categories are divided between reac-
tive behaviors (responses to good performance,
mistakes, or misbehaviors) and spontaneous be-
haviors (self-initiated responses that may be rele-
vant or irrelevant to the game). The organization
of the 12 CBAS behaviors is presented in Table 1.
Undergraduate research assistants (31 in 1976
and 18 in 1977) completed an audiovisual training
sequence (Smith, Smoll, Hunt, & Clarke, 1976) that
taught them how to collect CBAS data as observers.
A subsequent reliability study of the CBAS, using
19 of the 1976 observers, yielded an average inter-
observer reliability of .88 (Smith, Smoll, & Hunt,
1977a). In using the CBAS, observers positioned
themselves behind the team bench, where the coach
could be heard and seen clearly. From the opening
pitch to the final out, the observer recorded every
behavior the coach directed toward players into
one of the 12 CBAS categories.
Each coach was observed for from three to six
games, with approximately 280 behaviors being
coded during each game. A behavioral profile was
formulated for each coach as follows: (a) for each
game, the frequency of each behavioral category
was divided by the total number of behaviors
coded for that game, yielding a proportion for each
category, and (b) the proportions for each category
were then averaged across games to create the
average proportion of behaviors belonging to each
category. These proportions are reported as per-
centages.
Player Perceptions and Attitudes
At the conclusion of each season, trained under-
graduate research assistants who had not partici-
pated as observers went to the home of each player
COACHING BEHAVIORS 393
Table 1
The Coaching Behavior Assessment System
Behavior Definition
Responses to desirable performance
Reinforcement
Nonreinforcement
Responses to mistakes
Encouragement after a mistake
Technical instruction after a mistake
Punishment
Punitive technical instruction
Ignoring a mistake
Response to mis
behavior
Keeping control
Reactive behaviors
A positive, rewarding reaction (verbal or nonverbal) to a good
play or good effort
Failure to respond to a good performance
A positive, consoling reaction to a player following a mistake
Instructing a player how to correct a mistake he has just made
A negative reaction, verbal or nonverbal, following a mistake
Technical instruction, following a mistake, that is given in a
harsh or sarcastic manner
Failure to respond to a player mistake
Reactions intended to restore or maintain order among team
members
Game related
General technical instruction
General encouragement
Organization
Game irrelevant
General communication
Spontaneous behaviors
Spontaneous instruction in the techniques and strategies of the
sport (not following a mistake)
Spontaneous encouragement that does not follow a mistake
Administrative behavior that sets the stage for play by as-
signing duties, responsibilities, positions, etc.
Interactions with players unrelated to the game
and conducted a structured interview. The inter-
view began by giving the player a description and
examples of each of the 12 CBAS behavioral cate-
gories. The player was then asked to indicate how
often his coach engaged in each of the 12 behav-
iors on a scale from 1 (never) to 7 (almost al-
ways). Later in the interview, the player answered
10 questions about his attitudes toward his coach,
team, and baseball, again measured on a 7-point
scale (least favorable to most favorable).
Scores from the 10 attitudinal items measured
during 1976 were entered into a factor analysis
(Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1978), and two factors
emerged reflecting players’ feelings toward the
coach and toward the team. Based on this analysis,
attitudinal criteria were developed by summing
intercorrelated items into two composites: (a)
attitude toward the coach—How much did you like
playing for your coach? How much would you like
having the same coach again next year? How much
do you like your coach? How much do your par-
ents like your coach? How much does your coach
like you? How much does your coach know about
baseball?, (b) attitude toward the team—How
well did the players on your team get along? How
well did you like the other players on your team?
Lower bound estimates of internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha) for these two composites were
.94 and .86, respectively.
Based on the 1976 results, a reduced set of items
was chosen for use in 1977. Attitudes toward the
coach were measured by Items 1, 2, 6, and a new
item concerning how good the coach was at teach-
ing baseball. Attitudes toward the team were mea-
sured by Item 7.
Team perceptions of the 12 CBAS behaviors and
team attraction toward each coach and team were
computed as average scores on the appropriate
measures across members of each team. In aggre-
gating data to the team level, we are not trying
to minimize the importance of studying the effect
of coaching behavior on individual players. How-
ever, limitations inherent in this field study re-
stricted our ability to collect data at the individual
player level. That is, the speed with which coaching
behaviors had to be recorded limited the observer’s
ability to identify and record the player toward
which the behavior was directed, and many be-
haviors were directed toward groups of players.
Coach Selj’-Perceptions
As part of a larger questionnaire on coaching
philosophy, coaches were asked to indicate how
frequently they engaged in each of the 12 CBAS
behaviors. These responses were made on the same
7-point scale used by the players (never to almost
always).
394 B. CURTIS, R. SMITH, AND F. SMOLL
Analysis
The initial analyses investigated the extent to
which coaching behaviors were stable over time,
and whether observers, players, and coaches agreed
on their perceptions of these behaviors. The next
phase involved correlating observed behaviors and
ratings of the 12 CBAS categories by players and
coaches with team attitudes toward the coach and
team and the won-lost record. In addition, multiple
regressions were performed to determine the extent
to which these criteria were related to behavioral
data provided by observers, players, and coaches.
The multiple correlations reported represent step-
wise results in which only variables contributing
significantly to the overall prediction (significant b
weights) were entered into the analysis. Squared
multiple correlations, adjusted to account for the
number of cases and predictors (Theil, 1971), are
also reported.
Results
Analyses of Behavioral Data
Means. Data presented in Table 2 indicate
that the behaviors most frequently observed
across all coaches during both years were gen-
eral technical instruction, general encourage-
ment, and reinforcement. The least frequently
observed behaviors were keeping control, pun-
ishment, and punitive technical instruction,
each accounting for no more than 2% of total
game behaviors. The mean profiles of coach-
ing behaviors provided by players and coaches
were similar to each other across both years.
Both coaches and players perceived coaches
as engaging in punishment, punitive technical
instruction, nonreinforcement, and ignoring
mistakes less often than other behaviors.
Means for these four behaviors typically fell
below 3.6 on a 7-point ‘scale compared to
means above 4.1 for other behaviors.
Consistency. Table 2 also presents corre-
lations between 1976 and 1977 observed,
player-perceived, and self-rated behavioral
data for the 19 coaches who were studied
during both years. Significant correlations
were obtained on 7 of the 12 observed cate-
gories and were largest for punitive behaviors
and general encouragement. Fewer significant
correlations occurred between 1976 and 1977
Table 2
Means for Observed, Player-Perceived, and Self-Rated Behaviors and Correlations Between 1976
and 1977 Results for Coaches Appearing in Both Samples
Observed
M
Behavior
Reinforcement
Nonreinforcement
Encouragement after
mistakes
Technical instruction
after mistakes
Punishment
Punitive technical
instruction
Ignoring mistakes
Keeping control
General technical
instruction
General encouragement
Organization
General communication
1976
(51)
17.1
4.2
3.1
4.2
1.8
1.0
3.7
1.7
27.4
21.3
8.4
6.1
1977
(31)
23.7
3.1
3.9
3.3
1.6
.8
1.7
1.3
22.7
30.8
4.8
2.8
r
(19)
.36
.50*
.40*
.50*
.64**
.68**
.09
.37
.44*
.73**
.32
.11
Player perceived
M
1976
(51)
5.31
2.71
5.24
5.32
2.51
2.71
2.89
5.37
5.33
5.67
5.63
4.68
1977
(31)
5.53
2.65
5.56
4.91
2
.29
2.41
2.80
5.11
4.84
6
.04
5.71
4.32
r
(19)
.26
–
.19
.44*
.35
.76**
.65**
.23
–
.02
.11
.38
.14
.35
Self-rated
M
1976
(50)
6.56
1′.96
5.82
5.90
3
.00
4
.08
3
.28
5.78
6.02
6.46
5.90
4.74
1977
(30)
6
.07
1.93
5
.10
6.23
3.53
3.60
2
.77
5.50
5.50
4.93
5.70
4
.17
r
(19)
.14
.52*
.32
.42*
.46*
.58**
–
.16
.27
-.14
.37
.33
.09
Note. Means for observed behaviors represent percentages, whereas means for player-perceived and self-
rated behaviors represent responses on a 7-point scale. Numbers in parentheses are ns.
*p < .05.
**p< .01.
COACHING BEHAVIORS 395
Table 3
Correlations Among Observers’, Coaches’, and Players’ Behavioral Data
Observers
Behavior
Reinforcement
Nonreinforcement
Encouragement after
mistakes
Technical instruction
after mistakes
Punishment
Punitive technical
instruction
Ignoring mistakes
Keeping control
General technical
instruction
General encouragement
Organization
General communication
and
1976
(SI)
.38**
.14
.37**
.31*
.54**
.45**
.06
-.08
–
.03
.05
-.11
.26*
players
1977
(31)
.29
.12
-.07
.03
.59**
.46**
.28
-.06
–
.30*
.21
-.06
.26
Observers
and
1976
(50)
.19
.21
.01
.19
.45**
.13
-.02
-.02
.05
.03
-.07
.10
coaches
1977
(30)
.13
.02
.35*
.01
.17
.27
-.08
.05
.21
.12
-.07
-.03
Players
and
1976
(50)
-.04
.20
.23
.06
.26*
.06
.23
.20
.01
.09
.22
.14
coaches
1977
(30)
.00
.13
.13
.18
.53**
.25
.23
.28
-.05
.09
.13
.31*
Note. Numbers in parentheses are ns.
* p < .05.
**p < .01.
Table 4
Correlations of Behavioral Categories With Attitude Toward the Coach
Behavior
Reinforcement
Nonreinforcement
Encouragement after
mistakes
Technical instruction
after mistakes
Punishment
Punitive technical
instruction
Ignoring mistakes
Keeping control
General technical
instruction
General encouragement
Organization
General communication
R
Adjusted K>
Observed
1976
(51)
.20
.09
.08
.08
-.02
-.10
.01
-.31*
.16
-.11
.12
-.47’**
.47**
.22
behavior
1977
(31)
.05
.05
-.13
.10
-.26
-.21
.18
-.33″*
-.27
.22
-.08
.32’*
.46*
.16
Team perceptions
1976
(51)
.17
-.07
.33*
.31*
-.27
-.40″**
.16
.21
.42″**
.39**
.28*
-.03
.54**
.30
1977
(31)
.43**
-.48**
.68**
.41**
-.64’**
-.61**
-.25
.16
.52**
.64″**
.70″**
.47**
.89**
.76
Coach self-rating
1976
(SO)
.00
.01
.13
-.06
-.02
-.20
-.19
-.02
-.02
-.14
.05
,29»*
.29*
.08
1977
(30)
.13
.19
.20
.03
-.14
.05
.05
-.17
.30
.02
.02
.19
Note. Numbers in parentheses are ns.
• This category was entered into the multiple regression analysis.
* p < .05.
**p < .01.
396 B. CURTIS, R. SMITH, AND F. SMOLL
scores on player-perceived and self-rated
coaching behaviors, and these correlations oc-
curred primarily for punitive behaviors. Thus,
although there was some consistency in the
frequency of observed behaviors across years,
players and coaches were most aware of this
consistency in punitive behaviors.
Intersource agreement. Correlations repre-
senting intersource agreement on each of the
12 behaviors among observers, players, and
coaches are presented in Table 3. During 1976
there was agreement on 6 of the 12 behavioral
categories in the data provided by observers
and players. These categories involved pri-
marily reinforcement and reactions to mis-
takes. During 1977, however, this agreement
was limited primarily to punitive behaviors.
With the exception of punishment, there was
little agreement between perceptions of their
own behavior by coaches and the data pro-
vided by observers and players.
Relationships With Criteria
Attitude toward the coach. Correlations
of the team’s attitude toward the coach with
observed behaviors, team perceptions, and self-
ratings by the coach on the 12 CBAS cate-
gories are presented for both samples in Table
4. Adjusted R2 values indicated that the
largest percentage of variance in team attitude
toward the coach was related to team percep-
tions of behavior, especially during 1977
( 7 6 % ) . During 1977, correlations for team
perceptions of all but two CBAS categories
achieved significance. Among observer data,
keeping control correlated negatively with at-
titudes toward the coach during both years.
Although significant relationships were also
obtained for observed general communication
during both years, the direction of the rela-
tionship differed from one year to the next.
Inspection of scatterplots indicated that the
1976 result was accounted for entirely by two
coaches in the youngest league with extreme
scores on general communication. Little rela-
tionship was obtained for coach self-ratings
during either year.
Attitude toward the team. Table 5 pre-
sents correlations of intrateam attraction with
the behavioral data on coaches for both sam-
Table 5
Correlations of Behavioral Categories With Attitudes Toward the Team
Observed behavior Team perceptions
Note. Numbers in parentheses are ns.
» This category was entered into the multiple regression analysis.
*p < .05. **p < .01.
Coach self-rating
Behavior
Reinforcement
Nonreinforcement
Encouragement after
mistakes
Technical instruction
after mistakes
Punishment
Punitive technical
instruction
Ignoring mistakes
Keeping control
General technical
instruction
General encouragement
Organization
General communication
R
Adjusted R1
1976
(51)
.30*
.07
.07
.07
.04
-.14
.03
-.23*
.01
-.09
.15
–
.43″**
.43**
.18
1977
(31)
.08
-.05
-.29
-.27
-.34*
_.44a**
.07
-.59″**
-.09
.26″
-.31*
.44″**
.85**
.68
1976
(51)
.17
-.10
.04
.12
-.23
-.33*
-.08
.15
.15
.43″**
.07
-.12
.43**
.18
1977
(31)
.44**
-.47**
.69″**
.21
-.54**
-.45**
.01*
.12«
.37*
.55″**
.46**
.58″**
.90**
.77
1976
(50)
-.02
-.02
.01
.07
-.08
-.26
-.02
-.04
-.02
-.11
.08
.05
1977
(30)
.14
-.08
.15
-.07
-.12
-.10
.00
-.29
.37’*
-.06
-.02
.15
.37*
.14
COACHING BEHAVIORS 397
Table 6
Correlations of Behavioral Categories With the Won-Lost Record
Observed behavior Team perceptions
Note. Numbers in parentheses are ns.
» This category was entered into the multiple regression analysis.
*p < .05. ** p < .01.
Coach self-rating
Behavior
Reinforcement
Nonreinforcennent
Encouragement after
mistakes
Technical instruction
after mistakes
Punishment
Punitive technical
instruction
Ignoring mistakes
Keeping control
General technical
instruction
General encouragement
Organization
General communication
R
Adjusted R2
1976
(51)
.08
.27″*
-.09
-.14
-.35’**
-.20
-.08″
-.01
.06
-.11
.02
.06
.51**
.26
1977
(31)
-.01
.07
-.15
-.31″*
-.37*
-.32*
-.32*
-.42″**
-.19
.38*
-.24
.16
.52*
.22
1976
(51)
.44″**
–
.34**
.40**
.29*
-.42″**
-.31*
-.08
.08
.18
.36**
.20
.09
.52**
.27
1977
(31)
.18
-.17
.34**
.14
-.53s**
-.45**
-.12
.09
.20
.35*
.37*
.51″**
.63**
.35
1976
(SO)
.15
-.02
.33″**
.17
-.32*
.19
-.04
.07
.11
.02
.02
.07
.33**
.11
1977
{30)
.11
.11
.20
.02
-.30
-.30
.04
-.04
.16
-.11
-.01
.14
pies. These results were similar to those pre-
sented for team attitude toward the coach.
That is, significant correlations were obtained
for player ratings of most CBAS categories
during 1977. The 1976 results, however, were
not as strong. Among observed behaviors, the
correlations for keeping control and general
communication with intrateam attraction were
almost identical to those obtained with team
attitude toward the coach. During 1977, how-
ever, additional negative relationships were
obtained for punitive behaviors and organiza-
tion. Adjusted R- values indicated that during
1977, substantial variance in intrateam attrac-
tion was related to both observed behaviors
and team perceptions (68% and 77%, respec-
tively). Results for coach self-ratings were
generally weak.
Team performance. Correlations of the
team’s won-lost record with behavioral data
for both samples are presented in Table 6.
Coaches of losing teams in the 1977 sample
were observed engaging in proportionately
more reactions to player mistakes and mis-
behaviors than were winning coaches. As seen
by their players, coaches of losing teams were
more punitive toward mistakes, whereas
coaches of winning teams were more reinforc-
ing and engaged in more spontaneous behav-
iors. Adjusted R2 values indicated that
slightly more variance in won-lost records
was related to team perceptions than to ob-
served behavior. Again, correlations for coach
self-ratings were weak.
Moderate similarities in the correlations of
behavioral data both with won-lost records
and team attitudes suggested a possible rela-
tionship among these criteria. As is apparent
Table 7
Correlations of the Won-Lost Record With
Attitudes Toward the Coach and Team
Group Coach Team
1976 sample8
Minors’1
Majors and seniors”
1977 sample11
.26*
.15
.40*
.50**
.15
.07
.28
.59**
•» = 51. b n = 23. “r
*p < .05. **p< .01.
28. d w = 31.
398 B. CURTIS, R. SMITH, AND F. SMOLL
in Table 7, there was a modest relationship
between the won-lost record and team atti-
tudes toward the coach in the 1976 sample,
but stronger relationships were evident in the
1977 results. When the 1976 sample was
separated into divisions, the won-lost record
was correlated with team attitude toward the
coach in the older major and senior divisions,
but not in the minors. Although relationships
among criteria differed across divisions in the
1976 sample, few differences occurred across
divisions in relationships between behavioral
data and the criteria.
Discussion
The data reported here demonstrated and
replicated relationships between data on
coaching behaviors and team performance and
morale. Some of these relationships replicated
the laboratory findings of Ilgen and Fujii
(1976) relating behavioral data on leaders to
subordinate perceptions, attitudes, and per-
formance. Within these data it was also pos-
sible to identify which aspects of a coach’s
behavior were most salient to the criteria
studied.
The strongest agreement on assessments of
coaching behavior among observers, players,
and coaches concerned punitive behaviors.
Although punishment and punitive technical
instruction accounted for only 3% of the
coaching behavior observed, players seemed
especially sensitive to punitiveness in their
perceptions of a coach. Agreement on other
behaviors among the three sources of behav-
ioral data was weak and inconsistent. In par-
ticular, coaches were found to be no better at
judging their own behavior than were leaders
in other settings (Stogdill, 1974). Research
by Graen and his associates (Dansereau,
Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen, Dansereau, &
Minami, 1972; Graen & Schiemann, 1978)
suggests that greater agreement among sources
might have been achieved had it been possible
to determine the behavior directed toward in-
dividual players, since coaches may have be-
haved differently toward each player. These
relationships between coaching behaviors and
team perceptions represent the first link in
determining how a coach affects team morale.
The second link in the mediational model
of Smoll et al. (1978) predicted that team
attitudes toward the coach would be more
highly related to perceptions of his behavior
than to his actual behavior. Assuming that the
data provided by observers is our best ap-
proximation of actual coaching behavior, this
prediction was supported and replicated. In
both samples, team perceptions of most be-
havioral categories were related to attitudes
toward the coach, whereas observed behavior
in only two CBAS categories exhibited such
relationships.
On the other hand, the prediction of the
mediational model in accounting for players’
attitudes toward their team was not strongly
supported. The direct relationships of atti-
tudes toward the team with observed behav-
iors were about as strong as those with team
perceptions of behavior. It was curious that
observed coaching behaviors were more
strongly related to attitudes toward the team
than to those toward the coach during 1977.
However, the observed behavior that related
most strongly to intrateam attraction was
keeping control, and its relative frequency
may provide one index of team harmony.
Data on coaching behaviors from observers
and players were also related to team per-
formance. Although observers may have been
aware of the score during a game, there was
little evidence to suggest that this knowledge
affected their observations. When compared
to winning coaches, proportionately more of
the observed behaviors of coaches on losing
teams were reactions to player mistakes and
misbehaviors. This result is not surprising,
since players on losing teams usually make
more mistakes. Furthermore, players perceived
coaches of losing teams as more punitive and
less supportive than winning coaches. Team
performance was related to team attitudes pri-
marily in the older age groups.
The generally stronger correlations observed
in the 1977 replication may have resulted
from several factors. First, the 1976 results
may have been conservative, since 13 coaches
chose not to participate, resulting in a possible
restriction of range on some coaching behav-
iors. Anecdotal evidence suggested that at
least some of these 13 coaches were more
COACHING BEHAVIORS 399
punitive than those who gave permission to
be observed. Second, experience gained during
the 1976 study led to improved selection and
training of observers and interviewers, result-
ing in more reliable data during 1977. Finally,
it is possible that significant relationships
among these measures were more easily ob-
tained with the older players studied in 1977.
At a descriptive level, -it is reassuring to
note that the majority of boys interviewed
had very positive attitudes toward their coach
and team. It is also refreshing to find that
contrary to some stereotypes, observers and
players perceived punitiveness relatively in-
frequently in the overall stream of coaching
behavior. One caution in interpreting these
data, however, is that they represent only re-
sults based on boys 8-15 years old playing for
male coaches in an urban baseball program.
Additional data need to be collected from
other sports, at other levels of competition, in
other sociocultural settings, and from girls’
programs to determine the generalizability of
these results. Further research also needs to
address how these relationships differ across
players as a function of their individual char-
acteristics.
Nevertheless, the findings reported here are
valuable in applying the principles and tech-
niques of behavioral science to improving
organized athletic programs, especially those
for children. These data suggest that some
improvement in team performance or morale
might result from training coaches how to
interact more effectively with players, in ad-
dition to instruction on conditioning and
athletic techniques (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis,
1979). Focusing on the training of coaches,
however, implies that their behavior is a
causal factor in team performance and morale.
The question of causality is of paramount
importance both in coaching and in leadership
theory more generally. Beyond the issue of
training, the cyclic firing of professional
coaches stems from an assumption that they
are the primary causal factor in team per-
formance. Yet research by Barrow (1976),
Farris and Lim (1969), Haythorn, Couch,
Haefner, Langham, and Carter (1956), and
Lowin and Craig (1968) indicated that the
characteristics and performance of subordi-
nates can, in turn, exert a causal influence on
the behavior of a leader. For instance, al-
though punitiveness and the handling of mis-
behaviors may affect players’ attitudes (Keller
& Szilagyi, 1978), poor performance by play-
ers or team disharmony may give coaches
more opportunities to display such behaviors.
Unfortunately, causality cannot be tested
directly in these data. An attempt to establish
causal relationships between actual coaching
behaviors and team performance or morale
might best proceed by analyzing the reciprocal
relationships (James & Singh, 1978) among
selected variables. As an outgrowth of this
research, Smoll et al. (1978) have presented
a model that identifies interactions and feed-
back cycles between variables studied here
and such additional factors as coaching phi-
losophy and players’ individual characteristics.
The validation of such dynamic, interactional
models will be an important step both in
sports psychology and in leadership research.
References
Barrow, J. C. Worker performance and task com-
plexity as causal determinants of leader behav-
ior style and flexibility. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 1976, 61, 433-440.
Dansereau, F., Jr., Graen, G., & Haga, W. J. A
vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership
within formal organizations: A longitudinal in-
vestigation of the role-making process. Organi-
zational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975,
13, 46-78.
Farris, G. F., & Lim, F. G. Effects of performance
on leadership, cohesiveness, influence, satisfaction,
and subsequent performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1969, 53, 490-497.
Graen, G., Dansereau, F., Jr., & Minami, T. Dys-
functional leadership styles. Organizational Be-
havior and Human Performance, 1972, 7, 216-236.
Graen, G., Schiemann, W. Leader-member agree-
ment: A vertical dyad linkage approach. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 206-212.
Haythorn, W. W., Couch, A., Haefner, D., Lang-
ham, P., & Carter, L. F. The effects of varying
combinations of authoritarian and equalitarian
leaders and followers. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 19S6, S3, 210-219.
Heise, D. R. Causal analysis. New York: Wiley,
19 75.
Ilgen, D. R., & Fujii, D. S. An investigation of
the validity of leader behavior descriptions ob-
tained from subordinates. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 1976, 61, 642-651.
400 B. CURTIS, R. SMITH, AND F. SMOLL
James, L. R., & Singh, B. K. An introduction to
the logic, assumptions, and basic analytic proce-
dures of two-stage least squares. Psychological
Bulletin, 1978, 85, 1104-1122.
Keller, R. T., & Szilagyi, A. D. A longitudinal study
of leader reward behavior, subordinate expec-
tancies, and satisfaction. Personnel Psychology,
1978, 31, 119-129.
Lowin, A., & Craig, J. The influence of level of per-
formance on managerial style: An experimental
object-lesson in the ambiguity of correlational data.
Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor-
mance, 1968, 3, 440-458.
Smith, R. E., & Smoll, F. L. Sports and the child:
Conceptual and research perspectives. In F. L.
Smoll & R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological per-
spectives in youth sports. New York: Hemi-
sphere, 1978.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. Coaching
behaviors in little league baseball. In F. L. Smoll
& R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives
in youth sports. New York: Hemisphere, 1978.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. Coach
effectiveness training: A cognitive-behavioral ap-
proach to enhancing relationship skills in youth
sport coaches. Journal of Sports Psychology,
1979, 1, 59-75.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. A system
for the behavioral assessment of coaches. Re-
search Quarterly, 1977, 48, 401-407. (a)
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Hunt, E. B. Training
manual for the coaching behavior assessment sys-
tem. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in
Psychology, 1977, 7, 2. (Ms. No. 1406) (b)
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., Hunt, E. B., & Clarke,
S. J. CBAS audio-visual training module. Seattle:
University of Washington, 1976. (Film)
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Curtis, B., & Hunt, E.
Toward a mediational model of coach-player re-
lationships. Research Quarterly, 1978, 49, 528-541.
Stogdill, R. M. Handbook of leadership. New York:
Free Press, 1974.
Theil, H. Principles of econometrics. New York:
Wiley, 1971.
Received December 21, 1978 •
