PhD, Associate Professor S.A. Vorobyov¹
Dr.Hab., Associate Professor A.G. Gretsov^{1, 2}
Dr.Sc.Psych., Professor E.B. Laktionova²
PhD, Associate Professor Yu.S. Pezhemskaya²
PhD, Associate Professor N.L. Somova^2
1St. Petersburg Scientific Research Institute of Physical Culture, St. Petersburg
²Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, St. Petersburg

Keywords: coach image, academic sports, psychological wellbeing, student, theoretical and practical training, life goals.

Background. Coach image is known to play an important progress control role in the academic theoretical and practical training process, with a special contribution from the coach-athlete cooperation style. Every academic athlete is largely driven by the coach image when forming the own personality/ professional progress agenda [1, 6] in the academic theoretical and practical training, with the coach image contributing to self-perception and progress among the other elements of the psychological wellbeing [9]. Psychological wellbeing may be defined as the basic individual structure with the own functionality perceptions and ratings in the context of the human resource and its management qualities and skills within the framework of the individual self-perceptions and world outlook [5]; and with the self-acceptance and life goals ranked among the key psychological wellbeing elements [3].

Coach image research versus the psychological wellbeing in academic sports may be of high interest for at least the following reasons. On the one hand, a competitive success implies a certain degree of self-acceptance with an adequate self-esteem, self-confidence, self-control, as well as determination in the life agenda [2, 4]. On the other hand, academic sports may be viewed as a key stage in the individual sports careers, with the coach image playing one of the key roles.

Objective of the study was to rate and analyze the coach image versus psychological wellbeing in academic sports.

Methods and structure of the study. We profiled the coach image under the study using the Y. Khanin and A. Stambulov Trainer-athlete Cooperation Scale [10]  making it possible to rate the coach’s social perceptions, personality qualities and service efficiency and consolidate the data to produce a generalized coach’s portrait with its gnostic, emotional and behavioral dimensions [7]. In addition, the surveyed academic athletes were offered a semantic differential matrix to probe their perceptions of a real and ideal coach. The subjective well-being of the sample was rated by the K. Riff Psychological Wellbeing Scale adapted by L. Zhukovskaya and E. Troshchikhina [3, 10].

We sampled for the study academic athletes (n=64, including 39 males and 25 females) from Herzen State Pedagogical University (St. Petersburg), P.F. Lesgaft Novosibirsk State University, and A.S. Pushkin Leningrad State University. The sample was, aged 22 years on average, with 12% specialized in track and field sports; 15% in team sports; 17% in wrestling; 23% in individual competitive sports; and 33% in sport dances. By the sport qualifications, the sample included 41% of unqualified athletes; 32% Class I-III athletes; and 28% Candidate Masters of Sports (CMS).

Results and discussion. The semantic differential matrix made it possible to rank the priority qualities of the real and ideal coaches as follows. The top five qualities of the both classes were the following: professionalism, motivations, competence, respect and confidence: with no meaningful differences found in the perceived real and ideal coach’s qualities. These data may be indicative of the physical education and sports specialized students striving to base their professional sports careers on a positive coach’s image – as close as possible to their model of an ideal coach including them own in the future coaching capacity.

Furthermore, the survey data and analysis showed fairly high levels of the coach's competency, personality qualities and cooperation skills (rated by 6 points out of 8 on average) versus a relatively high psychological wellbeing in the male and female groups (7 points out of 9), without significant gender differences. A correlation analysis found the real trainer-athlete cooperation (behavioral component) being in a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.245, p <0.05) with the athletes’ positive attitudes to themselves – with the latter, in turn, being in the significant correlation (p <0.01) with own competency, self-acceptance, life goals setting skills and general psychological wellbeing rates.

At the next stage, we formed the high/ low life goals groups (as life goals setting is ranked the key psychological wellbeing component, along with self-acceptance). The high and low life goals groups (n=21 both) were composed of the individual tested with 39-45 and 21-33 points on the life goals scale, respectively. Given on Figures 1 and 2 hereunder are the group test data.

.Figure 1. High- and low-life goals groups: coach image elements

The low life goals group was found to rate the coach’s professional, personal and communicative qualities higher than the high life goals group: see Figure 1. It can be assumed, therefore, that the athletes less confident in the life goals setting domain tend to rely on the coach’s personality, especially in the emotional domain. It should be noted, however, that the intergroup differences were found statistically insignificant – that may be due to the limited sample and, hence, further survey on a larger sample is recommended.

Figure 2. High and low life goals groups: psychological wellbeing rates

It was found that the high life goals group stands meaningfully higher (Ucr., p <0.01) on the autonomy, competence, positivism and self-acceptance scales than the low life goals group.

It should be mentioned that the survey found a contradiction that needs to be clarified. At this juncture the high life goals group was apparently tested higher on the autonomy and self-sufficiency scales and less dependent on the coach in their progress. This finding is confirmed by the fact that the low life goals group was tested much lower on the autonomy scale; whilst the low life goals group data correlation analysis found significant positive correlations (p <0.01) in the four-component psychological wellbeing structure on the self-acceptance, positivism, personality growth and competence scales. The high life goals group psychological wellbeing data correlation analysis found the psychological wellbeing also including the above four components, with meaningful (p <0.05) correlations between the life goals setting, autonomy, personality growth and competence test rates.

Conclusion. The survey found the coach’s personality qualities being of special importance for the academic athletes tested with the low life goals setting skills as one of the psychological wellbeing elements; with the top-five coach’s qualities ranked as follows: professionalism, motivations, competence, respect and confidence. These qualities may be used to rate the individual images and "strengths" of the coaching specialists, particularly in the academic athletes personality progress planning initiatives. The academic athletes tested with relatively high life goals setting skills and psychological wellbeing were found to prioritize rather the professional competences among the coach’s qualities and the relevant behavioral manifestations. The academic athletes with the high goal-setting skills, motivations and determinations were tested with less reliance on the self-acceptance, positivism and trainer-athlete cooperation in their psychological wellbeing structure, with a top priority given to autonomy and personality growth. The study data and findings need to be complemented and substantiated by further studies on wider sports-specific samples to obtain more specific data of potential benefits for the practical services of the sports psychologists and coaches to form an integrated progress management and support system for academic athletes and improve their psychological well-being standards.

Acknowledgements

We appreciate a special contribution to the study from M.I. Ivanova, undergraduate student of the Herzen State Pedagogical University’s Developmental and Educational Psychology Department

References

1. Aldoshina Yu.K. Model to study characteristics of perception of sports coach image in students. Akmeologiya. 2015. No. 3 (55). pp. 185-186.
2. Vorobyev S.A. Education and psychological service model to prevent outflow of human resource from youth sports. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2019. No. 6. pp. 35-37.
3. Zhukovskaya L.V., Troshikhina E. G. K. Riff psychological well-being scale. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal. 2011. v. 32. No. 2. pp. 82-93.
4. Ivanova M.I., Pezhemskaya Yu.S. Resilience and psychological well-being in athletes training. Education and socialization in modern socio-cultural environment. Proc. Int. research-practical. conf. Ed. S.V. Krivykh, A.D. Abashina. St. Petersburg: Herzen SPUR publ., 2019. pp. 370-373.
5. Laktionova E.B., Gretsov A.G., Orlova A.V. Approaches to problem of psychological well-being studies of gifted students in the educational environment. Pedagogicheskiy IMIDZh. 2019. No. 4 (45). pp. 644-654. DOI: 10.32343/2409-5052-2019-13-4-644-654
6. Lubysheva L.I. Profession “Trainer”: to know, understand, love ... M.: Teoriya i praktika fizicheskoy kultury. 2018. No. 5. 93 p.
7. Melnik E.V., Silich E.V., Kukhtova N.V. Trainer psychology: theory and practice: guidelines. Vitebsk: Masherov VSU publ.. 2014. 58 p.
8. Hanin Yu.L. Psychology of communication in sports. M.: Fizkultura i sport publ., 1980. 208 p.
9. Nicholls R. Adam Psychology in Sports Coaching: Theory and Practice. Second Edition. Published by Routledge, Taylor and Francis Croup. 2017. 282. P.7
10. Ryff C.D., Keyes C.L.M The structure of psychological. well-being revisited. Journ. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995. No. 69. pp. 719–727.

Corresponding author: skorobey64@mail.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to rate and analyze the coach image versus psychological wellbeing in academic sports.

Methods and structure of the study. We profiled the coach image under the study using the Y. Khanin and A. Stambulov Trainer-athlete Cooperation Scale making it possible to rate the coach’s social perceptions, personality qualities and service efficiency and consolidate the data to produce a generalized coach’s portrait with its gnostic, emotional and behavioral dimensions. In addition, the surveyed academic athletes were offered a semantic differential matrix to probe their perceptions of a real and ideal coach. The subjective well-being of the sample was rated by the K. Riff Psychological Wellbeing Scale adapted by L. Zhukovskaya and E. Troshchikhina.

 Results and conclusions. The top five important qualities of a coach, both real and ideal, were as follows: professional, interested, competent, respectful, confident. These qualities characterize a certain personal "strength" of a coach as a teacher and may precondition the set-up of the students' personal development program. In the minds of student athletes with the high level of psychological wellbeing, a coach must possess professional competence, manifested in their behavior. For the student athletes with the insufficient goal-setting level, it is personal qualities of the coach that are decisive, since the structural components of their psychological wellbeing are self-acceptance and positive attitude. For the student athletes with the shaped life goals, the significance of coach image faded in comparison to their self-sufficiency and personal growth.