Coach Verbal Aggression IJSC
description
Transcript of Coach Verbal Aggression IJSC
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 1!
“Case Study – IJSC Volume 6(2)”
!Coach Verbal Aggression: A Case Study Examining Effects on Athlete Motivation and
Perceptions of Coach Credibility
Joseph P. Mazer, Katie Barnes, Alexia Grevious, and Caroline Boger
Clemson University
Contact email: [email protected]
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 2!
Abstract
Team sports have become a vital informal learning setting in which athletes are taught,
motivated, and mentored by their coaches (Turman, 2003a). This experimental study examined
the effects of coach verbal aggression on athlete motivation and perceptions of coach credibility.
Results revealed that athletes exposed to a verbally aggressive coach were significantly less
motivated and perceived the coach as less credible when compared to athletes who were exposed
to a coach who used an affirming style. With respect to credibility, athletes perceived a verbally
aggressive coach as significantly less competent, trustworthy, and caring than a coach who used
an affirming style. Implications and areas for future research are discussed. Case study questions
are presented for discussion by scholars and students.
Keywords: verbal aggression, motivation, credibility, coach-athlete relationships
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 3!
Coach Verbal Aggression: A Case Study Examining Effects on Athlete Motivation and
Perceptions of Coach Credibility
Compelling data suggests that 90% of American youth participate in at least one
organized team sport before they complete high school (Salva, 2004). In these sports, vital
interpersonal interactions often lead to vibrant informal learning settings in which athletes are
taught, motivated, and mentored by their coaches. In fact, Kassing et al. (2004) argued that
interpersonal interactions between teammates, between parents and their young athletes, and
between coaches and athletes often characterize the context of sport. Kassing and his colleagues
(2004) note that communication defines and shapes the context and experience of sport. In many
ways, the meaning and value of sport experiences are derived from the communication that
transpires within this context and how this communication affects athletes’ motivation and
coaches’ credibility. Motivated athletes tend to report higher levels of satisfaction and exert
greater effort in the sport (Dwyer & Fischer, 1990; Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). Coaches who are
perceived as credible in the eyes of athletes are able positively influence athletes and promote an
environment in which learning can occur (Turman, 2003a).
Turman (2008) found that coach immediacy behaviors lead athletes to experience greater
satisfaction and team cohesion. Research also suggests a positive association between coaches’
reward and expert power use and athletes’ satisfaction (Turman, 2006). Turman and Schrodt
(2004) found that coaches’ positive feedback and autocratic leadership was positively related to
athletes’ affective learning. Although decades of research have explored how positive
communication behaviors on the part of coaches can lead to positive outcomes on the part of
athletes, the context of competitive sport—without question—is prone to hostile communication
acts of aggression between players, coaches, fans, referees, and parents (Kassing & Sanderson,
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 4!
2010). These forms of communication on the part of coaches can negatively affect athletes’
motivation and their perceptions of coaches’ credibility and warrant further investigation.
Aggressive communication consists of four message behaviors—assertiveness,
argumentativeness, hostility, and verbal aggressiveness—through which a sender attempts to
influence a receiver (Infante, 1987). Given that argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness are
the primary forms through which aggressive communication has been examined (Infante &
Rancer, 1996), substantial research on these constructs exists in the communication literature
(Myers, 2003; Rancer & Avtgis, 2006; Schrodt & Finn, 2010). Argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness are often conceptualized in contrast to one another, with argumentativeness being
a generally constructive trait and verbal aggression being destructive (Infante, Myers, & Buerkel,
1994). Infante and Rancer (1982) discuss argumentativeness as a trait “which predisposes the
individual in communication situations to advocate positions on controversial issues and to
attack verbally the positions which other people take on these issues” (p. 72). Argumentativeness,
constructive as it may be to decision-making and to a speaker’s individuality, may be perceived
as threatening unless accompanied by other communication behaviors (Gorden, Infante, &
Graham, 1988; Infante & Gorden, 1989).
Norton’s (1983) explication of an affirming communicator style emphasizes how
attentive, friendly, and relaxed behaviors—along with low verbal aggression—can be a
necessary complement to more active and aggressive communication behaviors (Infante &
Gorden, 1991). Despite a limited focus on the relationship between an affirming coaching style
and positive benefits for athletes, research suggests that an affirming style may be advantageous.
In fact, Infante and Gorden (1989) found that argumentative superiors who used an affirming
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 5!
style were able to engage in more aggressive forms of communication and realize positive rather
than negative outcomes.
Verbal aggressiveness, on the other hand, is a destructive communication trait that
involves attacking another person’s self-concept to intentionally hurt the receiver (Infante &
Wigley, 1986). Individuals who are the target of verbally aggressive messages often feel
embarrassed, inadequate, and depressed (Infante, 1995). Verbally aggressive messages lead to
negative relationship outcomes and, if they are regularly directed toward one person, they may
constitute psychological abuse (Infante & Rancer, 1996). In the classroom context, students
report lower motivation, satisfaction, and affect and a more hostile learning environment when
they perceive verbal aggression on the part of their teachers (Myers & Knox, 2000; Myers &
Rocca, 2001). Students also consider verbally aggressive teachers as less credible than
instructors who avoid destructive communication in the classroom (Myers, 2001). In the
organizational context, Infante and Gorden (1987) found that superiors who were perceived as
high in verbal aggressiveness and low in argumentativeness were viewed as inattentive and
unfriendly. They concluded that the destructive nature of verbal aggression, when displayed by a
supervisor, can create an organizational climate that leads to low employee satisfaction and
greater damage to the subordinate’s self-concept. In essence, research has yet to identify how
verbal aggression might be related to positive relationship outcomes.
Athletes, in many ways, are like students or subordinates—they are placed in subordinate
roles and expected to defer to authority. Like students and subordinates, athletes tend to react
negatively toward verbal aggression from their coaches (Ruggiero & Lattin, 2008). Research
suggests that athletes are more satisfied when coaches offer positive (Dwyer & Fischer, 1990)
and rewarding feedback and social support (Weiss & Friedrichs, 1986). Kassing and Infante
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 6!
(1999) found that athletes were less satisfied and displayed poorer sportsmanship behaviors
when their coaches were verbally and physically aggressive. Martin, Rocca, Cayanus, and Weber
(2009) found that coaches’ use of positive Behavior Alteration Techniques (BATs) was
positively associated with athletes’ affect and motivation, while negative BATs led athletes to
report decreases in their affect and motivation.
Motivated athletes tend to apply themselves and persist at tasks that further their
performance, whereas unmotivated athletes might make poor choices and often fail to persist in
competition. Although some of the differences in athletes’ motivation can be attributed to
differences in the individual athlete, distinctions must also be attributed to their reactions to
circumstances and processes at work in the sport environment. Factors within the sport such as
the coach or teammates can affect athletes’ motivation. Given that coaches may use verbal
aggression in an attempt to alter athletes’ behaviors and overall performance in a competitive
sport, a coach’s use of verbal aggression might have a negative effect on athlete motivation.
Alternatively, coaches who exhibit an affirming style through attentive and friendly
communication behaviors can lead athletes to experience greater motivation in competitive sport.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Athletes will report lower levels of motivation when exposed to verbally
aggressive coaches versus coaches who use an affirming style.
Credibility refers to a receiver’s perception of the degree to which a source is perceived
as believable (McCroskey, 1992). McCroskey and Teven (1999) argue that credibility is the
degree to which receivers perceive the source’s level of competence, trustworthiness, and caring.
Competence refers to the extent to which a source is perceived to know what he or she is talking
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 7!
about, whereas trustworthiness is the degree to which the source is perceived as honest. Caring
refers to the extent to which the source is perceived to have the receivers’ best interests in mind.
Verbal aggression on the part of a speaker often leads receivers to report negative
perceptions of the speaker’s credibility. In fact, research suggests an inverse association between
teacher verbal aggressiveness and students’ perceived understanding and teacher credibility
(Edwards & Myers, 2007; Schrodt, 2003). Myers (2001) reported that students tend to view
verbally aggressive teachers as low in credibility, while Kassing and Infante (1999) found a
similar relationship between coaches’ verbal and physical aggression and male athletes’
perceptions of coach character, competence, and friendliness. Therefore, it stands to reason that
athletes might perceive verbally aggressive coaches as low in credibility. On the other hand,
coaches who use an affirming style might be perceived as more credible in the eyes of athletes.
Thus, the following hypothesis is posited:
H2: Athletes will report lower levels of perceived credibility when exposed to verbally
aggressive coaches versus coaches who use an affirming style.
Method
Participants
The participants were 130 undergraduate student-athletes (50 first-year students, 32
sophomores, 25 juniors, 21 seniors, 2 no reports) at a large southeastern university. The sample
consisted of 71 males and 57 females, with an average age of 19.81 years (ranging from 18 to 26
years, SD = 1.38). The racial/ethnic distribution was 70% Caucasians, 29% African Americans,
and 1% Hispanics. The majority of the participants reported playing multiple sports throughout
their lives (M = 3.20, SD = 1.69)—including football, basketball, baseball, softball, soccer, and
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 8!
swimming—an average of 12.26 years (SD = 4.07).
Procedures
All procedures were approved through the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Coach verbal aggression was manipulated in narratives across two experimental groups (verbally
aggressive coach, affirming style coach) on the research questionnaire (see Appendix). Profanity,
screaming, and condescending language was included in the verbally aggressive narrative and
calm, supportive, and concerned language was featured in the affirming style narrative. To
initially assess the effectiveness of the verbal aggression and affirming style manipulation
(Edwards & Myers, 2007), a panel of athletes was asked to examine the narratives and suggest
changes. Slight adjustments were made based on their comments. Equal numbers of surveys
from each experimental condition were intermixed in a stack (survey 1, survey 2, survey 1,
survey 2, etc.) to randomly assign participants to each group. Participants were recruited from
general education courses and the university’s athletics office. After reading an informed consent
form, participants were given a survey and instructed that the coach’s communication (narrative)
occurred after an important play in competition. After reading the narrative, participants were
asked to develop an impression of the coach and keep the coach in mind as they completed the
survey. Writing the instructions and narratives in this way provided participants the opportunity
to focus solely on the coach’s communication behavior as they completed the various measures
(Mazer & Hunt, 2008).
Measurement
Motivation. Athlete motivation was operationalized using Christophel’s (1990) measure
of motivation. This measure is composed of 16 bipolar items with seven response options, with
higher numbers indicating greater motivation. Sample items include: motivated/unmotivated,
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 9!
interested/uninterested, involved/uninvolved, not stimulated/stimulated, inspired/uninspired. The
measure produced an alpha reliability of .89 (M = 42.39, SD = 15.13).
Credibility. Coach credibility was assessed using Teven and McCroskey’s (1997)
measure of credibility. The instrument is composed of 18, seven-point semantic-differential
scales, six each for the competence, trustworthiness, and caring dimensions. The measures had
alpha reliabilities of .92 for competence (M = 22.73, SD = 9.38), .89 for trustworthiness (M =
24.25, SD = 9.13), and .91 for caring (M = 22.81, SD = 10.32).
Manipulation check. Participants were asked to evaluate the coach’s communication as
displayed in the survey narrative and then respond to four items designed to assess the
effectiveness of the independent variable manipulation. Participants responded using seven-point
semantic differential scales: negative/positive, friendly/not friendly, not aggressive/aggressive,
supportive/unsupportive. The manipulation check items were reliable (! = .89; M = 14.74, SD =
6.89).
Results
An independent samples t-test performed on the manipulation check revealed statistically
significant differences between conditions indicating that the manipulation of verbal aggression
and affirming style was successful, t (127) = -12.24, p < .001, d = 2.14. Participants in the verbal
aggression group evaluated the coach’s communication more negatively (M = 10.25, SD = 4.23)
than participants in the affirming style group (M = 20.42, SD = 5.21). See Table 1 for cell means
and standard deviations.
H1 predicted that athletes who were presented with a verbally aggressive coach in a
scenario would report lower levels of motivation than athletes who were presented with a coach
who used an affirming style. An independent samples t-test revealed a statistically significant
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 10!
difference between verbally aggressive and affirming style coaches for athlete motivation, t
(123) = -4.72, p < .001, d = .85. Athletes exposed to a verbally aggressive coach (M = 37.15, SD
= 13.47) reported significantly lower motivation than athletes exposed to a coach who used an
affirming style (M = 49.05, SD = 14.61). Therefore, H1 was supported. See Table 2 for cell
means and standard deviations.
H2 posited that athletes who were presented with a verbally aggressive coach in a
scenario would perceive the coach as less credible than athletes who were presented with a coach
who used an affirming style. Independent samples t-tests revealed statistically significant
differences between groups on competence, t (126) = -6.44, p < .001, d = 1.16, trustworthiness, t
(125) = -8.12, p < .001, d = 1.46, and caring, t (126) = -9.34, p < .001, d = 1.66. Athletes
perceived a verbally aggressive coach as significantly less competent (M = 18.56, SD = 8.77),
trustworthy (M = 19.50, SD = 7.50), and caring (M = 17.01, SD = 7.91) than a coach who used an
affirming style (competence: M = 27.93, SD = 7.33; trustworthiness: M = 30.27, SD = 7.30;
caring: M = 30.27, SD = 8.04). Therefore, H2 was supported. See Table 2 for cell means and
standard deviations.
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to explore the effects of coach verbal aggression
on athletes’ motivation and their perceptions of coach credibility. The findings suggested that
coaches, who were represented as highly verbally aggressive when interacting with a student
athlete, led athletes to experience significantly less motivation and led them to perceive the
coach as significantly less credible. The results of this study align with previous research that
examined the role of communication in the coach-athlete relationship (Kassing & Infante, 1999;
Turman, 2006, 2008). In particular, these findings extend prior research by providing evidence of
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 11!
important causal connections between coach communication behaviors—specifically verbal
aggression and affirming style—and athlete outcomes.
Coaches may intend for their aggressive communication to correct athletes’ poor
performance during competition and improve their overall effectiveness in the game. However,
these communication choices can come at the expense of athletes’ motivation and lead athletes to
perceive the coach as less competent, trustworthy, and caring. When coaches yell at their players
when they make mistakes, use condescending and profane language, and use other hurtful
communication behavior, athletes report that they are less motivated to participate and perceive
the verbally aggressive coach as low in credibility. On the other hand, coaches who use an
affirming style with calm and supportive language can lead athletes to experience greater
motivation and perceive the coach as more competent, trustworthy, and caring. These findings
support prior research suggesting that constructive influence strategies are more effective in
increasing player motivation (Horn, 2002; Smith, Fry, Ethington, & Li, 2005). Verbal aggression
may offer short-term benefits, but such communication has meaningful negative effects on
athletes. Although the potential for short- and long-term effects was not explicitly addressed in
the present study, future research can seek to examine this possibility.
Smoll, Smith, Barnett, and Everett (1993) argued that coaches can be trained to be
effective communicators. Coaching and athletic leadership programs might capitalize on
research examining the interpersonal characteristics of the coach-athlete relationship and
incorporate necessary training efforts in their programs. Instruction in this area can familiarize
coaches with constructive and destructive communication behaviors and teach how such
messages can lead to positive and negative effects on athletes. While some may justify the use of
verbally aggressive messages for instrumental purposes (i.e., to accomplish a goal) (Martin,
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 12!
Anderson, & Horvath, 1996), the present study offers no evidence that points toward positive
effects of verbal aggression on athlete outcomes. In fact, coaches who use less verbal aggression
and use other constructive communication techniques such as providing positive feedback and
offering social support can foster an environment where athletes learn from their coach as a
credible leader (Turman, 2001).
Despite the contributions of this study, the results should be interpreted within the
limitations imposed by the research design. Indeed, interactions between coaches and athletes are
highly contextualized. Variables such as the urgency of the moment, the pace of the game, and
the current score can influence the effectiveness and appropriateness of a coach’s communication
with a player. In this investigation, participants were asked to develop a perception of a coach
from a narrative on the research questionnaire. Even though this experimental method is
commonly used in instructional communication research (Mazer & Hunt, 2008; Sprinkle, Hunt,
Simonds, & Comadena, 2006; Teven & Hanson, 2004), it would be interesting to explore
athletes’ reactions to actual coaches who use verbal aggression.
While the present study considered only the players’ reactions to the coach’s
communication, future research might consider coaches’ perceptions to more fully capture the
effects of their verbal aggression on athlete motivation. Without a doubt, the relationship
between coach verbal aggression, athlete motivation, and coach credibility may vary based upon
the sport, sport level (youth sports versus collegiate competition), and program success. More
importantly, potential mediating variables may influence how athletes perceive the
communication behavior of their coach. That is, winning teams may be less affected by a
verbally aggressive coach when such behaviors might influence a team’s ability to win. Although
the present study examined a diverse selection of sports and athletes, future research might
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 13!
examine potential differences across a variety of sports and various levels of competition and
success to more fully understand the effects of coach verbal aggression on athlete outcomes. The
findings also could be further validated through additional data collection techniques, including
observations of coach-athlete interactions (Turman, 2005, 2007).
Scholars agree that coaches can and often do serve rather influential roles in the lives of
their athletes (Black & Weiss, 1992; Millard, 1992; Parrott & Duggan, 1999; Turman, 2003a,
2003b). This consensus confirms the need for additional research that draws important
connections between effective coach communication behaviors and athlete motivation, success,
and satisfaction. This research can permit scholars, coaches, and athletes to more fully
understand how positive coach-athlete relationships can lead to improvements not only in the
quality of athletes’ performance during sport participation, but also in the quality of many other
life experiences.
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 14!
Case Questions
1. Why might coaches use verbal aggression in their communication with athletes?
2. What do you think are the most vital components of coach credibility? Competence,
trustworthiness, or caring?
3. How do the findings of this study contribute to the literature on verbal aggression and
affirming style?
4. How might scholars best explore the effects of coach communication behavior on athlete
outcomes?
5. How might a specific credibility component (e.g., caring) compensate for another
component (e.g., competence)? In other words, can a coach be perceived as high in caring
and low competence and still be successful?
6. What specific verbally aggressive communication behaviors might coaches utilize to
motivate athletes? What behaviors might they avoid?
7. What specific communication behaviors might characterize a coach’s affirming style?
8. What specific characteristics of the sports context might make verbal aggression
acceptable?
9. How might a team’s success factor into athletes’ perceptions of a coach’s communication
behavior?
10. Do you believe that coaches can be trained to be more effective communicators? Why or
why not?
11. If you were to develop a “best practices” for coaches’ communication, what
communication behaviors would be included?
!
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 15!
References
Black, S. J., & Weiss, M. R. (1992). The relationship among perceived coaching behaviors,
perception of ability, and motivation in competitive age-group swimmers. Journal of
Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 309-325.
Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors,
student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323-340.
doi:10.1080/03634529009378813
Dwyer, J. J., & Fischer, D. G. (1990). Wrestlers’ perceptions of coaches’ leadership as predictors
of satisfaction with leadership. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 511-517.
Edwards, C., & Myers, S. A. (2007). Perceived instructor credibility as a function of instructor
aggressive communication. Communication Research Reports, 24, 47-53.
doi:10.1080/08824090601128141
Gorden, W. I., Infante, D. A., & Graham, E. E. (1988). Corporate conditions conducive to
employee voice: A subordinate perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 1, 101-111. doi:10.1007/BF01385039
Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in
sport psychology 2nd ed. (pp. 309-354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Infante, D. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and
interpersonal communication (pp. 157-192). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Infante, D. A. (1995). Teaching students to understand and control verbal aggression.
Communication Education, 44, 51-63. doi:10.1080/03634529509378997
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 16!
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1987). Superior and subordinate communication profiles:
Implications for independent-mindedness and upward effectiveness. Central States
Speech Journal, 38, 73-80. doi:10.1080/10510978709368232
Infante, D. A., & Gorden, W. I. (1989). Argumentativeness and affirming communicator style as
predictors of satisfaction/dissatisfaction with subordinates. Communication Quarterly, 37,
81-90. doi: 10.1080/01463378909385529
Infante, D. A, & Gorden, W. I. (1991). How employees see the boss: Test of an argumentative
and affirming model of supervisors’ communicative behavior. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55, 294-304. doi: 10.1080/10570319109374386
Infante, D. A., Myers, S. A., & Buerkel, R. A. (1994). Argument and verbal aggression in
constructive and destructive family and organizational disagreements. Western Journal of
Communication, 58, 73-84. doi:10.1080/10570319409374488
Infante, D. A, & Rancer, A. S. (1982). A conceptualization and measure of argumentativeness.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 46, 72-80. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_13
Infante, D. A., & Rancer, A. S. (1996). Argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness: A review
of recent theory and research. Communication Yearbook, 19, 319-351.
Infante, D. A., & Wigley, C. J. (1986). Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and
measure. Communication Monographs, 53, 61-69. doi:10.1080/03637758609376126
Kassing, J. W., Billings, A. C., Brown, R., Halone, K. K., Harrison, K., Krizek, B., Mean, L. J.,
& Turman, P. D. (2004). Communication in the community of sport: The process of
enacting, (re)producing, consuming, and organizing sport. Communication Yearbook, 28,
373-409.
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 17!
Kassing, J. W., & Infante, D. A. (1999). Aggressive communication in the coach-athlete
relationship. Communication Research Reports, 16, 110-120.
doi:10.1080/08824099909388708
Kassing, J. W., Sanderson, J. (2010). Trash talk and beyond: Aggressive communication in the
context of sports. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and
conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 253-266). New York: Routledge.
Martin, M. M., Anderson, C. M., & Horvath, C. L. (1996). Feelings about verbal aggression:
Justifications for sending and hurt from receiving verbally aggressive messages.
Communication Research Reports, 13, 19-26. doi:10.1080/08824099609362066
Martin, M. M., Rocca, K. A., Cayanus, J. L., & Weber, K. (2009). Relationship between
coaches’ use of behavior alteration techniques and verbal aggression on athletes’
motivation and affect. Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 227-241.
Mazer, J. P., & Hunt, S. K. (2008). The effects of instructor use of positive and negative slang on
student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Research
Reports, 25, 44-55. doi:10.1080/08824090701831792
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). An introduction to communication in the classroom. Edina, MN:
Burgess International Group.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A re-examination of the construct and its
measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90-103.
doi:10.1080/03637759909376464
Millard, L. (1992). Differences in coaching behaviors of male and female high school soccer
coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 19, 19-32.
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 18!
Myers, S. A. (2001). Perceived instructor credibility and verbal aggressiveness in the
college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 18, 354-364.
doi:10.1080/08824090109384816
Myers, S. A. (2003, April). Argumentativeness and aggressiveness research in instructional
communication contexts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern
Communication Association, Washington, DC.
Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (2000). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness and student outcomes. Communication Research Reports, 17, 299-309.
doi:10.1080/08824090009388777
Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2001). Perceived instructor argumentativeness and verbal
aggressiveness in the college classroom: Effects on student perceptions of climate,
apprehension, and state motivation. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 113-137.
doi:10.1080/10570310109374696
Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Parrott, R., & Duggan, A. (1999). Using coaches as role models of sun protection for youth:
Georgia’s “Got Youth Covered” project. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
27, 107-119. doi:10.1080/00909889909365529
Rancer, A. S., & Avtgis, T. A. (2006). Argumentative and verbally aggressive communication in
instructional contexts. In Argumentative and aggressive communication: Theory,
research, and application (pp. 125-144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 19!
Ruggiero, T. E., & Lattin, K. (2008). Intercollegiate female coaches’ use of verbally aggressive
communication toward African American female athletes. Howard Journal of
Communications, 19, 105-124. doi:10.1080/10646170801990946
Salva, P. S. (2004). Behavior: Ask the experts. Parents and sports: Too much of a good thing?
Contemporary Pediatrics, 21, 17-20.
Schrodt, P. (2003). Students’ appraisals of instructors as a function of students’ perceptions of
instructors’ aggressive communication. Communication Education, 52, 106-112.
doi:10.1080/03634520302468
Schrodt, P., & Finn, A. N. (2010). Reconsidering the role of aggressive communication in higher
education. In T. A. Avtgis & A. S. Rancer (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict:
New directions in theory and research (pp. 159-176). New York: Routledge.
Smith, S. L., Fry, M. D., Ethington, C. A., & Li, Y. (2005). The effect of female athletes’
perceptions of their coaches’ behaviors on their perceptions of the motivational climate.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 170-177. doi:10.1080/10413200590932470
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., Barnett, N. P., & Everett, J. J. (1993). Enhancement of children’s self-
esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 602-610. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.602
Sprinkle, R., Hunt, S. K., Simonds, C. J., & Comadena, M. E. (2006). Fear in the classroom: An
examination of teachers’ use of fear appeals and students’ learning outcomes.
Communication Education, 55, 389-402. doi:10.1080/03634520600879170
Teven, J. J., & Hanson, T. L. (2004). The impact of teacher immediacy and perceived caring on
teacher competence and trustworthiness. Communication Quarterly, 52, 39-53.
doi:10.1080/01463370409370177
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 20!
Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with
student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1-9.
doi:10.1080/03634529709379069
Turman, P. D. (2001). Situational coaching styles: The impact of success and athlete maturity
level on coaches’ leadership styles over time. Small Group Research, 32, 576-594.
doi:10.1177/104649640103200504
Turman, P. D. (2003a). Athletic coaching from an instructional communication perspective: The
influence of coach experience on high school wrestlers’ preferences and perceptions of
coaching behaviors across a season. Communication Education, 52, 73-78.
doi:10.1080/03634520302465
Turman, P. D. (2003b). Coaches and cohesion: The impact of coaching techniques on team
cohesion in the small group sport setting. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 86-104.
Turman, P. D. (2005). Coaches’ use of anticipatory and counterfactual regret messages during
competition. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 116-138.
doi:10.1080/00909880500045072
Turman, P. D. (2006). Athletes’ perception of coach power use and the association between
playing status and sport satisfaction. Communication Research Reports, 23, 273-282.
doi:10.1080/08824090600962540
Turman, P. D. (2007). The influence of athlete sex, context, and performance on high school
basketball coaches’ use of regret messages during competition. Communication
Education, 56, 333-353. doi:10.1080/03634520701199999
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 21!
Turman, P. D. (2008). Coaches’ immediacy behaviors as predictors of athletes’ perceptions of
satisfaction and team cohesion. Western Journal of Communication, 72, 162-179.
doi:10.1080/10570310802038424
Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2004). New avenues for instructional communication research:
Relationships among coaches’ leadership behaviors and athletes’ affective learning.
Communication Research Reports, 21, 130-143. doi:10.1080/08824090409359975
Weiss, M. R., & Friedrichs, W. D. (1986). The influence of leader behaviors, coach attributes,
and institutional variables on performance and satisfaction of collegiate basketball games.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 332-346.
Running head: VERBAL AGGRESSION 22!
Appendix
Narratives in Experimental Conditions
Verbally Aggressive Coach
“Why the fuck would you do that? Did you think that was a good idea? This is the type of
shit I am talking about! We are down to the wire and you let the entire team down. There
is no time for you to be selfish and take matters into your own hands. You’re fucking
incompetent and don’t deserve to be here. Sit your ass down! I don’t even want to look at
you!”
Affirming Style Coach
“Are you feeling okay? Help me understand why you did that. I feel like this happens a
lot. Is there something that I can do to make it easier for you? Things like this seem to
happen quite often when we are down to the wire. Sometimes it’s easier to not take a
situation like this into your own hands and ask for help instead. If there is something
you’re not understanding lets talk about it later. Have a seat and cool down.”