1

REVIEW OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE COACH-ATHLETE

RELATIONSHIP IN MALAYSIAN TEAM SPORTS

Yokananthini Murugeesan
Communication Department
Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication
University Putra Malaysia
yokananthini@gmail.com

Nurul Ain Mohd Hasan

Communication Department
Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication
University Putra Malaysia
namh@upm.edu.my

ABSTRACT
Previous research has found that interaction processes between coach and athlete have
always been the strongest factor for sports performance. Other researches have drawn
conclusions to other factors in the coach-athlete relationship, such as culture and gender.
Research has generally shown that effective communication required the development
of trust and respect between coach and athlete (Yukelson, 1984). The review focuses on
an analysis of past literature on communication styles, culture, and gender as potential
key factors influencing the coach-athlete relationship. This review paper examined
studies specific to the empirical studies on athletes and coaches from the Western and
Asian perspectives. In particular, the review analysed empirical studies on
communication, gender and culture as potential factors influencing the coach-athlete
relationship. The review concluded that while various studies on the coach-athlete
relationship had been done, a majority of the empirical studies were within Western
perspectives. Such empirical study is particularly under-researched in Malaysia.
Therefore, the paper concludes by suggesting that future research which explores the
aspects of communication styles, culture, and gender within the Malaysian context is
timely.
Keywords: Coach-Athlete Relationship, Communication Styles, Gender, Culture,
University Putra Malaysia
INTRODUCTION

A National track cyclist, Azizulhasni Awang once highlighted that one of the
most valuable lessons from his coach, John Beasley, came through good communication
(Jayabalan, 2015). Similarly, many Malaysian national athletes emphasised that good
relationships with their coaches is one of the key elements for their success in sports.
For example, national squash queen, Datuk Nicol Ann David saw her coach as a good
friend and a great mentor (Jayabalan, 2015) Meanwhile, Datuk Lee Chong Wei, notable
national badminton player, looked up to his coach, Misbun Sidek, as his pillar of
 2

strength. He also highlighted that it was the strict coaching principles and
communication styles of his coach that made him a champion, and the world’s top-
ranked badminton player (Jayabalan, 2015).
Adding on, coaches and athletes such as Clyde Hart and Michael Johnson
(Olympic god medallist and world record holder in 400 m), Bob Bowman and Michael
Phelps (Olympic gold medallist in 100 m/200 m butterfly), Chris Carmichael and Lance
Armstrong (7-time Tour de France winner), and Béla Karolyi and Mary Lou Retton
(Olympic gold medallist in gymnastics) are a few examples from Western countries that
demonstrate the impacts that a good coach-athlete working relationship can have on the
athletes’ performance accomplishments. However, according to Drussel (2012), the lack
of effective communication skills makes it hard to resolve conflicts, and may affect the
behaviour of both coach and athlete, and impair the ability to develop and maintain the
relationship.
This is a review paper which aims to provide critique on the factors influencing
the coach-athlete relationship from both Western and Asian perspectives; specifically on
the communication styles, gender, and culture. This paper looks into past researches and
theories to support and further explore the crucial gap in the literature. Finally,
conclusion and suggestions for future research were presented.
A good performance, by its nature, highly depends on the coach and athlete
building a good relationship. For this to happen, successful interpersonal
communication is needed. This is when the message senders and the message receivers
understand the message that is being transmitted. Also, it is often defined as the
communication that takes place between people who are interdependent and binding the
same knowledge with each other. For example, manager-subordinate relationships,
teacher-student relationships, or parents-children relationships. The coach-athlete
relationship seems to be interdependent with one another as well. Communication is a
two-way process that involves encoding by the coach, and decoding by the athlete, and
vice versa (Montgomery, 1988 & Walsh, 2008 cited in Abdul Latif, Hasan, Fauzee,
2009).

FACTORS INFLUENCING THE COACH-ATHLETE RELATIONSHIP:

WESTERN AND ASIAN PERSPECTIVES

Literature within the sports management and communication field has indicated
various factors motivating the coach-athlete relationships. Past researchers have
highlighted a need to explore the communication styles that coaches use on their
athletes, and vice versa, in the relationship-building process. According to Jowett and
Meek (2000); Poczwardowski, Barott and Henshen (2002), both relationship
participants need to be included in the designs, so that conflicts that are inherently
present in the interpersonal communication between the coach-athletes can be overcome
in a harmonious ways. Besides that, the “uni-directional” bias can be overcome as well
(Wylleman, 2000, p.559). Researchers from the Western countries focused much on
3+1C model by Jowett (2000) to enhance the coach-athlete relationship.
This model was developed and studied by a group of researchers led by Jowett
herself. For example, Jowett & Chaundry, 2004; Jowett & Cockerill, 2002, 2003; Jowett
& Meek, 2000; Jowett & Ntoumanis, 2004; Jowett & Timson-Katchis, 2005; and Jowett,
Olympiou, & Duda, 2006, as cited in Jowett, 2005. This model, which include closeness,
 3

commitment, complementarity and co-orientation, proved to provide wide opportunities

to help the dyads manage their interpersonal exchanges more effectively. For example, a
key informant in Culver and Trudel (2000) mentioned that studies on the coach-athlete
relationship helped him a lot and allowed him to see and improve on his weaknesses.
However, this study is still under poor reception in Malaysia.
An article entitled ‘Relationship in sport’ by Jowett and Poczwardowski (2012),
highlighted that the call for more research in the coach-athlete relationships is motivated
by the need for a systematic and comprehensive guide for the policy makers, and also to
serve as knowledge for coaches and athletes in the next decades. This is in line with
Kenny’s (1995) statement, as cited in Jowett and Poczwardowski (2012), stating that
“society has an interest in preventing destructive relationships, and we ‘social scientists’
are the people who are best equipped to assist society in this endeavour”.
On the other hand, a study done by Bennie and Connor (2012) on perceptions of
effective coaching and coach-athlete relationships within professional team sports
in Australia suggested that developing a good relationship in sports was more of a
personal choice of the coaches and athletes. Key informants from this study stressed
that coaches do not need to be friends with the athletes in order to build a good coach-
athlete relationship. Both coaches and athletes must be prepared to work for one another.
However, the lack of respect in relationship restricts communication between the
coaches and the athletes, eventually affecting the achievement of the team goals.
From an Asian perspective, an exploratory study done by Li, Dittmore and Park
(2015) on relationships between Chinese and Western Olympians’ coaches and athletes
concluded that Chinese Olympians had better rapport with their coaches compared to
the Western Olympians, which is in line with a previous study (Yang & Jowett, 2012).
Chinese Olympians looked up to their coaches as parents, while Western Olympians
treated their coaches as working partners. This result could be caused by the cultural
differences in China and Western countries. The individualism-collectivism framework
by Hofstede (1984) explained that human development and social relations can differ
from country to country. China has a highly collectivist culture, where their
consciousness are more towards ‘we’. Triandis (1995) as cited in Li, Dittmore and Park
(2015), stated that people from a collective culture are more interdependent on one
another, whereby people from an individualistic culture like the Westerners view
themselves as more independent, and are motivated by their goals, needs and own
preferences. This, therefore, explains the reason why Chinese Olympians are closer to
their coaches compared to Western Olympians. Finally, this study also found that
Chinese male athletes were more sensitive when they were in different gender coach-
athlete relationships compared to the same gender relationships.

COMMUNICATION

A good coach-athlete relationship has shown to have a great effect on an athletes’

satisfaction, performance, and quality of life (Greenleaf, Gould, & Dieffenbach, 2001;
Kenow & Williams, 1999; Vernacchia, McGuire, Reardon, & Templin, 2000; Wrisberg,
1996 cited in Frey, Czech, Kent, Johnson, 2008) and several factors may influence this
relationship (Burke, Peterson, & Nix, 1995; Grisaffe, Blom, & Burke, in press, cited in
Frey, Czech, Kent, Johnson, 2008). Literature within the sports management and
communication field has indicated various factors motivating the coach-athlete
relationships. Past Western researchers have highlighted a need to explore the
 4

communication styles that coaches use with their athletes in the relationship-building
process. For instance, Becker (2009) found that athletes were more pleased on how their
coaches interacted with them effectively through clear and positive communication
styles. He also highlighted that it did not matter what coaches did, but how they did it.
Erickson (2013) detailed the manner in which volleyball coaches interacted with their
athletes, and how the tone they used on them impacted the athletes’ performance
significantly. These have also shown that how coaches communicate with their athletes
directly influences their performances and behaviour.
Effective communication involves two or more parties exchanging both verbal
and nonverbal cues to reach a point of shared understanding (Hargie & Dickson, 2004).
Shannon and Weaver (1949) broadly defined communication as “all of the procedures
by which one mind may affect another”. This will increase the collection of skills that a
coach or athlete should aim to have, and explains why good communication is linked to
success.
A Malaysian study entitled ‘Influence of Coaches’ Behavior on Athletes’
Motivation: Malaysian Sport Archery Experience’ by Samah, Hanie, Olotokunbo, (2013)
stated that communication remains one of the key factors to motivate the coach-athlete
relationship. Though there was a Malaysian study done on behaviour on athletes’
motivation, and much on leadership behaviour, there is still a lack of studies on factors
that influence the coach-athlete relationship.

Communication in coach-athlete relationship

The coach-athlete relationship is an important factor affecting sports

performance (Serpa, 1999). Past researchers have concluded that a satisfying and
successful coach-athlete relationship depends on the mutual trust, respect, and support
from each other (Jowett, 2007; Jowett & Cockerill, 2003; Poczwardowski, Barott, &
Peregoy, 2002). However, not all coach-athlete relationships are effective and positive.
Much of the literature on coach-athlete relationships focus on motivational model (Deci
& Ryan, 1980, 1985; Vallerand 1997, Fortier, Guay; Jones, 2002; Lopez-Walle,
Balaguer, Castillo & Tristan, 2011).
There had also been some research related to maintenance strategies done. For
example, Gould, Louer, Collin, and Chung (2007) studied ten American football
coaches who received awards for their ability to outshine their athletes’ personal
developments. This study was conducted using in-depth interviews; these coaches
emphasized the importance of communication in order to build the coach-athlete
relationship. For example, having open lines of communication with athletes, holding
players accountable for loses, and possessing clear expectations for success. They also
avoid direct criticism towards their athletes to show that they cared, trusted, and
respected the athletes as people. Stafford and Canary (1991) stated that these ways of
communication are in line with the relationship maintenance strategies labelled as
positivity, openness, and assurance. However, there were not much research done on
how to maintain a good coach-athlete relationships in Malaysia.
The coach-athlete relationship is a relationship that stresses on interpersonal
communication. Coe (1996) explained that great things can be achieved if both coach
and athlete are in perfect harmony. Indeed, in track and field athletics, as in many sports,
effective coach-athlete relationships have been associated with top-level sports
performances. It is highlighted that the coach-athlete relationship is one of the main
 5

factors of a top class performance. A coach must also be able to motivate the athletes
and give them confidence, and sometimes provide a ‘sympathetic ear’ when needed.
Verbal interchange features as a key factor for achieving top performances. For example,
a study done by Jowett (2003) stated that one of her respondents, who is a coach, said
that both the coaches and athletes often discussed things together, and this type of
dialogue was essential in their relationship. Next, in Phillipe and Seiler (2006)’s study,
the male athletes’ perceptions of the relationship quality with their coaches were
explored. The results showed that the male elite swimmers stressed on the importance
of verbal exchange developed by a mixture of professional and personal issues.
Moreover, the male swimmers claimed that to help in the development of the athletes,
the coach’s capacity to provide equal communication skills like the ability to listen and
help solve problems were equally necessary.
A relationship without interchange is not a relationship. If there is no
interchange, a negative relationship between the coach and athlete will be easily formed.
According to Ryan (1996), a coach’s arrogance, ignorance, and ultimate betrayal of
trust that is confidential in the coach-athlete relationships are negative coaching
approaches. Kelley, Berscheid, Christensen, Harvey, Huston, Levinger, McClintock,
Peplau, and Peterson (1983) defined that dyad relationships are ones that have
interconnected behaviours, emotions, and thoughts. On the other hand, Jowett (2001)
also defined that the coach athlete relationship as a situation where coaches’ and
athletes’ thoughts, emotions and behaviours are interdependent. In order to examine this
interpersonal relationship, Jowett and colleagues drew out the interpersonal construct of
Closeness, Co-orientation and Complementarity (3C), and interviews were conducted,
revealing that constructs are major components of the coach-athlete relationship.

Communication styles

Communication is defined as ‘the transmission and the exchange of information

conveying meaning between two or more people’ (Fuoss & Troppmann, 1981).
Meanwhile, Spink (1991) as cited in Culver and Trudel (2000) stated that
communication is known as a critical piece in the puzzle and even the most essential
element in the art and science of coaching. In order to convey the message properly,
coaches need to have good communication skills to create the effectiveness in
communication, such as interaction with the athletes, managing the teams, giving
tactical and technical instructions, and others. Bloom (1996) stated that “Learning when
to communicate with players is an intangible art; a skill that separates the competent
coach from the great one. It takes years to learn to distinguish the best communication
style for each player” (p. 165). Therefore it is essential for both coach and athlete to
have a good communication style to enhance a better relationship.
The old model of ‘tear them down so you can build them up’ no longer apply in
today’s sports world. However, combat sports still apply this method to achieve good
performances. A study done by Longueville, Fournier and Dubois (1998) emphasized
on the French judo coaches’ and athletes’ perceptions regarding their effective
interactions. The underlying factors for effectiveness of these interactions concluded
that the dominant communication style by the judo coaches established a disciplined
atmosphere among the athletes, and athletes who stayed in the system understood and
accepted these restrictive rules. This is because, in general, judo athletes could not
question their coaches’ authority and their encouragement on rivalry, as this was a
 6

major component of judo in France. This is in line with Ames’s (1992) citation in
Longueville, Fournier and Dubois (1998), that judo coaches encourage rivalry among
athletes, which partly led to warrior-like motivational atmospheres.
Athletes are prone to have friendly relationships with their coaches. This is
clearly shown in Jowett’s (2001) study; both coaches and athletes viewed each other as
friends, highlighting the correspondent dimensions. Whereas how controlling one is
always depends on the roles and tasks performed by the coach and athlete specifically.
Athletes viewed their coaches as someone who were always ready to provide support,
and who were enjoyable to work with. The enjoyment in learning and interacting
atmospheres are important. Kavussanu and Robert (1996) defined enjoyment as one of
the essential elements between the coach and athlete, especially for female athletes and
the mentally weaker athletes. Similarly, in Orlick’s (1986) study, it was concluded that
while athletes worked incredibly hard to achieve their goals, they emphasized on an
agreeable environment to work with, which included fun or enjoyment to maintain their
interest, and the passion to pursue their sport. This approach is equally important to
athletes of all levels, such as young amateurs (Boyd, Trudel, & Donohue, 1997),
Olympic athletes (Werthner, 1998 cited in Culver & Trudel 2000), and professional
athletes (Barbour, & Orlick, 1994). The gaps between these relationships are important
to be studied.
In Malaysia, The Star Online (May, 2011) reported that national rhythmic
gymnast, Elaine Koon had made shocking allegations about her coach, Elena
Kholodova. Elaine Koon entered the team with hopes of bringing glory to the country,
but ended up leaving with much frustration, bitterness and disappointments by the
authoritarian leadership style of her coach. The report also stated that athletes were
never treated with respect, and had often been called names or shouted at needlessly.
Therefore, athletes prefer to withdraw from programs or remain in silence, bearing all
the scolding and harsh instructions by their coaches. This has now become a norm in
Malaysia, where the culture of remaining silent speaks louder. To what extent do these
athletes bear with these crises? This is the question to ponder on. Kassing, Pearce, and
Infante (1999) in a study entitled ‘Aggressive communication in the coach-athlete
relationship’ suggested that athletes who receive aggressive communication from their
coaches were less satisfied with their coaches, exhibited less sportsmanship, and were
less successful in terms of win-loss percentages. Coaches may believe that aggressive
communication is important to enhance performances, but not all athletes can be dealt
with such aggression.
Studies on communication styles are important in light of the previous research
demonstrating that coaches threaten punishment when faced with less desirable
performances by athletes (Miles & Greenberg, 1993). The indication is that aggressive
communication styles designed to correct unsatisfactory performances may also affect
the coach-athlete relationship. Previous research has found that good communication
between coach and athlete has often been one of the strongest factors for sports
performance (Serpa, 1999). According to scholars, interpersonal relationship is
fundamental in the process of coaching as its nature is likely to determine the athletes’
satisfaction, self-esteem and performance accomplishments (Jowett and Meek, 2000a,
Jowett and Meek, 2000b, Lyle, 1999 and Vealey, Armstrong, Comar and Greenleaf,
1998). In order to build an effective interpersonal relationship, interpersonal
communication plays an essential role.
 7

Adding on, communication is viewed as a vehicle to develop common grounds

(knowing each other well) and includes verbal interchanges of technical and personal
issues, decision making, and goal setting. A poor communicator as a result of not
having good communication skills will result in bad performances. In demonstrating
sport skills, coaches should focus on giving a clear image of the correct movement, and
convey the information effectively to the athletes. This communication style is essential
as to avoid communication errors. Misunderstanding between the coach and athlete may
occur if conflicts in communication arise. Fights, training boycotts, and athletes quitting
from the team are few examples of coaches and athletes not having a good relationship
due to poor communication styles.
On the other hand, communication style is a particular way of sharing
information and feelings with another person based on the personality and experiences
of the one sharing and the position of the one shared with. Self-value also affects the
person's communication style when transmitting a message to other communicators.
According to Lustig and Koester (1999), communication styles refer to the topics
people prefer to discuss, their favourite forms of interaction; either sarcasm, argument
or self-disclosure. Meanwhile, Samovar and Porter (2004), as cited in Aleksandra (2008)
stated that communication style includes the depth of involvement in communication,
where partners are tuned to the same level of factual, emotional, and content messages.
The communicants rely on the same channels for conveying information. Basketball
coaches in Western countries specifically used Norton’s (1983) ways of communication
styles to evaluate the coach-athlete relationship. However, there are not much research
done on communication styles by using Norton’s communication styles in Asian
countries. Norton (1983) stated 9 conducts that reflects the styles of communication.
The first communication style is ‘impression-leaving’. This communication style
describes the way coaches or athletes use their words, so that they are easily
remembered and communicate them softly and politely. With this, they will leave an
impression on each other. The second communication style is ‘calm’, where the coach
or athlete speaks patiently, even in stressful situations, and are not easily influenced by
the environment. The third communication style is ‘attentive’. This communication
style explains that when the coach or athlete is interacting, the focus is not just mere talk,
but they also actively observe each other and maintain eye contact.
The fourth communication style is called ‘dramatic’, where the coach or athlete
often tells stories or jokes, always exaggerate, and often act out while communicating.
For example, when they talk, they uses aggressive body movements to show the
suspense of the story they are telling. In line with dramatic communication, current
Malaysian karate coach, Andris Vasiljevs stated that there are moments when coaches
have to be serious and intense; however, it is also appropriate to joke with the athletes,
and talk to them about topics other than just sports. He found that the approach of
showing concern towards the athletes helped develop a positive relationship with them,
and brings out a more positive response from the athletes. He also highlighted that it is
important for the coach to maintain a fine line and a professional relationship with his
athletes, knowing that he is still their coach, and it is good to be their friend, but not
buddy. He found this type of relationships to be very effective. The fifth communication
style is ‘domination’. This means that when the coach or athlete have a self-concept to
control, they use a dominant style like excessive talking, anger, and the need to control
the conversation.
 8

The sixth communication style is ‘open’, where the coach or athlete easily talk
about anything at all, including themselves, without holding back or showing much
emotion. They are also very honest in their interaction. A study done by Connolly and
Rotella (1991) found that some athletes have been socialized to fake honesty in
communication with their coaches to “agree with the coach in order to stay in the team
and be on the coach’s good side’. This concern with looking good to the coaches
surfaced in the incident ‘when silent means neglect’. Yambor (1998) cited in Culver and
Trudel’s (2000) study that senior athletes may learn to be more confident, but
considering their standing in the fast growing sociocultural system, whereby the other
athletes need their coaches help to start communication and be open-minded. Coaches
can achieve this by creating an environment that encourages their athletes to initiate
communication.
The seventh communication style is ‘contentious’; explained that when they
interact, they always end up arguing, disagreeing, demanding for proof, and do not
easily give up on tight conversations. In these situations, the coach or athlete will debate
with opposite opinions and may find it hard to resolve the matter. The eighth
communication style is ‘animation’, where the coach or athlete use facial expressions.
As a communicator, facial expressions are often used when communicating, and it
shows what is interpreted verbally. Facial expressions generate more trust compared to
the spoken word. Besides that, a lot of hand movements are used when interacting.
Facial expressions of athletes often provide feedback to the coach, and vice
versa. For example, the feeling of disinterest and boredom indicated by athletes’ glazed
eyes expression. Disbelief can be seen through the athletes’ full-raised eyebrow, and
half-raised eyebrows indicate confusion. Meanwhile, the body posture of the athletes
point out their attitude and mood towards their coach. Coaches and athletes should be
sensitive to the signals transmitted by one another as their facial expressions speaks
louder than words. In line with this, a qualitative research done by Jowett and Meek
(2000) stated that all the athletes and coaches reported that ‘communication goes
beyond actual conversation…eye and body can say everything.’
The last communication style is ‘genial’ (friendly and cheerful). Sincere
encouragement and support towards others indirectly makes the person feel appreciated
and accepted. Genial behaviours gives a lot of encouragement and support to others
(Ishak, 2000). Similarly, a case study on the coaches’ verbal aggression done by Mazer,
Barnes, Grevious, and Boger (2013) stated that coaches who exhibit an affirming style
through observant and friendly communication behaviours may lead athletes to greater
motivation in sport.
Communication between coach and athlete in team sports may vary from
individual sports. This is due to the team structure, where each athlete in the team may
carry different characteristics, and coaches play an important role in making sure all the
athletes are adaptable to the coach’s communication style. Even though athletes may
feel reluctant in certain aspects, the coaches and athletes have to work together to
achieve the same goal in team sports. Team sport is the presence of many individuals
combining and forming an efficient and effective team (Cotterill, 2011).
Speaking to coaches and athletes that are involved in team sports can influence
upon team performance. Findings by few researchers indicate that a good leadership
behavior displayed by coaches can affect an athlete’s performance and outcome
(Chelladurai, 1984; Riemer & Toon, 2001). Meanwhile, Baric (2007) cited in
Chelladurai (1984) stated that sports type; be it individual sports or team sports,
 9

competition levels, athletes’ age, and coaches and athletes gender are among factors that
affect the coach-athlete relationship. In team sports, coaches are not only responsible for
athletes’ successful careers, but also the relationship with the athlete to achieve common
goals. In team sports, every successful athlete have common characteristics. At the same
time, every athlete in team sports have individual personalities that demands individual
approach from their coaches; communication skills that differs, and specific
interventions in the sports preparation process. (Tušak, Mouse, & Vičić, 2003). The
following section reviews literature surrounding one of the key factors that may
influence the coach-athlete relationship.

GENDER

Gender is said to be another factor that influences the coach-athlete relationship.

Numerous studies have been done to study the athletes’ preferences of either the same-
gender or opposite-gender coach. The gender factor included the level of knowledge of
the coaches, and the ability for both coach and athlete to motivate each other,
(Medwechuk & Crossman, 1994; Parkhouse & Williams, 1986), the level of the athletes’
comfort in disclosure, (Medwechuk & Crossman, 1994; Sabock & Kleinfelter, 1987),
and the capability of the coach in being a role model for the athlete (Lirgg, Dibrezzo, &
Smith, 1994).
Unger and Crawford (1992) stated that female coach-female athlete relationships
tend to involve more emotions in the interactions, whereby male coach-male athlete
relationships tend to have more sharing of information to enhance the athletes’
performances. The opposite gender coach-athlete relationship’s dynamics leads to
questions of compatibility due to different male and female motivators. Moreover,
gender may be a mediating factor for relationship productiveness between coaches and
athletes (Lirgg, Dibrezzo, & Smith, 1994; Medwechuk & Crossman, 1994).
In Western countries, a strong gender bias favouring male coaches was found in
both the male and female basketball teams. Athletes concluded that male coaches are
more knowledgeable, more skilful, more likely to achieve more success, more desirable
to play for, and have a greater ability to motivate. (Parkhouse & William, 1986). As a
former athlete in National Sport Council myself, I noticed that most athletes always
desire to bond with their coaches, and we do not want any favouritism to be shown
towards any specific athletes. We also believe that with good support from the coach,
we achieve better.
Osborne (2002) stated that although male and female athletes share many
attributes like the willingness to sacrifice time and energy, and the desire to win, they
still need to be coached differently. For example, female athletes thrive on self-
satisfaction and are able to perform certain drills, and can deliver the best with
encouragement from the coach.
According to Parratt (1994) as cited in Emily (2013), gender is a social
construction that changes over time. Gender is a performed behaviour that is parallel to
how society expects men and women to act, and this can change over time. Taylor &
Wilson, 2005; Riemer & Toon, (2001) stated that gender is one of the factors that can
influence the quality of the coach-athlete relationship. They also added that it is better to
have an advisory type of relationship, whereas in case they are of the same gender, more
emphasis is on social support behaviour. Studies on the gender role factors and styles or
 10

approach between female coach-female athletes and male coach-male athletes that
might bring closeness in the coach-athlete relationship is yet to be explored in Malaysia.
An exploratory of female athletes’ experiences and perceptions of male and
female coaches done by Melinda, Daniel, Rebecca, & Johnson (2008), concluded that
there were four themes that emerged from the interview. Firstly, discipline and structure;
the key informants felt that the female coaches were unorganized, non-authoritative, and
did not have similar discipline compared to experiences with the male coaches.
Secondly, personal relationship; most athletes felt that female coaches had a greater
ability to relate to them. Athletes experience a lot of positive encouragement from
female coaches, and agreed that they could discuss ‘almost anything’ about personal
problems. To uphold this statement, Jowett, 2007a, 2007b; Poczwardowski, Barott and
Henshen (2002) emphasized the role of affective ties, such as reciprocal feelings of trust,
respect, appreciation, valuing, and caring, as defining characteristics of the coach-
athlete relationships. This shows that the intensity of the bonds between coaches and
athletes can also build the psychological well-being, besides achieving overall
performance.
Thirdly, passivity and aggressiveness; athletes prefer male coaches over female
coaches in this area. According to the athletes, male coaches seemed to be more
aggressive and demanding. Osbourne (2002) stated that female athletes preferred this
style to enhance their relationship due to cultural expectations of men in authoritative
positions, male dominance in sports, or possibly the lack of female coaches as role
models. Female athletes also want to be trained hard and challenged. However this does
not apply if male coaches use extreme methods on athletes like constant yelling; female
athletes may be less receptive that style (Osbourne, 2002). Finally, coaches’ preference;
athletes assumed that male coaches know more about the basics and fundamentals, and
everything that is required for a successful team.
In the coach-athlete relationship, coaches are always perceived as the person
whose control is absolute, and the role of the athlete is submissive without questioning
the instructions of the coach (Burke, Carron & Eys, 2006). The dominant-submissive
pressures placed on coaches and athletes to act in a certain ways, and may cause them to
feel uncomfortable to interact, or react differently to each other, depending on the
specific expectations of their gender and role within the coach-athlete relationship. The
stereotype mentality about males and females, and about coaches and athletes may
therefore lead to different levels of desire in coaches and athletes to understand each
other.
According to Burke (2001), male coaches have two expectations of their role
acting on them; namely, coach (controlling and directing), and gender (assertive and
leading; Rudman & Glick, 2008). Yoder and Schleider (1996) highlighted that the
coach and athlete dyad made up of a male athlete and female coach may have
conflicting expectations due to different role expectations. On the contrary, female
athletes with male coaches may find that their role expectations are strongly reinforced.
This study shows that gender is a very important factor to enhance coach-athlete
relationships.
Looking back at the history of the gender factors in the coach-athletes
relationships, Parkhouse & William (1986)’s study has not shown a clear consensus as
to whether female athletes prefer a male or female coach. Some literature claimed that
athletes may be more comfortable with male coaches (Frankl & Babbitt, 1998; Whitaker
& Molstad, 1985). This can be due to the long service of the male coaches in the sports
 11

arena, compared to female coaches who are relatively new in coaching, and also the
general lack of female coaches’ altogether (Osbourne, 2002). Automatically, athletes’
level of trust will be more favourable towards male coaches. Since the majority of
coaches have always been male, this could help to explain the female athletes’
preferences towards male coaches.
However, conducting studies on gender in Asian countries will be interesting as
the perception of the athletes will vary as Asian countries comprises of many different
ethnicities. William & Parkhouse (1988) stated that other personal attributes such as
socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and the athletes’ level of skills, abilities, and age
(Burke, Peterson & Nix, 1995; Whitaker & Molstad, 1985) may influence the coach-
athletes relationship.
Meanwhile, according to Molstad and Whitaker (1987), the female basketball
players ranked their female coaches higher than male coaches in terms of superiority in
coaching qualities like relating well to other athletes, and understanding the athletes’
feelings. Therefore, female coaches rated significantly higher than male coaches in
demonstrating these qualities. In the same study, it showed that female coaches were
more likely to establish friendship with athletes. In Malaysia, cultural effects have
always been different compared to Western countries. Therefore, studies to find out how
gender factors will influence the coach-athlete relationships in Malaysia are important.
The following section reviews a key factor that requires further investigation within the
focus of the coach-athlete relationship in a Malaysian context.

CULTURE (ETHNICITY)

The concepts of race and ethnicity are often interchangeable, but they differ in
meaning altogether. Whereby, the concept of race has often been used to classify people
according to psychical characteristics. According to Nixon & Frey (1998, 227),
ethnicity refers to ‘categories of people who share a common cultural identity and
heritage’. In particular, they are determined by cultural characteristics such as traditions,
values, norms, and ideas that constitute a particular way of life (Coakley, 2001).
In the Western perspective, Solomon, Wietgardt, Yusuf, Kosmitzki, William,
Stevens and Wayda (1996) as cited in Jowett and Frost (2007) highlighted that coaches
have different expectations of athletes from various backgrounds, and treated athletes of
particular ethnic groups differently. For example, African-American athletes receive
more instructions, while European-American athletes receive more praise (Solomon,
Wietgardt, Yusuf, Kosmitzki, William, Stevens & Wayda, 1996, as cited in Jowett &
Frost, 2007).
Another study by Jowett & Frost (2007) highlighted that communication is
viewed as an important element for developing a level of understanding. In her studies,
a majority of athletes expressed that it could have been easier to talk to an African-
American manager for certain things or personal issues, compared to a Western
manager. This is because African-American managers were perceived to be more
understanding and sensitive to their problems, due to their similar cultural backgrounds.
From these studies, it can be concluded that race and ethnicity consists of expectations
which can influence the coach-athlete relationship.
Jones, Potrac and Armour (2000) stated that issues relating to the needs and
requirements of different cultures were largely ignored. The role of culture is believed
to be crucial for coaches to develop an understanding of the athletes’ ethnic heritage,
 12

and the sensitivity towards it, if the coaches are to provide the athletes a positive
sporting experience (Schempp and Oliver, 2000). To have a good coach-athlete
relationship, both coach and athlete should understand, respect, and be sensitive towards
each other’s ethnicity. Within the social psychology literature, research has shown that
interracial friendships are underlined by ‘multicultural sensitivity’ which includes the
ability to respect and understand people of diverse cultural backgrounds, and the ability
to communicate and collaborate effectively (Hunter & Elias, 2000, as cited in Jowett &
Frost, 2007).
Many scholars have used the 3+1 Cs model by Jowett (2005) in cultural context
such as Antonini & Seiler, 2006; Jowett & Meek, 2000; Jowett & Timson-Katchis, 2005.
It has yet to be adopted in Malaysia as a framework in research that considers ethnicity
as a factor in the coach-athlete relationship. In the 3+1 Cs model comprises of closeness,
commitment, complementarity, and co-orientation.
In 2007, a research done by Jowett and Frost on black players’ perception and
impact of ethnicity in the coach-athlete relationship concluded that in terms of closeness,
respecting each other’s culture is the main property in the coach-athletes relationship.
Next, commitment appeared unaffected by athletes’ or coaches’ race as each athlete
experienced strong commitment to their respective coaches. With regards to
complementarity, none of the athletes talked about ethnicity issues related to co-
operation or reciprocation during training, and instructions given by the coach were
received by the athletes. Lastly, co-orientation; shared knowledge and understanding
were important components of the athletes’ relationship with their coaches. Athletes and
coaches had a common belief about hard work, performance, as well as accepting each
other’s ethnicity and professional backgrounds. The examples above clearly shows that
there is a huge gap in studying culture as a factor influencing the coach-athlete
relationship.
Most Asian countries are culturally homogenous because of their population
which is mainly formed by one race, and characterized by people of the same cultural
aspects. They also speak the same language, and have the same norms and traditions.
Japan and Korea are the prime example for this statement, unlike Malaysia which has
rich multiracial cultures. Lai, Chong, Sia, and Ooi (2010) stated that Malaysia is a
relatively small nation, with approximately 26 million people, formed by different
ethnicities, living together even before the British Empire in 1957.
Similarly, for sports in Malaysia, many team sports have a combination of
multiracial athletes. This is because of the eruption of the May 13th racial riot incident
in 1969, and the government felt that all ethnicities needed to be integrated so that a
harmonious society can be created. The National Sports Council took up the task to
integrate all ethnicities to participate in various sports. Since athletes and coaches are
from different cultures and ethnicities, this may indirectly influence the coach- athlete
relationship. To avoid uncertainty in the racial aspect in the coach-athlete relationship, it
is essential for the coach and athlete to come to a certain level of understanding.
The population of Malaysia comprises of three main races which are actively
involved in sports, mainly the Malay race. Religious commitments like praying five
times a day, or fasting during the month of Ramadhan are important issues to look into.
An appreciation of how their religious commitments may constrain sporting
involvements could help to dismiss the stereotypical belief regarding lack of interest.
Haleem (2005) highlighted that a Western-Muslim athlete had a dysfunctional
relationship with his coach as the coach ignored the athlete’s Muslim faith and the
 13

practices he was obliged to undertake. Being emotionally tired, chronically injured, and
athletically unfulfilled, the athlete retired at the age of 24. He believed that if his coach
had taken the time to know him more personally, along with his faith, and had
understood his religious beliefs, his potential as an athlete would have been better
realized.
Awareness and sensitivity on the role of culture between coach and athlete who
come from different cultural backgrounds may prove advantageous in developing the
coach-athlete relationship that are both successful and effective (Jowett &
Poczwardowski, 2007). It is very essential, as sports in the multicultural and multiracial
Malaysia continues to grow.
Hofstede (1991) defined that the uncertainty avoidance dimension refers to the
extent that the members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations,
and the degree of ambiguity and change that can be tolerated. In order to have a low
level of uncertainty avoidance, one needs to respect and accept another person’s view or
culture to build a good relationship. Milton (1993) explained that intercultural
understanding is an individual process and defines it as an acceptance of cultural
differences. Sensitivity in culture is no stranger in a multiracial country, and to develop
intercultural sensitivity means to develop the capability to recognize and to accept the
differences between the cultures. This points out the importance of studies on how
culture influences the coach-athlete relationship.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

All the factors mentioned above by past researchers, both from the Western and
Asian perspective, outlined simple understandings to systematically study the
interpersonal relationship between the coach and the athlete. In summary,
communication is an interpersonal dimension that affects, and is affected by the quality
of coach-athlete relationships. Montgomery and Bexter (1998) as cited in Jowett and
Poczwardowski (2012), highlighted that communication can be viewed as a bridge
between relationship members. For example, communication is the process where
distance between the coach and the athlete broadens (become distant), narrows (become
close), and merges (become one). Communication is considered the building block
towards developing balanced coach–athlete relationships (Yambor, 1995 as cited in
Culver & Trudel, 2000). Next, gender may influence the bond between the coach and
athlete. Preference of male or female coaches may influence the athlete’s performance.
This is due to the general view of male coaches’ ‘masculine’ style of interaction, while
female coaches were often viewed as better psychologists. However, this can vary from
one’s culture, and can change over time (Parratt, 1994). Finally, culture may also
influence the coach-athlete relationship as different cultures bring different norms.
Harmonious coach-athlete relationships can be built if one can adapt and respect the
various cultures.
Clearly, there is a considerable scope for further studies on communication
styles, gender factors, and culture’s role as factors that might influence the coach-athlete
relationship in team sports in Malaysia. This study will become imperative because
most academic research in this area focuses in other parts of the world. In Malaysia,
only few studies tackled communication that can enhance the coach-athlete relationship.
For an example, Latif, Hassan and Fauzee (2009) explored the effectiveness of
communication of coaches from the athletes’ perspective. They concluded that through
 14

an effective communication style, both coach and athlete can build good interpersonal
relationship. Tubbs and Moss (2000) highlighted the importance of interpersonal
relationships in producing good performances in the sports field, in terms of coach-
athlete relationships.
Effective coach-athlete relationships are underlined by good communication
styles, dependability, trustworthiness, and many others. More importantly, these
features are under-researched particularly in triangulating three key concepts of
interpersonal relationship among athletes.
Future study about the selection of both key informants which are coaches and
athletes are important. In Philippe and Seiler’s study (2006), the researchers were only
restricted to study one half of a coach-athlete dyad, which was the athlete. They
suggested future research to examine both coaches and athletes to reveal the mutual
perception of their relationships. Also, Jowett and Chaundy (2004) highlighted that ‘a
coach cannot do it alone’. It means that focusing on one particular person in this coach-
athlete relationship may not accurately reflect what goes on between coaches and
athletes.
In order to advance the interpersonal relationships in coach-athlete relationships
in Malaysia, researchers can focus on other factors that might influence the coach-
athlete relationship. This would be the age of the athlete, the competitive level of the
athlete, and in atypical relationships like parent-child or husband-wife.
On the other hand, many studies have been done to measure quantitatively the
quality of the coach-athlete relationship by using the Coach-Athlete Relationship
Questionnaire (CART-Q) construct. For future study, the researchers can mainly focus
on factors influencing the coach-athlete relationships by using a qualitative approach
that is sensitive to the relational context to provide holistic data. This approach is
important, as the researcher will be able to explore the grey areas in research.
All the gaps above proved that there were lack of studies on interpersonal
relationships specifically between coaches and athletes, and the importance of
conducting this studies. However, Norton (1983) does not claim that the styles he
proposes are final, but indicates that all the styles are conceptualizations which provide
a fruitful direction to conduct future research.
 15

REFERENCE

Aleksandra, V. (2008) "Inter‐cultural communication: a foundation of

communicative action", Multicultural Education & Technology Journal, 2 (1),
47-59.

Antonini Philippe, R., & Seiler, R. (2006). Closeness, co-orientation, complementarity

in coach-athlete relationships: what male swimmers say about their male
coaches. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 159-172.

Barbour, S. A., Orlick, T. (1994). Mental skills of national hockey league

players. Journal of Excellence, 2.

Becker, A. (2009). It’s not what they do, it’s how they do it: Athlete experiences of
great coaching. International Journal of Sport Science & Coaching, 4, 93-119.

Bennie, A., & O’Connor, D. (2012). Coach-athlete Relationships: A Qualitative Study

of Professional Sport Teams in Australia. International Journal of Sport and
Health Science, 10, 58-64.

Bloom, G. (1996). The importance of the mentoring in the development of caches

and athletes. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 29, 267-281.

Boyd, D.,Trudel, P., & Donohue, J. (1997). Perceptions of learning opportunities in

youth women ice hockey. Avante, 3(2), 31-56.

Burke, M., Peterson, D., & Nix, C. L. (1995). The effects of the coaches’ use of
humor on female volleyball players’ evaluation of their coaches. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 18, 83-90.

Burke, M. (2001). Obeying until it hurts: coach-athlete relationships. Journal of the

Philosophy of Sport, 28, 227-240.

Burke, M., Carron, A. V., & Eys, M. A. (2006). Physical activity context:
Preferences of university students. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 1–13.

Chelladurai, P. (1984). Discrepancy between preferences and perceptions of

leadership behavior and satisfaction of athletes in varying sports. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 6, 27–41.

Coakley. (2001). Ethnic and religious identity. In Cassidy, T. G., Jones, R. L., &
Potrac, P. (2Ed.), Understanding sports coaching: the social, cultural and
pedagogical foundations of coaching practice (pp. 107). New York, NY:
Routledge.

Coe, S. (1996) The Olympians: a century of gold. London: Pavilion.

 16

Connolly, D., & Rotella, R. J. (1991). The social psychology of assertive

communication: Issues in teaching assertiveness skills to athletes. The Sport
Psychologist, 5, 73-87.

Cotterill, S.T. (2011) Experiences of Developing Pre-performance Routineswith Elite

Cricket Players. Journal of Sports Psychology in Action, 2(2), 81-91.

Culver, D., & Trudel, P. (2000). Coach-athlete communication within a National

Alpine Ski Team. Journal of excellent, 3, 28-50.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational
processes. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 39–80). New
York: Academic Press.

Drussel, J. (2012). Social networking and interpersonal communication and conflict

resolution skills among college freshmen. Master of Social Work Clinical
Research Papers.

Emily, A. R. (2013). Gender Relations in Sport. Texas: USA.

Erickson, K. (2013). Interpersonal interactions and athlete development in different
youth sport contexts. Queen's University, Canada.

Frankl, D. & Babbitt, D. G. (1998). Gender bias: A study of high school track & field
athletes’ perceptions of hypothetical male and female head coaches. Journal
of Sport Behavior, 21, 396-407.

Frey, M., Czech, D., Kent, R., & Johnson, M. (2008). An Exploration of Female
Athlete’s Experiences and Perceptions of Male and Female Coaches. U.S Sports
Academy, 1-11.

Fuoss, D. E., & Troppmann, R.J. (1981). Effective coaching: A psychological

approach. New York: Wiley.

Gould, D., Collins, K. B., Louer, L. A., & Chung, Y. C. (2007). Coaching life skills
through football: A study of award-winning high-school coaches. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 16-37.

Greenleaf, C., Gould, D. & Dieffenbach, K. (2001). Factors influencing Olympic

performance: Interviews with Atlanta and Nagano US Olympians. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 154–184.

Haleem, H. (2005) ‘Running in pain: An autoethnography of power, coercion and

injury in a coach–athlete relationship’. University of Otago, Dunedin, New
Zealand.

Hargie O, & Dickson D. (2004). Skilled interpersonal communication: research, theory

and practice (4th ed.). London: Routledge.
 17

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work

related values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London:

McGraw-Hill.

Ishak A. H. (2000) Kemahiran komunikasi interpersonal. UPM.

Jayabalan, P. (2015, July 6). A Driving force: Our star athletes share their stories
and pillars of strength. The Star Online. Retrieved from
http://mystarjob.com/articles/story.aspx?file=/2015/6/6/mystarjob_careerguide/3
318043&sec=mystarjob_careerguide

Jones, R. L., Potrac, P., & Armour K. (2002). ‘It’s all about getting respect’: the
coaching behaviours of an expert english soccer coach, sport. Educational
Sociology, 7(2), 183–202.

Jowett, S. & Meek, G.A. (2000).The coach–athlete relationship in married couples: An

exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157–175.

Jowett, S., & Meek, G. A. (2000a). A case study of a top-level coach–athlete dyad in
crisis (abstract). Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 51–52.

Jowett, S., & Meek, G. A. (2000b). Coach–athlete relationships in married couples: an

exploratory content analysis. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 157–175.

Jowett, S. (2001). The psychology of interpersonal relationship in sport: the coach-

athlete relationship. University of Exeter, UK.

Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach-athlete

Relationship. Solutions in Sport Psychology, 16-31.

Jowett, S. (2003).When the honeymoon is over: A case study of a coach–athlete

relationship in crisis. The Sport Psychologist, 17, 444–460.

Jowett, S. & Cockerill, I. M. (2003). Olympic medallists’ perspective of the athlete–

coach relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 313–331.

Jowett, S. & Chaundy, V. (2004). An investigation into the impact of coach

leadership and coach–athlete relationship on group cohesion. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research and Practice, 8, 302–311.

Jowett, S., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). The coach–athlete relationship questionnaire

(CARTQ): Development and initial validation. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, 14, 245–257.

Jowett, S. (2005). The Coach-Athlete Partnership. The Psychologist, 18 (7),

412-415.
 18

Jowett, S., & Timson-Katchis, M. (2005). Social networks in the sport context: The
influence of parents on the coach-athlete relationship. The Sport Psychologist,
19, 267-287.

Jowett, S. (2007). Interdependence analysis and 3+1 Cs in the coach-athlete

relationship. In Jowett, S., & Lavallee, D. (Eds.), Social psychology in sport.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2007). Understanding the coach-athlete relationship.

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Jowett, S., & Frost, T. C. (2007). Race/ethnicity in the all-male coach-athlete

relationship: Black footballers' narratives. Journal of International Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 3, 255-269.

Jowett, S., & Poczwardowski, A. (2012). Understanding the coach-athlete

relationship. ResearchGate Publication, 1-14.

Kassing, J. W., Pearce, K. J., Infante, D. A., & Pyles, S. M. (1999). Exploring the
communicative nature of corporal punishment. Communication Research
Reports,16, 18-28.

Kavussanu, M., & Robert, G. C. (1996). Motivation in physical activity contexts: The
relationships of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and self-
efficacy. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 137-149.

Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, H. H., Huston, T. L., Levinger,
G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., Peterson, D. R. (Eds.). (1983). Close
relationships. New York: Freeman.

Lai, F. S., Chong, S. C., Sia, B. K., & Ooi, B. C. (2010). Culture and Consumer
Behaviour: Comparisons between Malays and Chinese in Malaysia.
International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 2, 180-185.

Latif, R. A., Hassan, A., & Fauzee O. S. (2009) A Qualitative Analysis of

Effectiveness Communication of Coaches from Athlete’s Perspective,
Malaysian Journal of Sport Science and Recreation, 5(1), 1-16.

Li, B., Dittmore, S. W., & Park, J. (2015). Exploring Different Perceptions of Coach-
Athlete Relationship: The Case of Chinese Olympians. International Journal of
Coaching Science, 9(2), 59-76.

Lirgg, C. D., Dibrezzo, R., & Smith, A. N. (1994). Influence of gender of coach on
perceptions of basketball and coaching self-efficacy and aspirations of high
school female basketball players. Women, Sport, and Physical Activity Journal,
3, 1-14.
 19

Longueville, F.A., Fournier, J.F., & Dubois, A. (1998). The Perceived Effectiveness of
Interactions between Expert French Judo Coaches and Elite Female Athletes.
The Sport Psychologist, 12, 317-332.

López-Valle, J., Balaguer, I., Castillo, I., & Tristan, J. (2011). Perceived motivational
climate, self-determined motivation and self-esteem in young Mexican athletes.
Revista de Psicología del Deporte, 20, 209–222.

Lustig, M., & Koester, J. (1999). Intercultural competence: Interpersonal

communication across cultures (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley
Longman.

Lyle, J. (1999). Coaching philosophy and coaching behaviour. In N. Cross., & J. Lyle
(Eds.) The coaching process: Principles and practice for sport (pp. 25–46).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.

Mazer, J. P., Barnes, K., Grevious, A., & Boger C. (2013). Coach verbal aggression:
a case study examining effects on athlete motivation and perceptions of coach
credibility. International Journal of Sports Communication, 6(2), 203-213.

Medwechuk, N., & Crossman, J. (1994). Effects of gender bias on the evaluation of
male and female swim coaches’. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 163-169.

Melinda, F., Czech, D., Kent, R., & Johnson, M. (2008). An Exploration of Female
Athlete’s Experiences and Perceptions of Male and Female Coaches. U.S Sports
Academy, 1-11.

Miles, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (1993). Using punishment threats to attenuate social
loafing effects among swimmers. Organizational Behaviour and Human
Decision Processes, 56, 246-26.

Milton, B. (1993). Towards ethno relativism: a developmental model of intercultural

sensitivity. R. Michael Paign. Cross-Cultural Orientation: New
Conceptualization and Applications.

Molstad, S., & Whitaker, G. (1987). Perceptions of female basketball players

regarding coaching qualities of males and females. Journal of Applied Research
in Coaching and Athletics, 2, 57-71.

Nixon, Frey. (1998). Ethnic and Religious Identity. In Cassidy, T. G., Jones, R. L., &
Potrac, P. (2Ed.), Understanding Sports Coaching: The Social, Cultural and
Pedagogical Foundations of Coaching Practice (pp. 107). New York, NY:
Routledge.

Norton, R. (1983). Communicator style: Theory, applications and measures. Beverly

Hills: Sage Publications.

Orlick, T. (1986). Psyching for sport. Champaign, IL: Human kinetics.

 20

Osborne, B. (2002). Coaching the female athlete. Psychological foundations of sport,

428 – 437.

Parkhouse, B. L., & Williams, J. M. (1986). Differential effects of sex and status on
evaluation of coaching ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 57,
53-59.

Paul. R. (2011, May 1). Rhythmic gymnastics turning into a divisive and ugly sport.
The Star Online. Retrieved from
http://www.thestar.com.my/story/?file=%2F2011%2F5%2F1%2Fsports%2F856
6266&sec=sports.

Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E., & Henschen, K. P. (2002). The athlete and coach:
their relationship and its meaning. Results of an interpretive study. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 33, 116-140.

Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E., & Peregoy, J. J. (2002). The athlete and coach:
Their relationship and its meaning. Methodological concerns and research
process. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 33(1), 98–115.

Poczwardowski, A., Barott, J. E., & Jowett, S. (2005). Diversifying approaches

to research on athlete-coach relationships. Journal of Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 7, 125-142.

Riemer, H.A., & Toon, K. (2001). Leadership and satisfaction in tennis: Examination
of a congruence, gender and ability. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport,
72, 243–256.

Ryan, J. (1996) Little Girls in Pretty Boxes: The Making and Breaking of Elite
Gymnasts and Figure Skaters, London: The women’s Press.

Sabock, R. J., & Kleinfelter, E. R. (1987). Should coaches be gendered? Coaching

Review, 10, 28-29.

Samah, A., Hanie, I., & Olutokunbo, S. (2013). Influence of Coaches' Behavior on
Athletes' Motivation: Malaysian Sport Archery Experience. International
Journal of Research in Management, 5(3), 136-141.

Schempp, P., & Oliver, K. (2000). Issues of Equity and Understanding in Sport and
Physical Education: A North American perspective. In Jones, R., & Armour, M.
(Eds.), the Sociology of Sport: Theory and Practice. London: Addison Wesley
Longman.

Serpa, S. (1999). Relationship Coach-Athlete: Outstanding trends in european

research. Portuguese Journal of Human Performance Studies, 12(1), 7-19.

Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication.

Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
 21

Solomon, G. B., Wietgardt, P. A., Yusuf, F. R., Kosmitzki, C., Williams, J., Stevens,
C. E., & Wayda,V. K. (1996). Expectancies and ethnicity: The self-fulfilling
prophecy in college basketball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
18, 83-88.

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic

relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 8(5), 217-242.

Taylor, J., & Wilson, G. S. (Eds.). (2005). Applying sport psychology: four
perspectives. Human Kinetics. Retrieved from
https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=uLuXy725C_AC&oi=fnd&
pg=PR9&dq=Applying+sport+psychology.+Four+perspectives&ots=1CvOz7vla
3&sig=tD3NCBTR8wS1Trrlw-
eoxFZyCWM#v=onepage&q=Applying%20sport%20psychology.%20Four%20
perspectives&f=false

Tubbs, S. L., & Moss, S. (2000). Human communication (8th Ed.). Singapore:
Mc Graw-Hill.

Tušak, M., mouse, R., & Vičić, A. (2003). Psychology team sports: Psychology of
team sports. Ljubljana: Faculty of Sport Institute of Sport.

Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992). Women & Gender: A feminist psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Vallerand, R.J., Fortier, M. and Guay, F. (1997). Self determination and persistence
in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model of high school dropout.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161–1176.

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

Whitaker, G., & Molstad, S. (1985). Male coach/female coach: A theoretical analysis
of the female sport experience. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 9, 14-25.

Williams, J. M., & Parkhouse, B. L. (1988). Social learning theory as a foundation for
examining sex bias in evaluation of coaches. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 10, 322-333.

Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: Uncharted territory in sport

psychology research. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555–572.

Yang, S. X., & Jowett, S. (2012). Psychometric properties of the Coach-Athlete

Relationship Questionnaire (CART-Q) in seven countries. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 13, 36-43
 22

Yoder, J. D., & Schleicher, T. L. (1996). Undergraduates regard deviation from

occupational gender stereotypes as costly for women. Sex Roles, 34, 171–188.

Yukelson, D.P. (1984). Group Motivation in Sports Team. Psychological Foundation

of Sports, 229-240.