Players' Responses to and Primary Caregivers' Perceptions of Authoritarian and Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City : Players' Responses to and Primary Caregivers' Perceptions of Authoritarian and Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City
Renee Brown
Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Brown, Renee, "Players' Responses to and Primary Caregivers' Perceptions of Authoritarian and
Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City" (2017). Graduate Theses, Dissertations, and Problem Reports.
5269.
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/5269
This Dissertation is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by the The Research
Repository @ WVU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Dissertation in any way that is
permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you must obtain
permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license
in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Dissertation has been accepted for inclusion in WVU Graduate Theses,
Dissertations, and Problem Reports collection by an authorized administrator of The Research Repository @ WVU.
For more information, please contact researchrepository@mail.wvu.edu.
Players’ Responses to and Primary Caregivers’ Perceptions of Authoritarian and
Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City
Reneé Brown
Dissertation submitted to the College of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences at West
Virginia University
in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Coaching and Teaching Studies/ Positive Youth Dynamics
Ryan Flett, Ph.D., Chair
Sean Bulger, Ph.D.
Andrea Taliaferro, Ph.D.
Suzanne Hartman, Ph.D.
Department of Coaching and Teaching Studies
Morgantown, West Virginia
2017
Keywords: Positive youth development, inner-city, coaching styles, coaching
Copyright 2017 Reneé Brown
Abstract
Players’ Responses to and Primary Caregivers’ Perceptions of Authoritarian and
Authoritative Coaching in the Inner-City
Reneé Brown
An abundance of research in sport-based positive youth development (PYD)
indicates that coaches should be positive, promote autonomy-supportive and authoritative
coaching styles, and caution the use of authoritarian leadership, while too often ignoring
elements of authoritarian leadership such as discipline and structure. However, most of
the studies conducted targeted middle-upper socioeconomic status (SES) suburban, White
populations, with little emphasis on the inner-city underserved context. Parenting and
teaching literature provides strong support for authoritarian styles in the underserved
setting (Hartman & Manfa, 2015; Smetana, 2011). Similarly, the few studies conducted
in the underserved sport settings show support of authoritarian styles (Brown et al., in
preparation; Cowan et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2013; Richardson, 2012).
The purpose of this study is to extend the previous year’s season-long qualitative study of
a single girl’s basketball team (Brown et al., in preparation) to include perspectives from
parents of that team and quantitative surveys from players across the league.
Participants included five head coaches with 14.2 years of experience and 80
players from the five teams in the league. The study incorporated interviews with six
parental/primary caregivers from Team C; and quantitative surveys for players in the
league. An abductive approach was used to develop thematic categories from the
interview data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014).
Quantitative results revealed that players are improving life skill development
over time. Additionally, in order for coaches to have the biggest impact, they must use
authoritative coaching styles and foster a caring and mastery climate. More importantly,
results indicated that authoritarian coaching was a unique predictor of life skills
development, however, it did not affect life skill development in a negative or positive
manner. Qualitative results revealed that parents/primary caregivers relied on the coach
as a unique source of support and guidance to supplement, complement or compensate
their adolescent’s home life. Additionally, parents/primary caregivers strongly preferred
authoritarian coaching combined with authoritative components to instill values and
positively influence life skill development.
iii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to give the praise, honor and glory to God for
allowing me this opportunity to grow as a person, mentally, physically, spiritually,
emotionally, and giving me the strength to endure through all odds. I am forever grateful
and thankful for my advisor, Dr. Ryan Flett, because without your commitment, intuitive
feedback, and immeasurable help, I would not have been able to complete this process
without you. Throughout the years, you have been in my corner supporting me with
everything whether it was academics, personal life, and exposed me to different
opportunities to help develop me into the person that I am today. Dr. Flett, I want you to
know that I sincerely appreciate and respect all that you do, because you go above and
beyond the traditional role of a chair and I think more professors should strive to be more
student-centered like you. To Dr. Hartman, I am so grateful that you were a part of the
entire process. Your positive reinforcement, encouragement, and open-door policy helped
motivate me through my dark times. I will forever remember the words you said to me,
“If it was easy, then everyone would do it.” To Dr. Taliaferro, I am so happy that you
were willing to be a part of the committee because the thing I valued most was that you
were straight-forward and did not sugar coat anything and it was from a place of love,
which reminded me of my mother. To Dr. Bulger, thank you for having a listening ear
and reminding me that everyone has breakdowns at one point in time, but the most
important thing is that you get back up and little did you know; it was those very words
that kept picking me up. I would also like to acknowledge Stephanie McWilliams for her
assistance in the qualitative analysis and all participants in the study. I am grateful that
you all allowed me your time to help me complete the study, given all the other
iv
tasks and responsibilities you had going on. Without you all, none of this would be
possible.
There is an old African proverb which states “it takes a village to raise a child”
little did you know, you were all that village and an extension of my family. If I could do
everything over again, without changing one thing, I would; because I value each of you
and because of your ideas and feedback made this a stronger dissertation.
To my parents, Cardell Nino Brown Sr., and Reneé Bernice Drummond-Brown,
WVU has made me understand without a shadow of a doubt that none of my
accomplishments would have been possible without parents like you. Your patience,
trainings and beliefs helped shaped me into the person I am today. I know it has been
rough over the years, and we did not always see eye to eye, but you never gave up on me
because you both seen something greater in my future. Thank you for making sacrifices
that you did and I hope that I have made you proud.
To my grandfather, Peter Charles Drummond, thank you pap-pap for loving me
unconditionally, and being present at all of my presentations.
To my siblings, Cardell Nino Brown Jr. and Raven Chardell Brown, although,
you could not be there at times physically, because of jobs and travel; you were always
there with me in spirit.
To Anthony Antonelli and Family, thank you for the love, support and kindness
you have shown me throughout the years. The Antonelli family will forever hold a
special place in my heart.
v
To my late grandmother, Barbara Ann Drummond, this degree is for you. I cannot
thank you enough because it was you and mom who both challenged and inspired me to
pursue a PhD. While at WVU as you both requested, I held on to this scripture, 2Timothy
2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be
ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth,” I hope I made you proud! I love you!
To all my extended family and supportive friends (too numerous to mention)
please know, that I am grateful for your love, support and prayers throughout the
education process, you also hold a special place in my heart. To God be the glory for the
things He has done in my life.
vi
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................................iii
CHAPTER I ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Inner-City Context and Issues ........................................................................................................................ 2
PYD, Sport, and Underserved Inner-City Youth ...................................................................................... 4
The Coach’s Role in Inner-City Underserved Settings ......................................................................... 5
Statement of Purpose...................................................................................................................................... 10
Statement of Significance .............................................................................................................................. 11
Research Questions ......................................................................................................................................... 11
Key Terminology .............................................................................................................................................. 13
CHAPTER II............................................................................................................................................. 16
Extended Literature Review ............................................................................................................ 16
Positive Youth Development ....................................................................................................................... 17
Framing Key Literature in Theory............................................................................................................. 23
Effective Coaching, Mentorship, and Sport Issues .............................................................................. 30
Coaches’ Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................................... 39
Underserved Context and Sport ................................................................................................................. 45
Purpose ................................................................................................................................................................. 51
Hypothesis ........................................................................................................................................................... 53
CHAPTER III ........................................................................................................................................... 57
Method ..................................................................................................................................................... 57
vii
Design .................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Setting ................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Participants ......................................................................................................................................................... 59
Measures .............................................................................................................................................................. 61
Pilot Testing ........................................................................................................................................................ 66
Procedure ............................................................................................................................................................ 68
Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 72
CHAPTER IV ........................................................................................................................................... 79
Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 79
Participant Numbers, Measurement Reliabilities, and Assumptions ......................................... 79
Descriptive Data and Correlations ............................................................................................................ 82
Research Question 1: Developmental Outcomes and Related Factors ..................................... 85
Research Questions 2: Common and Comparison of Coaching Style in Context .................. 92
Research Question 3: How Parents View Sport and/or Coaches ................................................ 93
Summary of qualitative findings ............................................................................................................. 106
CHAPTER V ........................................................................................................................................... 108
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 108
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................... 108
Limitations ....................................................................................................................................................... 113
Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................................. 115
References ............................................................................................................................................ 117
Appendix A ........................................................................................................................................... 135
viii
APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................................... 139
Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................ 142
Appendix D ........................................................................................................................................... 147
Appendix E............................................................................................................................................ 156
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction
The current dissertation is grounded in the ecological systems theory (EST) and
expands Brown, Hayes, Goodson, Hartman, and Flett’s (in preparation) season-long
ethnography and interview study to include parental/primary caregiver perspectives and
the other high school girls’ basketball teams within the same city league. The purpose of
this study is four-fold. First, it will inform the reader of the coaching styles used in the
underserved setting. Second, it will explore the impact of the coaching style and
objectively track developmental outcomes throughout the season. Third, it will explore
the use of authoritarian strategies in the underserved setting, which is under-represented
in the sport literature. Lastly, it will investigate parental/primary caregivers’ perceptions
of the coaching style used in the underserved setting, the intentionality of the coach,
whether life skills (LS) are transferred from the sport setting to other domains of life, and
how the coach supplements or augments parental/primary caregivers’ efforts in this
context. In summary, the purpose of this study is to expand the previous year’s season
long qualitative study of a single girls’ basketball team to include perspectives from
parents of that team and quantitative surveys from players across the league.
Positive youth development (PYD) is especially important in underserved
communities because youth are less likely to have positive emotional, social, and
cognitive developmental experiences (Flett, Gould, & Lauer, 2013; Smetana, 2011).
Sport is an avenue for youth to engage in PYD; however, PYD occurs from positive
experiences and coaching, not from sport alone (Thomas-Fraser, Côté, & Deakin, 2005).
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
2
The sport-based PYD literature encourages coaches to create autonomy-supportive
climates, be “positive” with their players, and cautions the use of authoritarian,
controlling coaching styles (Cowan, Taylor, McEwan, & Baker, 2012). PYD research
typically focuses primarily on white, middle- to high-class populations with limited
research on coaches in underserved urban settings. Based on strong support from
parenting literature—and to a lesser extent, the teaching literature—authoritarian styles
may be the most developmentally effective approach in underserved settings. This
chapter will provide a basic overview of the literature and issues in inner-city contexts,
PYD in sport, and the coach’s role in the underserved setting, and will conclude with
definitions of key terminology.
Inner-City Context and Issues
The underserved setting can be defined as those individuals that are provided with
low levels of access, inadequate services (i.e. health services, low rates of insurance, etc.)
and face a multitude of barriers in everyday life (Walsh, 2008). This context can be
characterized by high-risk factors such as poverty, high crime rates, and lack of support.
Youth who grow up in this setting are more likely to be at a developmental disadvantage
socially, emotionally, and cognitively because they are not afforded the same
opportunities as higher socioeconomic (SES) communities (Smetana, 2011). Underserved
youth are more likely to face challenges such as broken homes, racism, poverty, lower
quality health care, poor education, gang violence, crime, and limited extracurricular
activities (Martinek & Hellison, 1997; Martinek & Schilling, 2003; Walsh, 2008).
Experts have argued that youth living in the underserved settings are in the greatest need
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
3
of PYD-support because they are more likely to lack developmental experiences and
support systems (Flett et al. 2013; Walsh, 2008).
Parents and primary caregivers are responsible for socializing and teaching their
children the socially desirable behaviors of the culture. However, parenting styles differ
from home to home. Furthermore, Coakley (2002) indicated that upper-middle income,
predominately White families place emphasis on upward mobility, as compared to an
underserved minority family which emphasizes control and discipline. Research in
parenting literature shows strong support for Coakley’s claim and revealed that parents in
the underserved setting are more likely to use authoritarian parenting styles because they
are developmentally effective and serve as a protective factor to underserved youth
(Eamon, 2002, Smetana, 2011). For example, Eamon’s two-year longitudinal study with
participants living in poverty found that the use of physical punishment prevented anti
social behavior. In a similar study, Dearing (2004) found that authoritarian parenting
served as a protective factor for youth living in a neighborhood characterized by rape,
robbery, burglary, larceny, and aggravated assault. The authors also found that the
authoritarian parenting style had a positive effect on academic performance.
Research in teaching literature describes that the utilization of an authoritarian
approach by staff and teachers toward youth living in poverty is associated with fewer
child-behavior concerns (Hartman & Manfra, 2015; Higgins & Moule, 2009). For
example, Hartman and Manfra conducted a year-long study to explore the relation
between the quality of childcare and behavioral development with low-income
underserved Latino children. The findings revealed that a controlling and strict (i.e.
authoritarian) approach improved child behavior and decreased behavior concerns. In
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
4
sum, some research indicates that authoritarian styles are developmentally effective for
youth living in the underserved settings.
PYD, Sport, and Underserved Inner-City Youth
PYD is a holistic strength-based approach that focuses on enhancing pro-social
norms and optimizing personal development, and engaging youth within their family,
school, and community contexts. This leads to involvement in extracurricular activities
and develops and refine youth skills (Coakley, 2011). Experts emphasize that organized
sport participation could be beneficial and aid in PYD (Deakin, 2005).
Sport is considered the most popular and time-consuming activity in high schools
(Hansen & Larson, 2007), and is typically available to underserved populations. Many
believe that sport is an appropriate activity for enabling PYD because it can serve as a
protective factor, enhance personal and interpersonal development, and provide
opportunities for youth to build rapport with adults, such as coaches (Cowan et al., 2012;
Flett, Gould, Griffes, & Lauer, 2012; Flett et al., 2013; Gould, Flett, & Lauer, 2012;
Richardson, 2012). Research shows that sport can have positive outcomes such as
physical health (Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007), teamwork/cooperation opportunities
(Gould et al.), positive relationships with adults (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010) and
positive self-esteem (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). However, other researchers found
sport to have negative outcomes on youth such as increased stress (Merkel, 2013),
emotional abuse (Stirling & Kerr, 2013), poor cooperation, and negative peer influence
(Dworking & Larson, 2006). In other words, PYD does not occur from sport participation
alone; other social contextual factors (i.e. coaches) contribute to the fostering of PYD
(Petipas, Cornelius, Van Raalte & Jones, 2005; Holt, 2008).
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
5
The Coach’s Role in Inner-City Underserved Settings
As stated earlier, PYD does not occur from sport alone; coaches play a pivotal
role in player development through their coach-athlete relationship (Jowett & Ntoumanis,
2004; Petipas et al., 2005; Smith & Smoll, 2011) motivational climate, coaching style,
and coaching behavior, especially in the underserved settings.
Coach-Athlete Relationship. In underserved settings, interpersonal relationships
within non-familial adults (such as coaches) are important (Levine & Munsch, 2016). The
coach-athlete relationship is essential because coaches have the ability to become role
models and mentors to their athletes due to the consistency and time spent in games,
practices, and off-court activities (Jaime et al., 2015). Furthermore, research shows that
athletes’ perceptions of strong coach-athlete relationships are linked to positive
developmental experiences (Jowett, 2008). Richardson’s (2010) study in the underserved
context of New York City showed that caring and trust was built between players and
coaches through consistent interactions during practices and off-court activities. As a
result, the coach was able to reduce risk, promote resiliency, and provide safety to players
through mentorship. In addition, the coach kept players occupied with various activities
and talked to players about their actions and choices. Experts emphasized the importance
of the caring element when it comes to working with underserved youth.
Motivational Climate and Caring Climate. Another important factor that has a
direct impact on player experience is the motivational climate. Coaches are responsible
for creating and structuring an environment that is beneficial to PYD. Research strongly
supports the idea of using a mastery climate because success is based on personal
improvement, effort, helping others, learning through cooperation, and hard work (Cox,
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
6
2002). Furthermore, studies have shown that mastery climates increased positive attitudes
towards sport and coach (Fry & Newton, 2003), decreased burnout (Vitali et al., 2015),
decreased athlete anxiety (Fry & Newton, 2003), and increased personal and social
development. Gould et al. (2012) found that a mastery-oriented climate has the most
positive impact on underserved youth.
However, Gould et al. (2012) also found that “kids don’t care what you know,
unless they know you care,” (p.86) and hypothesized that the caring climate defined by
Newton et al. (2007, p.70) as "the extent to which individuals perceive a particular setting
to be interpersonally inviting, safe, supportive, and capable of providing the experience
of being valued and respected” is more important than a motivational climate and is more
likely to influence PYD. The caring climate is an important factor in PYD because if
players perceive the feelings of being cared for (feelings of support, safety, value, and
respect) then they are more likely to value the perspective of their coach (Gano-Overway
et al., 2009). In other words, coaches who create a caring climate can impact their
players’ beliefs and foster prosocial behaviors. Similar to Richardson’s (2010) study,
Gould et al. found that building rapport, caring, and supporting the athletes allowed the
coach to be more effective in their personal and social development (e.g. teamwork,
physical skills, initiative, cooperation). Additionally, Fry and Gano-Overway (2010)
found that players who perceived a caring climate reported having higher enjoyment and
more positive attitudes towards the coach and teammates.
Coaching style. Coaches in urban, underserved settings are believed to be more
authoritarian, controlling and militaristic towards their athletes because they want to
protect and prepare their players for the ways of the world as opposed to creating an
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
7
autonomy-supportive climate (Flett et al., 2013). For example, Flett et al. (2012)
conducted a qualitative comparison study in inner-city Detroit with 12 youth coaches
from six different sports. The authors used ethnographic methods and interviews to
observe the coaches 14 times in practice and game settings before conducting in-depth
interviews with each coach. Findings indicated that coaches who utilized an authoritarian,
militaristic coaching style were invested in their athletes lives and knew the personal
struggles the athletes faced (e.g. gang violence, crime, abuse, uninvolved parents,
dangerous neighborhoods, etc.). Furthermore, coaches wanted to prepare players for the
ways of the world with “tough-love.” The coaches who utilized this approach disciplined
the players out of love and went to the extremes to protect their athletes from negative
outcomes. In addition, the authors found that discipline may be effective in the urban
underserved settings, which is consistent with the parental literature.
However, the same sample of coaches tended to use authoritarian styles in overly
harsh, ineffective ways. Discipline and toughness used by these coaches were
understandable and justified, but extreme anger, harsh verbal attacks and emotional
manipulations were unjustifiable. The study did not investigate the coaches’ behavior
over a long period of time, did not interview parents, and this particular study did not
incorporate quantitative measures or a more generalizable sample size.
Cowan et al. (2012) conducted a case study in the underserved setting of Scotland
to explore coaching behaviors and the common assumption that autonomy-supportive
coaching is adaptive, versus controlling coaching which is considered to be maladaptive.
The sample included two male head coaches and 18 athletes from two teams between the
ages of 16 to 19 years. The authors found that the coaches were considered to be
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
8
controlling and militaristic. However, the coach used humor to help buffer the negative
outcomes associated with his authoritarian, controlling coaching style. In addition, the
authors found that the provision of choice to the players was maladaptive in this setting
because players lacked confidence and self-esteem. The study was limited because the
authors were not immersed into the culture of the team but instead relied on non
participant observations. This underserved setting may also differ from North American
high school sport. Although the context may differ, the fact remains that an authoritarian
coaching style was effectively used in an underserved setting. Based on the few studies
published about underserved sport-based PYD, results suggest that authoritarian coaching
styles play a significant role in underserved PYD (Cowan et al., 2012; Flett et al., 2012;
Flett et al., 2013; Gould et al., 2012; Richardson, 2012).
Brown et al. (in preparation) conducted a season-long in-depth ethnographic study
to observe a coach’s style and impact on players in the underserved setting. In addition,
the study included interviews to assess the coach and players’ perceptions of the
developmental environment, the coach’s perceived role/responsibilities, and the rationale
for coaching style/strategies. In an effort to address multiple gaps in the literature, this
study focused on a high school girls’ basketball team, was conducted over an entire year,
and the primary investigator was embedded within the team as a volunteer coach (and
had already coached with that team for a full season before this research study). As such,
the data collected in this dissertation represents the author’s third year with the team and
second year researching them and the city-league.
The results of Brown et al. (in preparation) indicated that the coach was
characterized as highly authoritarian and controlling, but also highly caring and sensitive
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
9
to the needs of the players. Together, these attributes are indicative of what the authors
term a “tough-love” approach: caring, understanding, and supportive, yet disciplined,
demanding, and lacking autonomy support. The coach consumed and controlled much of
the player’s time in order to develop academics, life skills, and character while keeping
them from threats in the community. Player and coach-interviews revealed that the coach
had high expectations for the players and disciplined them out of love. The coach used
physical tactics such as Charlie Horsing (light jabs in the arm), “popping” (i.e. slapping
players in the head), and “socking” (i.e. punching) to get players back on task, to
motivate, and to keep their attention. All players believed the coach used physical contact
in a positive and humorous manner, never in a negative manner, because the coach cared
for the players. Critical to the literature, results indicated that players generally supported
the coach’s use of an authoritarian approach, and expressed a desire for even more
disciplinary, controlling, and strict leadership (in order to manage newer and more unruly
girls). However, the study was limited in its design because the authors focused on one
team in the league and did not make comparisons to other teams. In addition, they did not
obtain quantitative assessments of developmental outcomes or perceived coaching style.
Parents of the players also expressed an interest in being interviewed so that they could
share their perspectives on the coach, context, and their daughter’s development.
What works for one context may be maladaptive in another context. Authoritarian
styles used in underserved, high-crime/-violence, and disadvantaged settings are more
likely to facilitate resilience and positive outcomes in youth (Cowan et al., 2012; Flett et
al., 2012; Flett et al., 2013; Gould et al., 2012; Hartman & Manfra, 2015; Richardson,
2012). Additionally, authoritative styles in these settings may be considered harmful and
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
10
maladaptive. Coaching styles should be context-specific and focus on players’ needs
(Flett et al., 2016).
After reviewing the foundational articles related to coaching in the underserved
settings, future research needs to explore parental/caregiver views on the coaching style
and how it impacts child development, the transfer of life skills, and the use of
authoritarian strategies. The current sport-PYD literature is not representative of the
underserved context and the unique challenges they face in everyday life. As stated
earlier, parenting literature and to an extent, some teaching literature shows strong
support for authoritarian (controlling, monitoring, and strict) styles in the underserved
setting. However, coaching literature typically cautions the use of authoritarian styles and
supports the use of positive, choice-based, autonomy-supportive (i.e. authoritative) styles
for PYD—but may be overgeneralizing their findings.
Furthermore, the current sport-PYD literature needs to expand and become more
culturally and socioeconomically diverse. Additionally, the literature must progress and
change from streamlining and stating that the use of authoritarian coaching and parenting
is wrong. More importantly, the most valuable question that needs to be answered is:
How can authoritarian styles of coaching be used most effectively, especially in the
underserved settings?
Statement of Purpose
In summary, the purpose of this dissertation will address the lack of underserved
PYD research; address the need for more longitudinal mixed-method studies; objectively
measure and track developmental outcomes throughout a season; and better understand
coaching styles used and how they impact PYD in the underserved setting (Cowan et al.
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
11
2012; Flett et al. 2012 and 2013). In addition, the dissertation will answer the question
“what combination of coaching style factors has the strongest influence for PYD in the
underserved setting?” Lastly, it will look at parental/caregiver perceptions and
preferences of coaching styles, the intentionality of the coach, and transferable life skills.
Statement of Significance
The following dissertation contributes to the existing sport-based PYD literature
by exploring a multitude of coaching styles used in the underserved settings of the inner
city. To the knowledge of the primary investigator (PI), this study is the first to
objectively measure authoritarian and authoritative coaching in sport (in the underserved
or any other setting). Additionally, the current study will assess life skill outcomes at two
time periods, which differs from the current sport-based literature utilizing one time of
data collection. This study is informed by not only the sport literature but also parental
and teaching literature.
Research Questions
This study will use quantitative measures to survey teams across the city league
located in an urban underserved setting in the North East United States, and in-depth
interviews with parents/primary caregivers from one team (Team C) within this league.
The research questions and sub-questions guiding the study are as follows:
1. Do life skills (LS) improve from participation, and what coaching style factors
influence those LS outcomes?
1.1 Do quantitative measures of life skills show improvement for players across
the season (Do scores change over time)?
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
12
1.2 Do quantitative measures of coaching style change over the basketball season
(between Time 1 and Time 2)?
1.3 Are certain coaching styles greater for LS development (i.e. authoritarian,
authoritative, caring, mastery, ego)?
1.4 If you were to combine all coaching style factors, which have the strongest
influence on LS?
1.5 What influence does authoritarian coaching have on LS when combined with
each of the other three coaching style factors (i.e. caring, mastery, ego), one at
a time (i.e. authoritarian + caring; authoritarian + mastery; and authoritarian +
ego).
1.6 What influence does authoritative coaching have on LS when combined with
each of the other three coaching style factors (i.e. caring, mastery, ego), one at
a time (i.e. authoritative + caring; authoritative + mastery; and authoritative +
ego).
2. What is the common style of coaching in the city league?
2.1 What is the common coaching style in the city league?
2.2 How does Coach DD’s (Team C) style compare to other coaches’ styles in the
city league?
3. Is this coach (Coach DD, Team C) developing LS through basketball, and if so, what
skills and how does she develop them?
3.1 What developmental outcomes do parents think occur from participation with
this coach and team (i.e. life skills development, intentionality, and
transferability)?
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
13
3.2 Does the coach foster youth development intentionally? If so, how does she
intentionally develop LS?
3.3 Do parents feel they can provide concrete examples of transferrable LS? If so,
how are they being transferred?
3.4 Do parents think the sport or coach supplement psychosocial development in
the players’ home lives? If so, how does the coach or sport supplement
psychosocial development in the players’ home lives?
Key Terminology
Adolescents. Youth who are in the transitional stage concerning childhood and
adulthood between the ages of 13 to 19 years.
Authoritarian. A person who is characterized as highly demanding, less
responsive, controlling, and rarely provide rationales (Baumrind, 2013). Authoritarians
tend to create a disciplined environment with clear rules, and monitor behaviors, and
activities of youth (Holt, Tamminen, Black, Mandigo & Fox, 2009).
Authoritative. A person who is characterized as highly demanding, responsive,
consistent, and provides rationales (Baumrind, 2013). In addition, authoritative people are
assertive, and use supportive rather than disciplinary actions (Holt et al. 2009).
Autonomy-supportive. “A style that actively supports self-initiated strivings and
creates conditions for athletes to experience a sense of volition, choice, and self
endorsement (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Thøgersen-Ntoumani 2010).” In addition, an
autonomy-supportive style allows youth to feel that they initiate their actions rather than
feeling coerced to act in a certain manner (Grolnick, 2003).
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
14
Caring climate. “The extent to which individuals perceive a particular setting to
be interpersonally inviting, safe, supportive and capable of providing the experience of
being valued and respected” (Newton et al., p.70).
Positive youth development. A holistic intentional approach that engages youth
in all contexts (i.e. school, home, work, etc.) while enhancing pro-social norms and
helping youth reach their full potential (Holt, 2008; U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2007).
Sport. Structured physical activity governed by a set of rules and facilitated by a
coach or instructor that is implemented in an individual or group setting.
Tough-love. A formal, established definition for this term is not available from
the literature, but because the term is frequently used in this dissertation, it is important to
provide clarity it. The term has emerged from research by Flett et al. (2013) and Brown et
al. (in preparation). Tough-love is meant to describe a highly caring and respectful
approach to authoritarian, or more controlling, coaching. Such an approach would not be
“entirely” authoritarian in that there could be elements of autonomy-supportive and
authoritative behaviors. Finally, based on Flett et al.’s work, it is important to clarify that
a tough-love approach is not angry, unregulated, out of control coaching. A tough-love
coach is able to model life skills and positive psychosocial attributes.
Underserved. According to the American Journal of Managed Care (2013),
underserved populations are defined as vulnerable populations that include the
economically disadvantaged, racial and ethnic minorities, the uninsured, low-income
children, the elderly, the homeless, those with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and
those with other chronic health conditions, including severe mental illness. It may also
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
15
include individuals who often encounter barriers to accessing healthcare services. The
vulnerability of these individuals is enhanced by race, ethnicity, age, sex, and factors
such as income, insurance coverage (or lack thereof), and absence of a usual source of
care. Their health and healthcare problems intersect with social factors, including
housing, poverty, and inadequate education. For the purpose of the dissertation,
underserved will be characterized as those who are socially disadvantaged, living in
poverty, and face many unique challenges such as racial discrimination, gang violence,
substance abuse, and cultural barriers (see, Flett, Gould, & Lauer, 2013; Richardson,
2012; Walsh, 2008).
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
16
CHAPTER II
Extended Literature Review
This dissertation addresses the need for research on sport coaches and positive
youth development (PYD) in the underserved setting. The study will explore inner-city
coaching styles throughout the season and their impact on developmental outcomes. In
addition, the study will examine parents’/primary caregivers’ perceptions of the coaching
style in the city league, and intentionality and transferability of life skills.
While an authoritative style and positive coaching strategies (e.g., autonomy
support) are staples of a PYD approach to coaching, authoritarian parenting and teaching
styles are more developmentally effective in underserved settings. Bartholomew,
Ntoumanis, and Thøgersen-Ntoumani (2010) argued that coaches can use a mixture of
both autonomy-supportive and controlling strategies simultaneously and still be
considered adaptive. Youth from underserved settings are in the greatest need of PYD
because of the unique challenges they face in their everyday life (Walsh, 2008).
Researchers believe that underserved youth may also be less likely to have positive
developmental experiences in sport (Flett, Gould & Lauer, 2012; Flett, Gould, Griffes, &
Lauer 2013; Richardson, 2012). Sport is a popular activity in high school and many
perceive it to be an effective activity to enhance personal development and serve as a
protective factor for underserved youth (Coakley, 2011). Sport provides underserved
youth the opportunity to develop interpersonal relationships and build rapport with peers
and non-familial adults, such as coaches.
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
17
The purpose of this chapter is to explain the importance of PYD and how it relates
to this study. Additionally, this chapter will discuss the context needed for PYD to occur
in sport and explain the importance of girls’ participation in sport. The chapter will then
focus on the ecological systems theory (EST), which will help explain the importance of
interpersonal relationships throughout different contexts, and how they play an enormous
role in player psychosocial development. Furthermore, it will then focus in depth on
effective coaches, with specific emphasis on the coaches’ role, style, and the created
motivational and caring climate. Lastly, the chapter will review the scant literature in
sport and the underserved setting, address gaps, and discuss future directions.
Positive Youth Development
In the past, traditional youth development was reactive and focused on
minimizing and reducing problems such as teen pregnancy, sexual involvement,
substance abuse, problem behaviors and delinquency during adolescence in targeted
populations (Holt, 2008). This traditional approach provided intervention programming
and treated youth as beneficiaries as opposed critical resources and solutions. Pittman et
al. (2011) noted that problem-free youth are not fully prepared to be productive members
of society. Larson (2000) argued that healthy development involves more than reducing
and minimizing problem behaviors. In addition, Holt (2008) and others argued that a
comprehensive, holistic approach is more beneficial and would achieve long lasting
results for youth. As a result, a shift has been made from a traditional deficit reduction
approach to a humanistic positive youth development approach.
PYD is a holistic, strength-based approach that engages all youth within their
families, school, and community context. PYD has no singular definition. It concentrates
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
18
on enhancing pro-social norms, helping youth reach their full potential (U.S Department
of Health and Human Services, 2007), fostering positive relationships (Strachan, Côté, &
Deakin, 2009), and viewing youth as contributing members of society and critical
resources to be developed as opposed to problems to be solved (Holt, 2008; Roth &
Brooks-Gunn, 2003).
Within the PYD field, several researchers have outlined key components needed
for optimal development. Larson (2000) believed that there needs to be a match between
experiences of adolescents and requirements of the adult word. He argued that youth need
three important characteristics to function as healthy adults: initiative, empowerment and
leadership opportunities. Damon (2009) believed youth need to have a “purpose” in life,
which, in turn, helps adolescents cope and allow them to be optimistic no matter the
situation. The Five C’s Model of PYD created by Lerner and colleagues (2005) address
psychological, behavioral, and social characteristics in youth including: competence,
confidence, connection, character and caring. Youth who acquire the Five C’s are
considered to be thriving and will develop a sixth C, described as contribution to self,
family, and community (Zarrett & Lerner, 2008).
Similarly, the Search Institute identified 40 developmental assets, also known as
“building blocks” for human development. These assets help youth to become more
healthy, caring, and responsible adults. The developmental assets are organized into two
components, internal assets and external assets, with eight domains. Internal Assets are
sets of skills, links to the personal development, competencies, and values within a
person and are grouped into four categories: 1) positive identity, 2) positive values, 3)
social competencies, and 4) commitment to learning (Benson et al., 2011). External
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
19
assets describe the environmental, contextual and relational assets (formation of strong
bonds and relationships with the developing person), and are likewise grouped into four
categories: 1) empowerment, 2) support, 3) constructive use of time, and 4) boundaries
and expectations (Benson et al., 2011; Brofenbrenner, 2009). In order to develop these
assets, youth must positively and effectively interact within various contexts (family,
school, and community) to build important relationships and foster opportunities to
enhance their skills (Strachan et al., 2009). Research shows that adolescents who acquire
multiple assets have a greater chance of developing in a healthy manner (Benson et al.,
2006; Strachan, Fraser-Thomas, & Nelson-Ferguson, 2016). Fraser-Thomas, Côté and
Deakin (2005) implied that organized sport participation could benefit youth and help
them grow into caring and responsible adults.
Sport and PYD. PYD engages youth through multiple contexts (family, school,
and community) and provides youth the opportunity to get involved in various
extracurricular activities, like sport, to develop and refine their skills. In almost every
school, sport is the most popular and time-consuming activity (Hansen & Larson, 2007).
In the United States, approximately 21.5 million youth between the ages of 6 to 17
participate in organized team sports annually (Kelley & Carchia, 2013). The late Nelson
Mandela stated:
Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire, it has the
power to unit people in a way that little else does. It speaks to youth in a language
they understand. Sport can create hope, where once there was only despair
(Laureus World Sports Awards, Monaco 2000).
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
20
Organized sport enhances personal development more so than informal activities
such as hanging out with friends (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000), or hanging out at the mall
(Osgood & Anderson, 2004). According to Perkins et al. (2007), “Time spent in youth
programs is the most consistent predictor of youth thriving,” and research supports that
youth participating in organized sport are more likely to experience positive
developmental outcomes in comparison to those who do not participate in organized sport
(Larson, 2000). Empirical findings have shown that organized sport can lead to healthy
social, psychological, and physical developmental outcomes such as an increase in
physical health (Bailey, 2006; Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007), self-esteem (Bailey, 2006;
Smith, Smoll & Curtis, 1979), decreased stress (Smith, Smoll, & Cumming, 2007),
leadership opportunities (Gould & Carson, 2008), teamwork/cooperation opportunities
(Gould et al., 2012), increased academic achievement (Bailey), character development
(Donnelly & Coakley, 2007; Gould, Collins, Lauer, & Chung, 2007), responsibility
(Hellison & Cutforth, 1997) and the establishment of positive relationships with adults
(Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010; Strachan et. al, 2009).
The cultural and structural context of sport influences personal and social
development (Theokas, Danish, Forneris, Hodge, & Heke, 2008). Factors such as
personal characteristics of the athletes and coach (Peterson, 2004), actions of the coaches
(Smith& Smoll, 2002), and the environmental context (Fry & Gano-Overway, 2010;
Holt, Sehn, Spence, Newton & Ball, 2012; Martinek & Hellison, 1997) play a role in
developmental outcomes in sport. Larson, Hansen, and Montea (2006) contend that
positive outcomes of sport will likely occur when it is intentional, structured, and
systematic because sport is more likely to enhance external and internal assets in
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
21
adolescents (Hodge, 1989; Petipas, Cornelius, Van Raalte, & Jones, 2005). However,
sport participation alone is not the “magic ingredient” to enhance PYD.
Negative outcomes and best-practices. Although many studies show that sport
can be beneficial to PYD, negative outcomes can occur if PYD is not intentional. If sport
is not conducted in the right manner, it has the potential to deter youth from personal and
social development and result in eating disorders (Reel, SooHoo, Petrie, Greenleaf, &
Carter, 2010), elevated use of alcohol (Lisha, Crano, & Delucchi, 2014; Veliz, Boyd, &
McCable, 2015), sport injuries (Vitali, Bortoli, Bertinato, Robazza, & Schena, 2015),
decrease in self-esteem and confidence (Stirling & Kerr, 2013), athlete burnout (Vitali et
al.), increased stress (Gould & Carson, 2010), poor sportsmanship (LaVoi, & Stellino,
2008), emotional abuse (Stirling & Kerr), and/or poor cooperation and negative peer
influence (Dworkin & Larson, 2006). These negative outcomes are believed to occur
because of parents, youth, and coaches placing too much emphasis on sport outcomes
(i.e. winning, losing, and playing time), lack of formal education for coaches, and sport
susceptibility to adult domination (Gould & Carson, 2008).
The research presented shows empirical support for both positive and negative
outcomes that may result from sport participation. As stated earlier, sport participation
alone is not the “magic ingredient” to enhance PYD. Coakley (2011) argued that, “By
itself, the act of sport participation among young people leads to no regularly identifiable
developmental outcomes” (p. 309).
In an effort to reduce negative experiences, Petipas et al. (2005) created a PYD
sport framework grounded in research findings and best practices in the field of youth
development (Larson, 2000; Smith & Smoll, 2002). Petipas et al. indicated that PYD will
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
22
occur when youth a) are engaged in a desired activity within the appropriate context, b)
are surrounded by positive, caring external assets, and c) have the opportunity to learn
and acquire internal assets. In addition, Lerner and Lerner (2006) indicated that structure
and physical/psychological safety of athletes are critical factors to instilling PYD. In the
teaching personal and social responsibility (TPSR) framework, Martinek and Hellison
(1997) suggested that youth development programs should develop a sense of values,
purpose, and empowerment; respect diversity; promote safety; and develop resiliency. In
other words, youth programs need to create and maintain a physically, psychologically,
emotionally, and socially safe setting where coaches provide opportunities to teach youth
the necessary skills and instill positive values needed for sport and other domains (i.e.
school life, home life, and work life). The current study looks at how coaching styles,
sport participation, and intentionality of the coach may promote PYD.
Girls in sport. This study will look at PYD in the context of high school girls’
basketball teams. A generation ago, sport literature focused primarily on male
involvement because girls participating in sport were not culturally accepted nor
acknowledged. Within the past 40 years, there has been an increase in girls participating
in sports in America due to Title IX of the Educational Act of 1972, which prohibits
gender discrimination in any federally funded education program or activity (Paule-Koba,
Harris, & Freysinger, 2013). Title IX states, “No person in the United States shall, on the
basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving financial assistance”
(Title IX and Sex Discrimination, 2015). As a result, Title IX increased athletic
opportunities for girls and women. Women participating in sports has become more
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
23
culturally accepted and celebrated (Cooky, 2010). Research shows that sport and physical
activity positively impact the physical and psychosocial well-being of girls and women
(Staurowksy et al. 2009). Sport can potentially increase girls’ self-confidence, prevent
eating disorders, and enhance their physical health (Kane et al., 2007). In addition, sport
participation is associated with a positive body image (Hausenblas & Fallon, 2006;
Huang et al. 2007), an increase in educational achievement (Coakley, 2011), and a
decrease in teen pregnancy and substance abuse (Staurowsky et al.). Allen (2003) implies
that a sense of belongingness and enjoyment is the motivator for girls in sport.
Furthermore, Allen (2003) also provided support that girls prefer social, “fun” activities,
and opportunities to learn concepts and skills as motivators for their participation
(Passmore & French, 2001; Perkins et al., 2007).
Despite Title IX and increased athletic opportunities, sport participation gaps for
underserved African American girls still exist in urban and rural communities (Sabo &
Veliz, 2008). Sabo (2009) suggested that the lack of participation in urban and rural
communities can be explained by multiple contextual factors that include family income,
race and ethnicity, and the type of community. Sport may be helpful to achieve PYD for
underserved girls, but as stated earlier it is not the only ingredient (Coakley, 2011;
Hartmann & Kwauk 2011). Coakley (2011) argued that other factors within and outside
the sport program help to foster developmental benefits.
Framing Key Literature in Theory
Multiple theories have been used in sport PYD literature to explain the positive
and negative outcomes of sport. Due to the pragmatic approach for this dissertation, the
theory used for the current study is grounded in the ecological systems theory (EST). The
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
24
current study uses the EST (Brofenbrenner, 2009) to organize the review of literature and
as the rationale for including parents and other teams from this league as participants in
this study. EST allows the researcher to look at a broader picture of how an inner-city
girls’ basketball team functions in relation to the entire league and the parents’/primary
caregivers’ point of view.
Ecological System Theory. Brofenbrenner’s (1977; 2009) EST suggests that
human development and human behavior occur from person to context interactions. EST
provides a framework to understand the significance of social interactions within and
between various contexts, such as the home, school, and work environments. EST has
been used across several research domains (e.g. sport, public health, psychology, child
development, sport, etc.) to understand the bidirectional influence between youth and
their context (Lerner et al., 2011).
Within the EST framework, the ecological systems model is organized into four
nested systems that include: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. The
microsystem represents one’s immediate context that directly impacts development (e.g.
home, school, church, team). The mesosystem represents regular social interactions and
interconnectedness between the microsystems (i.e. the relationship between a coach and
player). The exosystem represents the relation between a social setting and one’s
immediate context, which the individual does not have an active role in (i.e. the coach’s
relationship with the player’s parents). Lastly, the macrosystem represents the cultural
context, such where one lives (e.g., neighborhood), SES, poverty and ethnicity. EST is
relevant to the sport domain because it takes into account the bidirectional influence of
individual, environmental, and program characteristics, rather than studying the
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
25
individual in isolation. Integrating EST into the design of this study reinforces the PYD
perspective, because PYD is grounded in an ecological systems approach to youth
development (Holt, 2008). The family, school, and community contexts of PYD are
considered below.
Family context. Within the family context (microsystem), parenting strategies
and techniques are used to socialize and teach their children appropriate behaviors of the
culture. Parenting styles differ throughout cultures and vary from home to home. Coakley
(2002) emphasized that upper- middle income, predominantly White families have
different ideas about PYD and believe that outcomes should emphasize achievement and
upward mobility, in comparison to underserved minority families who emphasize control
and discipline.
Baumrind (2013) created a typology that described four different parenting styles
grounded in research findings: authoritarian, authoritative, permissive and disengaged.
For the purpose of this paper, authoritarian and authoritative parenting styles will be
defined and emphasized as they relate to coaching in the inner-city. Authoritarian
parenting styles are described as highly structured with clear stated rules, high control,
and militaristic with the use of physical discipline such as spanking (Deater-Deckard,
Lansford, Dodge, Pettit & Bates, 2003; McLoyd, Kaplan, Hardaway & Wood, 2007).
Parents who utilize this style are considered to be high in demand and low in acceptance
and responsiveness to their child. These types of parents often have a large number of
rules that they expect their children to obey and rarely provide rationales for their rules
and expectations. On the other hand, authoritative parenting styles are described as
parents being highly demanding and highly accepting/responsive to their children. Unlike
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
26
authoritarian parenting styles, authoritative parents tend to provide rationales for their
rules/expectations and listen to their child more (Baumrind, 2013). Experts suggest that
authoritative parenting styles are linked to positive PYD outcomes; however, these
findings may not be generalizable to other contexts because the majority of these studies
examined white, middle-class populations.
Coll and Pachter (2002) advised researchers studying African American or other
minority populations to use a historical and cultural lens to try to account for their
experiences (i.e. slavery, racism, and poverty). Similar to EST, sociocultural theorist
Vygotsky believed “development occurs over time within the context of the culture”
(Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2008, p. 302). In other words, learning and development occurs
through context and social events, and cannot be separated from cultural, historical, and
social contexts in which they are situated (Wang, Bruce, & Hughes, 2011). This
paradigm looks at how social interaction and participation in organized activity play a
role in psychological development (Scott & Palinscar, 2009). According to Thompson
(2004), “African Americans in urban communities are socialized very differently from
Whites from middle-class communities” (p. 72). Research has shown that authoritarian
parenting practices used in low-income families correlate with lower levels of child
behavior problems. For example, Eamon (2002) conducted a two-year longitudinal study
with a sample of 963 participants between the ages 10 to 12 years old. Results showed
that poverty was strongly related to neighborhood problems more than parental and peer
influences. In addition, Eamon found that authoritarian parenting styles and the use of
physical punishment for kids living in poverty buffered anti-social behavior. Similarly,
Dearing (2004) conducted a longitudinal study in Massachusetts with three ethnic groups
AUTHORITARIAN AND AUTHORITATIVE COACHING
27
(i.e. African American, Latino American, and European American) living in an
underserved setting plagued by rape, robbery, burglary, larceny, and aggravated assault.
The purpose of the study was to examine how neighborhood characteristics moderated
associations between parenting and child outcomes. Results showed that
restrictive/controlling (authoritarian) parenting styles were a protective factor and had a
positive effect on academic performance for African American and Latino American
children, but had a negative effect on European American children. Furthermore, research
shows that minority parents living in dangerous and imp
4713 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Ile-de-France 4713 professionnels dans 616 villes
3998 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur 3998 professionnels dans 457 villes
3290 pros
Dépanneurs informatique dans les Pays de la Loire 3290 professionnels dans 572 villes
2570 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Aquitaine 2570 professionnels dans 483 villes
2054 pros
Dépanneurs informatique dans le Languedoc-Roussillon 2054 professionnels dans 438 villes
1984 pros
Dépanneurs informatique dans le Centre 1984 professionnels dans 537 villes
1547 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Midi-Pyrénées 1547 professionnels dans 391 villes
1514 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Bourgogne 1514 professionnels dans 382 villes
1416 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Lorraine 1416 professionnels dans 473 villes
1361 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Alsace 1361 professionnels dans 255 villes
1210 pros
Dépanneurs informatique dans le Nord-Pas-de-Calais 1210 professionnels dans 366 villes
993 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Picardie 993 professionnels dans 399 villes
938 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Poitou-Charentes 938 professionnels dans 342 villes
802 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Franche-Comté 802 professionnels dans 283 villes
797 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Champagne-Ardenne 797 professionnels dans 263 villes
776 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Rhône-Alpes 776 professionnels dans 336 villes
768 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Haute-Normandie 768 professionnels dans 247 villes
717 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Auvergne 717 professionnels dans 221 villes
710 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Basse-Normandie 710 professionnels dans 225 villes
562 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Bretagne 562 professionnels dans 214 villes
476 pros
Dépanneurs informatique dans le Limousin 476 professionnels dans 150 villes
371 pros
Dépanneurs informatique dans les Dom-Tom 371 professionnels dans 44 villes
220 pros
Dépanneurs informatique en Corse 220 professionnels dans 53 villes