Building on recent self-determination theory research differentiating controlling coaching into a demanding and domineering approach, this study examined the role of both approaches in athletes’ motivational outcomes when accompanied by autonomy support or structure. Within team-sport athletes (N = 317; mean age = 17.67), four sets of k-means cluster analyses systematically pointed toward a four-cluster solution (e.g., high–high, high–low, low–high, and low–low), regardless of the pair of coaching dimensions used. One of the identified coaching profiles involved coaches who are perceived to combine need-supportive and controlling behaviors (i.e., high–high). Whereas combining need-supportive and domineering behaviors (i.e., high–high) yields lower autonomous motivation and engagement compared with a high need-support profile (i.e., high–low), this is less the case for the combination of need-supportive and demanding behaviors (i.e., high–high). This person-centered approach provides deeper insights into how coaches combine different styles and how some forms of controlling coaching yield a greater cost than others.

基于最近的自我决定理论研究，将控制性教练区分为要求和专横的方法，本研究考察了在自主支持或结构伴随下这两种方法在运动员动机结果中的作用。在团队运动运动员中（N  = 317；平均年龄 = 17.67），四组 k 均值聚类分析系统地指向四聚类解决方案（例如，高-高、高-低、低-高和低-低），无论使用的一对辅导尺寸如何。已确定的教练概况之一涉及被认为将需求支持和控制行为结合起来的教练（即高-高）。尽管与高需求支持概况（即高-低）相比，将需求支持行为与霸道行为（即高-高）相结合会产生较低的自主动机和参与度，但将需求支持行为与霸道行为相结合（即高-高）会产生较低的自主动机和参与度，但将需求支持与霸道行为相结合时，情况就不太如此。要求行为（即高-高）。这种以人为本的方法提供了更深入的见解，让我们了解教练如何结合不同的风格，以及某些形式的控制性教练如何比其他形式产生更大的成本。