Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Interpersonal violence (IV) in sport is a pervasive issue that threatens athletes’ physical, social, and psychological well-being. Sociological theories suggest that organisational pressure and adherence to sport norms, such as traditional masculinity and sport ethic, may contribute to coaches’ beliefs in the instrumental benefits of violence, leading to the perpetration of IV. Despite prior research into these risk factors, no study has simultaneously examined individual, organisational, and societal factors influencing coaches’ use of IV. This study aimed to explore how coaches’ beliefs regarding the instrumental effects of IV mediate the relationship between three independent variables—organisational pressure, masculinity norms, and conformity to sport ethic norms—and the perpetration of three forms of IV (physical, instrumental, psychological/neglect) against athletes. A total of 766 coaches aged 18 and over and involved in organised sports were recruited via email and social media ads. Three separate mediation models were examined, and the three forms of IV were analyzed using probit links and interpreted as probabilities and odds ratios. No indirect effects were found for instrumental and physical violence. However, full mediations were found for conformity to sport ethic norms and organisational pressure in relation to psychological violence and neglect. Furthermore, masculinity norms were partially mediated by beliefs in the instrumental effects of IV concerning psychological violence and neglect. These findings provide insights into the specific sport norms and organisational factors that should be targeted when designing programs to prevent IV perpetrated by coaches in sports.

Keywords

Ethics masculinity neglect psychological well-being

Introduction

Interpersonal violence is a systemic issue in sports that has become an increasingly prominent concern in recent years.¹ Interpersonal violence is defined as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against another person that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation”.² This phenomenon impacts athletes of all ages, sport types and levels across the globe.³ Within the sporting context, various forms of violence, such as physical, instrumental, sexual and psychological violence and neglect are prevalent.³ Instrumental violence is a form of interpersonal violence unique to the sport context, which consists of both psychological and physical behaviours (e.g. forcing an athlete to play injured) that seem to be performance related.⁴ Recent global studies have indicated prevalence rates of interpersonal violence ranging from 44% to 86%.³ Among the observed types of interpersonal violence, psychological violence and neglect are the most prevalent, as prevelance rates vary between 65% % to 81%.^5–7

In sport, interpersonal violence is often normalized; however, it has been found to reduce athletes’ motivation and performance while negatively impacting their mental health.⁸ Studies have found that experiencing interpersonal violence in the context of sports is associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, lower self-esteem, self-harm, suicide attempts, lower quality of life and various factors related to higher psychological distress such as, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, and social isolation.^9–11 Interpersonal violence can be perpetrated by different people (e.g. other athletes, coaches, parents, support staff, spectators), however, increased attention should be given to authority figures due to their position of power and trust relative to athletes.^5,6,10,11 In fact, recent studies showed that between 59.9% to 70.5% of young athletes report having experienced interpersonal violence perpetrated by coaches.^4,6

In recent years, various training initiatives on interpersonal violence in the sport context have been developed and implemented in Canada. However, these programs remain relatively rare.^12–14 A review of the literature on training programs highlights that these training initiatives: (1) are not developed based on evidence-based data or theoretical models, (2) are not systematically evaluated, (3) often focus on a single form of interpersonal violence (e.g. sexual), or (4) aim more at raising awareness and providing information rather than at changing behaviour.¹⁴ Consequently, despite these training programs being a step in the right direction, it is crucial to design initiatives that target risk factors associated with the use of interpersonal violence by coaches to effectively prevent its occurrence.¹⁵ To construct impactful prevention programs, it is important to first identify evidence-based risk factors for the use of interpersonal violence.

The socioecological model of interpersonal violence in sport³ highlights the complex interplay of factors that contribute to interpersonal violence, spanning individual, interpersonal, organisational, sectoral, societal, and temporal levels. This model emphasises the importance of examining risk factors across all levels of the socioecological system to fully understand the conditions under which coaches may engage in interpersonal violence toward athletes. Recent research has identified several relevant risk factors, including organisational pressure,¹⁶ prevailing sport norms, and coaches’ beliefs about the perceived instrumental effects of such violence.^17,18

To further contextualise these findings, the Theory of Planned Behaviour¹⁹ provides a useful framework for understanding how coaches’ behavioural intentions are shaped. According to this theory, intentions are influenced by three core components: attitudes toward the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control. In the present context, attitudes are informed by salient beliefs, specifically, coaches’ beliefs about the effectiveness or utility of interpersonal violence in achieving desired outcomes. Subjective norms refer to the perceived social pressures from significant others or cultural groups, which in sport may include adherence to masculinity and sport ethic norms.¹⁹ These norms can influence whether coaches perceive the use of violence as acceptable or even necessary. Perceived behavioural control is the individual's belief in their ability to perform the behaviour. In the context of sport, organisational pressure can influence coaches’ perceived behavioural control, as institutional demands and performance expectations often constrain their sense of autonomy and ultimately shape their behaviour.¹⁹ Such pressure and heightened expectations can also increase coaches’ stress levels, which may, in turn, compromise their ability to regulate their behaviour effectively.^20,21 Together, these theories provide a complementary framework for understanding not only the risk factors that contribute to coaches’ use of interpersonal violence, but also the mechanisms through which organisational pressure and sport norms shape coaches’ beliefs. These beliefs, particularly regarding the perceived instrumental value of violence, may ultimately lead to harmful behaviours directed at athletes.

The role of beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of interpersonal violence

Certain coaches hold maladaptive beliefs that using interpersonal violence is necessary to enhance athletes’ motivation, mental toughness, resilience, team cohesion, or for disciplinary and learning purposes.^9,12,22 Beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence are defined as the conviction that violence can serve purposeful functions, encompassing eight dimensions.¹⁸ Six dimensions involve the use of interpersonal violence by authority figures to achieve goals such as enhancing performance, deterring failure, testing resilience and commitment, developing toughness, and maintaining interpersonal control. The remaining two dimensions pertain to promoting team cohesion through practices like hazing and impairing competitors to increase the likelihood of winning. As outlined by the social learning theory,²³ these beliefs may develop through modelling. Coaches may have either experienced interpersonal violence themselves as young athletes^22,24 or observed other coaches using interpersonal violence towards athletes.¹⁸ Available evidence suggests that the risk of interpersonal violence increases when coaches believe in the effectiveness of interpersonal violence-based strategies to enhance athlete performance or perceive external validation for such practices.^9,17,18 Since coaches generally operate within organisational contexts, these environments can contribute to the development or reinforcement of beliefs and behaviours related to violence toward athletes.

Organisational stressors

Indeed, the pressure to perform and the “win at all cost” culture in sport can produce significant stress on coaches. Coaches may feel that their reputation will be judged or negatively affected if their athletes do not perform well, fearing they will be held accountable.¹⁶ More specifically, in certain sports organisations, coaches may face significant consequences for their athletes’ under-performance, including the risk of dismissal and a reduction in funding and resources for their program.¹⁸ This pressure is often compounded by a sense of competition, as coaches feel the need to prove themselves to sports organisations by outperforming their colleagues.¹⁶ To meet the expectations of their organisations, coaches may be tempted to adopt violent behaviours towards athletes for instrumental purposes.¹⁷ In addition to various organisational stressors, certain values, beliefs, and norms circulating within organisational or sport-specific contexts may shape coaches’ beliefs and contribute to the normalisation or legitimisation of violent behaviour toward athletes.

Conformity to dominant values, beliefs, and norms

In the sports context, there is an uncritical acceptance and commitment to fundamental sporting values. These dominant values, beliefs, and norms include, among others, a strong emphasis on masculinity and high performance.¹⁸ Stereotypical masculinity norms may legitimize interpersonal violence as acceptable behaviour in sport, reinforcing dominance and aggression.¹⁸ Four key masculinity norms are outlined by Glick and colleagues.²⁵ The first is the expectation to show no weakness, which involves avoiding asking for help, suppressing emotions or doubts, and refraining from admitting faults. The second emphasises the need to be strong and possess stamina, valuing physical fitness, athleticism, and an imposing presence as markers of respect and admiration. The third norm prioritises work above all else, often at the expense of personal relationships, such as family, in the pursuit of success. Lastly, the “dog-eat-dog” competition norm highlights the belief in constant vigilance, limited trust, and the necessity of standing up for oneself to avoid exploitation by others.

While these norms have been linked to abusive behaviours among co-workers, toxic leadership, and reduced psychological well-being in workplace environments,²⁵ to our knowledge, they have not been examined quantitatively for their association with interpersonal violence against athletes in sports. Furthermore, many of these masculinity norms appear to align with the reasons why authority figures resort to interpersonal violence toward athletes.

Furthermore, conformity to sport ethic norms, defined as as set of norms accepted as the criteria to be considered and accepted as an athlete in sport,²⁶ has been proposed as a mechanism to explain interpersonal violence in sport.¹⁸ Four norms are recognized as the dominant criteria of sport ethic.²⁶ The first is that being an athlete requires making sacrifices, defined as the idea of prioritising sport to the detriment of other interests. The second is that athletes should strive for distinction, defined as the constant search for improvement and perfection at all costs. The third norm is the acceptance of risk and playing through pain, defined as the expectation that an athlete will accept and overcome pressure, pain and fear. The fourth is the denial of personal limitations, defined as the pursuit of the sporting dream without question. Conformity to sport ethic norms by athletes was previously associated with their self-reported experiences of psychological and sexual violence by their coach.²⁷

While previous research has identified various individual-level risk factors contributing to coaches’ use of interpersonal violence, such as attitudes and beliefs, coaching style, and power dynamics (e.g.¹⁸), no study to date has examined individual, organisational, and societal influences concurrently. To our knowledge, no research has investigated how coaches’ beliefs about the perceived instrumental value of interpersonal violence may mediate the association between organisational pressure, prevailing sport norms, and their use of violence toward athletes. To effectively guide prevention efforts, it is essential to develop a more comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted drivers underlying coaches’ use of interpersonal violence.

The current study

To address the abovementioned gaps in the literature and to further explore the risk factors for the perpetration of interpersonal violence among sport coaches in Quebec, the current study included two objectives. In the first objective, preliminary analyses aimed to determine the association of the perceived pressure from sports organisations, adherence to masculinity norms and conformity to sport ethic norms on (1) coaches’ beliefs concerning the perceived instrumental effects of violence in sport, and on (2) coaches’ perpetration of interpersonal violence (instrumental, physical, sexual and psychological violence and neglect) against athletes. In the second objective, mediation analyses sought to further investigate whether coaches’ beliefs concerning the perceived instrumental effects of violence mediated the associations between three independent variables, organisational pressure, masculinity norms, and conformity to sport ethic norms, on the dependent variables, the perpetration of three forms of interpersonal violence against athletes. The following hypotheses were tested.

Hypothesis 1: Higher organisational pressure, adherence to masculine norms, and conformity to sport ethic norms will be associated with stronger beliefs among coaches regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence in sport.

Hypothesis 2: Coaches who hold stronger beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence in sport will be more likely to engage in instrumental, physical, sexual, and psychological violence, as well as neglect, toward athletes.

Hypothesis 3: Coaches who experience higher organisational pressure, adhere more strongly to masculine norms, and conform to sport ethic norms will be more likely to engage in instrumental, physical, sexual, and psychological violence, as well as neglect, toward athletes, and this association will be mediated by stronger beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence in sport.

According to a scoping review by Crozier and colleagues²⁸ on sport norms, there appear to be more significant associations between different types of norms (e.g. performance norms, competition norms) and behaviours among team-sport athletes than among individual-sport athletes. Also, a few studies have observed differences based on the coach's sex at birth and athletes’ propensity to experience certain types of violence, with a higher percentage of male-coached athletes being victims compared to female-coached athletes (e.g.²⁹). Therefore, to better understand the influence of the primary variables being studied, individual coaching characteristics, such as the type of sport coached, sex at birth, and the number of years of coaching experience, were controlled when examining both objectives.

Material and methods

Procedure and participants

The current study included 766 adult coaches who were involved in organised sports in Quebec at the time of the study. Coaches’ ages ranged from 18 to over 65, with 64.7% under 45 years old and 66.6% identified as male at birth. Most participants (87.8%) were from Quebec. Regarding their roles, 60.6% specialised in team sports, with an average of 12 years of coaching experience (SD = 10.3). The majority coached at the local or regional level (41.9%), followed by the provincial (32.9%), national (16.6%), and international (8.6%) levels. For a more detailed description of the sample see Supplemental Material Table 1. Participants were recruited on a voluntary basis through various strategies, such as emails sent through sport federations and associations, as well as targeted ads on social media. Coaches from all types and levels of sports were invited to participate in the study. To mitigate measurement error and item nonresponse that often occur with lengthy surveys, the current study employed a split questionnaire design.^30–32 All participants completed core questionnaires covering sociodemographic information, beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence, and use of different forms of interpersonal violence. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to one of three groups, each containing different questionnaires on secondary variables. Participants in groups A (n = 256), B (n = 259) and C (n = 251) did not differ significantly in the mean and variance of their beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence, and regarding their age, sex at birth, coaching experience, type of sport coached, and frequency of the three forms of interpersonal violence. Participants accessed the consent form and anonymous survey via a hyperlink hosted by Qualtrics software.³³ Based on a trauma-informed practice, a list of resources was provided to participants.

Measures

Individual coaching characteristics

The following variables were controlled as potential confounders: years of coaching experience, sex assigned at birth (i.e. male or female), and type of sport coached (i.e. team or individual sport).

Beliefs regarding perceived instrumental effects of violence

The Perceived Instrumental Effects of Violence in Sport Scale (PIEVS¹⁷) was developed to measure coaches’ beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence towards athletes. Items measured coaches’ beliefs regarding the perceived effectiveness of using violence to drive performance, deter failure, test resilience and commitment, develop toughness, maintain interpersonal control, and promote internal competition. The 25-items scale was measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A mean score was calculated and the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = .898; ω = .901^34,35).

Interpersonal violence in sport

The short form of the Violence Toward Athletes Questionnaire - Coach (VTAQ-S^36,37) included 15 items that assessed different types of violence perpetrated by coaches in the context of sport (i.e. physical, instrumental, sexual, psychological violence and neglect). Items were rated using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often, more than 10 times). Interpersonal violence scales often exhibit skewed distributions, primarily due to an overabundance of zeros resulting from their low frequency. Consequently, subscale scores were analyzed as yes/no dichotomous variables. This method uses a low threshold to categorise coaches use of different types of interpersonal violence (physical, instrumental, sexual, psychological violence and neglect) towards athletes with 0 being never having perpetrated and 1 being having perpetrated at least one event of interpersonal violence.

Conformity to sport ethic norms

The Conformity to Sport Ethic Scale (CSES³⁸) was adapted to measure coaches’ degree of adherence to sport ethic norms. The items measured coaches’ vision of athletes’ need to self-sacrifice, strive for distinction, and disregard their own limits. The scale included 20 items measured using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). A total score of the scale was used in the current study. The scale showed good internal consistency (α = .826; ω = .833).

Organisational pressure

The Constraints at Work Scale^39,40 questionnaire measured coaches’ perception of the pressure put on them by sports organization. A 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used to measure coaches’ agreement with four items. A total score of the scale was used in the current study. The scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α = .788, ω = .789).

Masculine norms

The Masculinity Contest Culture Scale (MCC²⁵) was used to examine coaches’ agreement related to dominant sport norms related to masculinity. A total of 20 items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). A total score of the scale was used in the current study. The scale showed good internal consistency (α = .868, ω = .874).

Statistical analysis

Preliminary analyses of descriptive and correlational analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29.⁴¹ Due to the randomisation of participants into different groups, missing data were treated using the full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation method to ensure greater flexibility in analyzing data with missing observations.^42,43 Before running the final analyses, sensitivity analyses were tested to ensure the consistency of FIML estimates under the correct missing data assumption.

To explore the first objective of the current study, the association between the independent variables (organisational pressure, masculinity norms, and conformity to sport ethic norms, sex at birth, type of sport coached, and years of experience coaching) and the beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence in sport, a multiple linear regression model was conducted using Mplus v. 8.0.⁴³ Subsequently, three additional logistic regression models were conducted to determine the association between the independent variables and the three subtypes of interpersonal violence (physical, instrumental, psychological violence and neglect). The sexual violence subscale was not considered in the current study as 99.3% of participants reported never having used this form of violence.

Based on the results from these previous analyses and in order to examine the second objective of the current study, beliefs regarding perceived instrumental effects of violence in sport was examined as a mediator between organisational pressure, masculinity norms, and conformity to sport ethic norms and interpersonal violence. Three separate models were conducted, one for each type of interpersonal violence (Figure 1). The outcome variables, the perpetration of interpersonal violence reported by coaches, were analyzed using probit links, thus enabling the indirect, direct, and total effects to be interpreted in terms of probabilities and odds ratios.^44,45 Independent variables will be referred to as X, the mediator as M, and dependent variables as Y. To ensure accurate estimates when determining the significance of the indirect effects, bias-corrected bootstrapped confidence intervals were used.⁴⁶ The indirect effect is the impact of X on Y via M, the direct effect is the impact of X on Y, and the total effect is sum of the direct and indirect effects.^44,47

Figure 1.

Theoretical mediation model.

Results

Descriptive statistics

In our sample, psychological violence and neglect were the most frequently reported forms of interpersonal violence perpetrated by coaches (51.4%), followed by instrumental violence (13.6%), with physical violence being the least commonly reported (6.7%). For additional descriptive statistics, including variable means, standard deviations, and correlations, refer to Table 2 in the Supplemental Material.

Preliminary regression analyses

Beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence

After accounting for coaches’ individual characteristics, results of the linear regression model confirmed Hypothesis 1: conformity to sport ethic norms (B = 0.672, p < .001), masculinity norms (B = 0.121, p = .013), and organisational pressure (B = 0.140, p < .001) all demonstrated positive associations with coaches’ beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence. Thus, coaches who adhere more to masculinity norms, conform more to sport ethic norms, and experience greater organisational pressure tend to report heightened beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence. The model accounted for 51.8% of the variance in coaches’ instrumental beliefs. For detailed outcomes, refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Linear regression analysis of beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence (n = 766).

				95% CI
	B (SE)	p	β	LL	UL
Sex at birth	−0.027 (0.033)	.410	−0.030	−0.091	0.037
Sport type	0.133 (0.035)	<.001	0.149	0.064	0.202
Years of experience coaching	−0.003 (0.001)	.040	−0.073	−0.006	0.000
Conformity to sport ethic norms	0.672 (0.077)	<.001	0.565	0.522	0.823
Masculinity contest culture	0.121 (0.048)	.013	0.145	0.026	0.215
Organisational pressure	0.140 (0.027)	<.001	0.311	0.088	0.192

Notes: B = unstandardized coefficient; β = standardized coefficient; SE = standard error. CI = confidence interval (lower 2.5%; upper 2.5%); LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit, sex at birth (0 = male, 1 = female), sport type (0 = individual, 1 = team).

Interpersonal violence

After controlling for coaches’ individual characteristics, the logistic regression analyses partially supported Hypothesis 2. Organisational pressure was associated with increased odds of coaches perpetrating physical violence (OR = 1.778), psychological violence and neglect (OR = 1.663), and instrumental violence (OR = 2.135). Thus, heightened pressure from sports organisations was associated with a higher probability of coaches’ perpetrating all three forms of interpersonal violence. Conformity to the sport ethic norms was linked to a higher probability of coaches’ use of psychological violence and neglect (OR = 2.733) and instrumental violence (OR = 6.458), but not with physical violence. Masculinity norms was only linked to increased probability of coach's perpetration of psychological violence and neglect (OR = 2.121). The variance explained for the probability of perpetrating interpersonal violence was 29.7% for physical violence, 18.2% for psychological violence and neglect, and 24.5% for instrumental violence. For detailed outcomes, refer to Table 2.

Table 2.

Logistic regression analyses of IV in sport by type.

	Physical violence (n = 758)		Psychological violence and neglect (n = 759)		Instrumental violence (n = 757)
	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR	95% CI	OR
Sex at birth	[0.115, 0.707]	0.285**	[0.627, 1.265]	0.891	[0.737, 2.011]	1.217
Sport type	[0.557, 2.124]	1.088	[1.062, 2.149]	1.511*	[0.707, 1.903]	1.159
Years of experience coaching	[1.033, 1.082]	1.057***	[1.024, 1.059]	1.041***	[1.006, 1.047]	1.027*
Conformity to sport ethic norms	[0.979, 32.006]	5.598	[1.133, 6.593]	2.733*	[2.063, 20.214]	6.458***
Masculinity norms	[0.246, 2.074]	0.715	[1.105, 4.073]	2.121*	[0.527, 2.386]	1.121
Organisational pressure	[1.093, 2.895]	1.778*	[1.203, 2.299]	1.663**	[1.325, 3.441]	2.135***

Notes: 95% CI = confidence intervals (lower 2.5%; upper 2.5%); OR = odds ratio. The violence measures are dichotomous (0 = never perpetrated, 1 = perpetrated at least once) *p < .05; **p < .01; *** p < .001.

Main mediation analyses

Instrumental violence

The instrumental violence model was conducted while controlling for coaches’ individual characteristics. Contrary to Hypothesis 3, no indirect effects were found for conformity to sport ethic norms (IE₁ = −.013, CI = [−0.067, 0.017]), masculinity norms (IE₂ = −.002, CI = [−0.012, 0.002]), or organisational pressure (IE₃ = −.007, CI = [−0.038, 0.008]). However, two positive direct effects were found: one between conformity to sport ethic norms (DE₁ = .084, CI = [0.025, 0.171]) and another between organisational pressure (DE₃ = .079, CI = [0.022, 0.158]) on coaches’ instrumental violence perpetration thus, partially confirming Hypothesis 3. This indicates a higher likelihood of perpetrating instrumental violence among coaches who reported heightened pressure from sports organisations and conformity to sport ethic norms. No direct effect was found between masculinity norms and instrumental violence perpetration (DE₂ = .005, CI = [−0.027, 0.051]). Additionally, results for the instrumental violence mediation model can be found in Figure 2 below and Table 3 in Supplemental Material.

Figure 2.

Instrumental violence mediation model (N = 757).

Physical violence

After controlling for coaches’ individual characteristics, the current model did not fully support Hypothesis 3, which stated that beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence would mediate the associations between conformity to sport ethic norms (IE₁ = .015, CI = [−0.005, 0.044]), masculinity norms MCC (IE₂ = .003, CI = [0.000, 0.014]), and organisational pressure (IE₃ = .010, CI = [−0.004, 0.028]), and the perpetration of physical violence. However, organisational pressure (DE₃ = .040, CI = [0.006, 0.094]) was directly associated to physical violence perpetration. Therefore, experiencing increased pressure from sports organisations was associated with coaches’ risk of perpetrating physical violence. Conformity to sport ethic norms (DE₁ = .016, CI = [−0.023, 0.073]) and masculinity norms (DE₂ = −.014, CI = [−0.040, 0.017]) were not associated with physical violence perpetration. More detailed results can be found in Figure 3 and Table 4 in Supplemental Material.

Figure 3.

Physical violence mediation model (N = 758).

Psychological violence and neglect

After controlling for coaches’ characteristics, Hypothesis 3 was fully supported as indirect pathways from conformity to sport ethic norms (IE₁ = .067, CI = [0.013, 0.133]) and organisational pressure (IE₃ = .035, CI = [0.008, 0.068]) were statistically significant indicating full mediation for both pathways. The direct effects for conformity to sport ethic norms (DE₁ = .017, CI = [−0.089, 0.128]) and organisational pressure (DE₃ = .077, CI = [−0.003, 0.171]) were not associated with the perpetration of psychological violence and neglect. In other words, coaches who reported higher conformity to the sport ethic norms and who experienced more pressure from sports organisations were more likely to perpetrate psychological violence and neglect if they also reported increased beliefs in the perceived instrumental effects of violence. Furthermore, the association between masculinity norms and psychological violence and neglect perpetration was partially mediated by beliefs concerning the instrumental effects of violence since both the indirect (IE₂ = .018, CI = [0.003, 0.043]) and the direct effects (DE₂ = .081, CI = [0.000, 0.167]) were significant. Detailed results can be found in Figure 4 and Table 5 in Supplemental Material.

Figure 4.

Psychological violence and neglect mediation model (N = 759).

Discussion

In recent years, sport norms, organisational pressure, as well beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence have been proposed as possible risk factors for coaches’ use of interpersonal violence against athletes.¹⁸ The present study supports the complex nature of interpersonal violence in sport and underscores the importance of examining this phenomenon through the socioecological model of interpersonal violence.³

Our findings confirmed the first hypothesis: stronger conformity to sport ethic norms (Figures 2–4; path a₁), greater adherence to traditional masculine norms (Figures 2–4; path a₂), and higher organisational pressure (Figures 2–4; path a₃) were all associated with increased endorsement of beliefs in the instrumental value of violence in sport. These results suggest that the development of maladaptive beliefs justifying violence for instrumental purposes is shaped by coaches’ alignment with dominant sport norms, particularly those related to masculinity and performance, and by heightened organisational demands.^9,17,18 Importantly, when examining beliefs about the instrumental effects of violence as a mediating factor between sport norms and organisational pressure, the associations varied depending on the specific type of interpersonal violence perpetrated. This finding highlights the necessity of distinguishing between different forms of violence when investigating their underlying risk factors. Grounded in the Theory of Planned Behaviour,¹⁹ our results further illustrate that coaches’ use of interpersonal violence may be driven by a combination of factors: attitudes (i.e. beliefs about the instrumental effectiveness of violence), subjective norms (i.e. conformity to sport and masculinity norms), and perceived behavioural control (i.e. organisational pressure). The following sections examine the effects of various independent variables to better understand their impact on coaches’ beliefs and violent behaviours.

Organisational pressure

Organisational pressure was significantly directly associated with both instrumental (Figure 2; path c₃) and physical violence (Figure 3; path c₃) in the present study. Heightened performance expectations and fear of consequences from organisations may increase stress and emotional strain for coaches, potentially leading to the use of instrumental and physical violence as a form of emotional release or as a misguided performance-enhancing strategy.^20,21 Our results echo previous findings regarding the association between increased organisational pressure and the use of violence.^16,17 However, contrary to our third hypothesis, these associations were not significantly mediated by coaches’ beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence. In line with Theory of Planned Behaviour,¹⁹ this suggests that beliefs may play a less central role than perceived external pressures (stressors) in influencing the use of instrumental and physical violence. Coaches may struggle to manage their emotions under organisational pressure to perform, which might contribute to the use of instrumental and physical violence toward athletes as a form of release or regulation strategy regardless of their beliefs regarding the instrumental effects of violence.^20,21

In contrast, the association between organisational pressure and psychological violence and neglect was fully mediated by coaches’ beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence. Higher organisational pressure was associated with stronger beliefs in the utility of such behaviours, and with a greater likelihood of their use by coaches. This finding aligns with research suggesting that in many sporting environments, psychological violence and neglect are normalized and even valorised as necessary for achieving elite performance.^27,48 Thus, heightened organisational stress and pressure to perform may shape coaches’ attitudes, leading them to view psychological violence and neglect as necessary tools to drive athlete performance and success.^16–18

Sport ethic norms

Conformity to sport ethic norms was significantly associated with instrumental violence (Figure 2; path c₁) in the present study, however, this association was not mediated by coaches’ beliefs regarding the instrumental effects of violence. These norms, emphasising athlete self-sacrifice, pushing beyond limits, and enduring pain, appear to shape coaches’ use of instrumental violence as found in previous studies.¹⁸ For the use of instrumental violence by coaches, this may highlight that sport ethic norms play a larger role than coaches’ beliefs.¹⁹

No significant association was found between sport ethic norms and physical violence with our sample. In Canada, physical violence and corporal punishment have been legally prohibited and even criminalised for over thirty years.⁴⁹ This prohibition, likely well internalised by Canadians, seems to extend to sports contexts as well, leading to the avoidance of physical violence for instrumental purposes (e.g. discipline, instruction). This context may explain the lack of significant associations between sport norms and physical violence perpetration by coaches’. Since physical violence is often viewed more negatively and can even result in criminal charges, coaches may underreport their use of such tactics due to social desirability bias. Instead, they might resort to more socially acceptable and normalized forms of violence, such as psychological violence or neglect, which are frequently rationalised within the sport context as necessary methods to “toughen athletes up”⁹ Unlike organisational pressure, which places direct stress on coaches and may impair their ability to regulate emotions, potentially leading to physical violence, sport ethic norms are often more deeply ingrained in coaches’ values and belief systems.²⁶ This internalisation, along with the normalisation of instrumental and psychological violence and neglect within certain sporting contexts, may help explain why coaches who more strongly endorse norms such as self-sacrifice, striving for distinction, and disregarding personal limits are more likely to engage in these harmful behaviours instead of resorting to physical violence.^27,50

Furthermore, coaches’ beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence fully mediated the association between sport ethic norms and psychological violence and neglect. Coaches who strongly endorse sport ethic norms may internalise the idea that such behaviours are necessary to enhance athletes’ performance, increasing their likelihood of using psychological violence and neglect.^27,48

Masculinity norms

No significant direct associations were found between masculinity norms and either instrumental or physical violence. However, masculinity norms were a significant direct predictor of psychological violence and neglect (Figure 4; path c₂). Glick and colleagues²⁵ identified four core masculinity norms: avoiding vulnerability, valuing physical strength and stamina, prioritising work over personal relationships, and adopting a competitive, distrustful worldview to prevent exploitation. Since these norms do not directly emphasise the performance demands placed on athletes, this may help explain their lack of association with instrumental violence. As previously discussed, physical violence carries legal consequences and may be less accepted or normalized within the sport context in Canada. Therefore, its use by coaches may occur primarily in situations where emotional control is lost.^20,21 Similar to sport ethic norms, masculinity norms may function as subconscious and deeply internalised influences on behaviour, whereas organisational pressures tend to produce more immediate and situational stress. This distinction may account for the lack of a significant association between masculinity norms and coaches’ use of physical violence.¹⁹

Results of the current study found that the association between masculinity norms and psychological violence and neglect was fully explained by coaches’ beliefs regarding the perceived instrumental effects of violence. That is, greater adherence to masculinity norms was associated with stronger beliefs in the effectiveness of violence, which in turn predicted the use of psychological violence and neglect. This may reflect a broader cultural endorsement of domination, emotional stoicism, and toughness, traits often associated with hegemonic masculinity.²⁵ As Hartill⁵¹ observed in his study on male athletes, these environments often pressure boys to “suck it up,” “shrug it off,” and “take it like a man.” Such cultural scripts likely contribute to the normalisation of psychological violence and neglect as acceptable coaching strategies. However, by allowing these violent behaviours to go unreported, they are able to persist and continue to be normalized in sport. In addition, the current study controlled for coaches sex at birth; therefore, the observed association between masculine norms and interpersonal violence applies to both male and female coaches. This aligns with previous findings showing that female athletes, compared to non-athletes, are more likely to conform to masculine norms, supporting the idea that women can adopt masculine norms within sport contexts.⁵²

Strengths, limitations and future research

The current study offers several strengths as well as a few limitations. One of its key strengths is the simultaneous examination of multiple social and contextual variables related to interpersonal violence in the sports context. This approach allowed for the identification of the factors most strongly associated with different forms of interpersonal violence perpetrated by coaches, thereby enhancing our understanding of this complex, multifaceted phenomenon. Additionally, the exploration of various forms of interpersonal violence provided insights into the distinct mechanisms at play, contributing to the advancement of knowledge regarding the processes that lead to interpersonal violence perpetration by coaches. From a methodological standpoint, this study benefits from a large and diverse sample of coaches, making the findings more generalisable to a broad population. Furthermore, controlling for three individual coaching characteristics, years of experience, sex at birth, and type of sport coached, helped mitigate the risk of confounding variables, thus adding rigour to the study.

Despite the abovementioned strengths, several limitations should be noted. The study's cross-sectional design limits our ability to infer causality or understand the temporal associations between the variables. Additionally, since self-report measures were used, there is a potential risk of social desirability and recall bias, which could impact the accuracy and reliability of the responses. A multi-respondent approach, incorporating matched informants (coach-athlete dyads), would provide a more comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the Interpersonal violence (IV) experienced by athletes.

While the current study focused on individual, organisational, and societal factors, future research should concurrently investigate the impact on athlete performance and mental health. Moving forward, longitudinal prospective studies that target modifiable factors are recommended, as they could provide a deeper understanding of interpersonal violence perpetration and inform the development of effective prevention programs. Perhaps conducting mixed-methods studies would be useful to use qualitative methods to deepen the understanding of the quantitative results. This approach would offer the advantage of generalising findings through quantitative data while still capturing the nuanced experiences of coaches that qualitative data can provide. Finally, it is important to conduct studies aimed at developing and evaluating programs designed to prevent interpersonal violence in sports, with a specific focus on coaching practices.

Implication and conclusion

This study builds on prior research by exploring how the interaction between coaches’ beliefs, sport norms, and organisational pressure may influence their use of interpersonal violence. The findings underscore the nuanced impact of these factors, highlighting variations in their influence depending on the type of violence examined, namely, physical, instrumental, psychological, and neglect. Given the well-documented long-term consequences of various forms of interpersonal violence on athletes,^9–11 it is crucial that preventative efforts be prioritised. Consequently, this study highlights specific intervention targets essential for the effective prevention of interpersonal violence in sports contexts.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251395228 - Supplemental material for The role of sport norms and organizational pressure on coaches’ use of interpersonal violence: The mediating role of perceived instrumental effects of violence

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541251395228 for The role of sport norms and organizational pressure on coaches’ use of interpersonal violence: The mediating role of perceived instrumental effects of violence by Deziray De Sousa, Sophie Labossière, Stephanie Radziszewski, Hélène Paradis, Ariane Bélanger-Gravel, Marie-Hélène Gagné, Tine Vertommen, Andrea Woodburn and Sylvie Parent in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants who accepted to take part in the current study.

ORCID iDs

Deziray De Sousa

Sophie Labossière

Stephanie Radziszewski

Tine Vertommen

Ethical approval information

Approval was granted from Laval University Ethics Committee (approval number 2021-458 Phase IV / 19-12-2022).

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, under grant no. 892-2021-1037. This grant was awarded to Sylvie Parent.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Kerr

Battaglia

Stirling

. Maltreatment in youth sport: a systemic issue. Kinesiol Rev 2019; 8: 237–243.

Krug

Mercy

Dahlberg

, et al. The world report on violence and health. Lancet 2002; 360: 1083–1088.

Tuakli-Wosornu

Burrows

Fasting

, et al. IOC Consensus statement: interpersonal violence and safeguarding in sport. Br J Sports Med 2024; 58: 1–23.

Vertommen

Decuyper

Parent

, et al. Interpersonal violence in Belgian sport today: young athletes report. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022; 19: 11745.

Hartill

Rulofs

Allroggen

, et al. Prevalence of interpersonal violence against children in sport in six European countries. Child Abuse Negl 2023; 146: 106513.

Pankowiak

Woessner

Parent

, et al. Psychological, physical, and sexual violence against children in Australian community sport: frequency, perpetrator, and victim characteristics. J Interpers Violence 2023; 38: 4338–4365.

Parent

Vaillancourt-Morel

. Magnitude and risk factors for interpersonal violence experienced by Canadian teenagers in the sport context. J Sport Soc Issues 2021; 45: 528–544.

Schyvinck

Laureys

Lefever

, et al. Ethical club climate and coaching style: unveiling their role in coach-perpetrated psychological abuse of gymnasts. J Sport Manag 2025; 39: 114–127.

Mountjoy

Brackenridge

Arrington

, et al. International Olympic Committee consensus statement: harassment and abuse (non-accidental violence) in sport. Br J Sports Med 2016; 50: 1019–1029.

10.

Parent

Vaillancourt-Morel

Gillard

. Interpersonal violence (IV) in sport and mental health outcomes in teenagers. J Sport Soc Issues 2022; 46: 323–337.

11.

Vertommen

Kampen

Schipper-van Veldhoven

, et al. Severe interpersonal violence against children in sport: associated mental health problems and quality of life in adulthood. Child Abuse Negl 2018; 76: 459–468.

12.

Kerr

Kidd

Donnelly

. One step forward, two steps back: the struggle for child protection in Canadian sport. Soc Sci 2020; 9: 68.

13.

Kerr

Stirling

. Where is safeguarding in sport psychology research and practice? J Appl Sport Psychol 2019; 31: 367–384.

14.

Laperrière

Parent

Lavoie

. Revue critique des formations existantes pour prévenir la violence envers les athlètes. Rapport soumis à la DSLS, MEES, 2020.

15.

Rhind

Owusu-Sekyere

. Evaluating the impacts of working towards the International Safeguards for Children in Sport. Sport Manag Rev 2020; 23: 104–116.

16.

Morbée

Vansteenkiste

Aelterman

, et al. Why do sport coaches adopt a controlling coaching style? The role of an evaluative context and psychological need frustration. Sport Psychol 2020; 34: 89–98.

17.

Parent

Radziszewski

Gillard

, et al. Development and initial validation of the perceived instrumental effects of violence in sport scale. Front Sports Act Living 2024; 6: 1355958.

18.

Roberts

Sojo

Grant

. Organisational factors and non-accidental violence in sport: a systematic review. Sport Manag Rev 2020; 23: 8–27.

19.

Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1991; 50: 179–211.

20.

Roberton

Daffern

Bucksd

. Emotion regulation and aggression. Aggress Violent Behav 2012; 17: 72–82.

21.

Stirling

. Understanding the use of emotionally abusive coaching practices. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2013; 8: 625–639.

22.

Stirling

Kerr

. Initiating and sustaining emotional abuse in the coach–athlete relationship: an ecological transactional model of vulnerability. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma 2014; 23: 116–135.

23.

Bandura

. Aggression: a social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

24.

Benish

Langdon

Culp

. Examination of novice coaches’ previous experience as athletes: examples of autonomy support and controlling behaviors as influences on future coaching practice. Int Sport Coach J 2021; 8: 48–61.

25.

Glick

Berdahl

Alonso

. Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. J Soc Issues 2018; 74: 449–476.

26.

Hughes

Coakley

. Positive deviance among athletes: the implications of overconformity to the sport ethic. Sociol Sport J 1991; 8: 307–325.

27.

Fournier

Parent

Paradis

. The relationship between psychological violence by coaches and conformity of young athletes to the sport ethic norms. Eur J Sport Soc 2021; 19: 37–55.

28.

Crozier

Carmichael

Townsend

, et al. Norms in sport: a scoping review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol 2024; 17: 645–667.

29.

Vertommen

Kampen

Schipper-van Veldhoven

, et al. Profiling perpetrators of interpersonal violence against children in sport based on a victim survey. Child Abuse Negl 2017; 63: 172–182.

30.

Axenfeld

Blom

Bruch

, et al. Split questionnaire designs for online surveys: the impact of module construction on imputation quality. J Surv Stat Methodol 2022; 10: 1236–1262.

31.

Peytchev

Peytcheva

. Reduction of measurement error due to survey length: evaluation of the split questionnaire design approach. Surv Res Methods 2017; 11: 361–368.

32.

Raghunathan

Grizzle

. A split questionnaire survey design. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90: 54–63.

33.

Qualtrics. Qualtrics software [Version unspecified], https://www.qualtrics.com (2024, accessed 10 July 2024).

34.

McNeish

. Thanks coefficient alpha, we'll take it from here. Psychol Methods 2018; 23: 412–433.

35.

Taber

. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Res Sci Educ 2018; 48: 1273–1296.

36.

Gillard

Mountjoy

Vertommen

, et al. The role, readiness to change and training needs of the Athlete Health and Performance team members to safeguard athletes from interpersonal violence in sport: a mini review. Front Sports Act Living 2024; 6: 1406925.

37.

Parent

Fortier

Vaillancourt-Morel

, et al. Development and initial factor validation of the Violence Toward Athletes Questionnaire (VTAQ) in a sample of young athletes. Loisir Soc 2019; 42: 471–486.

38.

Parent

Fortier

Vaillancourt-Morel

, et al. Development and initial factor validation of the French Conformity to the Sport Ethic Scale (CSES). Can J Behav Sci 2020; 52: 331–336.

39.

Pelletier

Séguin-Lévesque

Legault

. Pressure from above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. J Educ Psychol 2002; 94: 186–196.

40.

Rocchi

Pelletier

Lauren Couture

. Determinants of coach motivation and autonomy supportive coaching behaviours. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013; 14: 852–859.

41.

IBM Corp. IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 29.0.2.0). IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, 2023.

42.

Little

Rubin

Statistical analysis with missing data. vol. 793. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

43.

Muthén

. Mplus: statistical analysis with latent variables: user’s guide (version 8). Los Angeles, CA: Authors, 2017.

44.

MacKinnon

Lockwood

Brown

, et al. The intermediate endpoint effect in logistic and probit regression. Clin Trials 2007; 4: 499–513.

45.

Muthén

. Applications of causally defined direct and indirect effects in mediation analysis using SEM in Mplus. Technical Report, Muthén & Muthén, Los Angeles, CA, 2011.

46.

Hayes

Preacher

Myers

. Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication researchSourcebook for political communication research. 1st ed. New York, NY, USA: Routledge, 2010, pp.434–465.

47.

Breen

Karlson

Holm

. Total, direct, and indirect effects in logit and probit models. Sociol Methods Res 2013; 42: 164–191.

48.

Matthews

Channon

. Understanding sports violence: revisiting foundational explorations. Sport Soc 2016; 20: 751–767.

49.

[Masked for Review]. Justice Laws Website, https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/fra/lois/c-46/section-267-20190919.html#wb-cont (2024).

50.

Kavanagh

. The dark side of sport: athlete narratives of maltreatment in high performance environments . Doctoral Thesis, Bournemouth University, 2014.

51.

Hartill

. The sexual abuse of boys in organized male sports. Men Masculinities 2009; 12: 225–249.

52.

Steinfeldt

Zakrajsek

Carter

, et al. Conformity to gender norms among female student-athletes: implications for body image. Psychol Men Masc 2011; 12: 401–416.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB