Figure 1
Figure 2
Democratic and autocratic implicit association test_
| Task stage | E key | I key | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IAT implementation steps | Step 1 | Initial concept discrimination task | Democratic words | Autocratic words |
| Step 2 | Attribute discrimination task | Positive words | Negative words | |
| Step 3 | Initial combined task | Democratic/positive | Autocratic/negative | |
| Step 4 | Reversed concept discrimination task | Autocratic words | Democratic words | |
| Step 5 | Reversed combined task | Autocratic/positive | Democratic/negative |
Summary of independent sample t-test on leadership effectiveness by autocratic behavior group_
| Dimension name | Autocratic behavior group | M | SD | T | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction | Low | 4.27 | 0.50 | 2.77* | 0.007 |
| High | 3.93 | 0.55 | |||
| Cohesion | Low | 4.29 | 0.44 | 0.78 | 0.425 |
| High | 4.20 | 0.57 | |||
| Performance | Low | 3.33 | 0.67 | −0.32 | 0.744 |
| High | 3.38 | 0.75 |
Primary and secondary vocabulary concepts for democratic and autocratic leadership behaviors_
| Democratic leadership behavior | Autocratic leadership behavior | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary positive concept | Examples of secondary positive concepts | Primary negative concept | Examples of secondary negative concepts | Primary positive concept | Examples of secondary positive concepts | Primary negative concept | Examples of secondary negative concepts |
| Freedom | Open-minded | Conflict | Divergence Opposition | Autocratic | Concentrated | Dislike | Annoyed |
| Flexible | Argument | Unified | Rebellious | ||||
| Restrained Traditional | |||||||
| Unity | Strong cohesion | Stress | Tedious | Fast decision-making | High performance Efficiency | Painful | Wronged |
| Cooperation | Time-consuming Restriction | Proactive | Sad | ||||
| Sense of oppression | Repressed | ||||||
| Joy | Happy | Indulgent | Undisciplined | Restrained | Rigorous | Closed-off | Uncommunicative |
| Likable | Boisterous Slack | Cautious | Outdated | ||||
| Interesting Lively | Clear goals | Rigid | |||||
| Old-fashioned | |||||||
| Equality | Fair | Bad attitude | Arrogant | System | Organized | Corporal punishment | Scolding |
| Respect | Irresponsible Indifferent | High cohesion | Rough | ||||
| Responsibility | Strong self-control | Confused | Aimless | Focused | Serious | Arbitrary | Hegemony |
| Autonomy Healthy competition | Unregulated Disorderly | Dedicated | Indecisive | ||||
| Stubborn | |||||||
| Passive | |||||||
| Harmony | Kind | Conservative | Unchanging Well-organized management | ||||
| Trusting | |||||||
| Friendly | |||||||
| Positive Communication | Opinion flow | ||||||
| Opinion acceptance Encourage | |||||||
Summary of multiple regression analysis of coach leadership behavior on the coach–athlete relationship_
| Dependent variable | Independent variables | Raw score regression coefficient | Standardized regression coefficient | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coach–athlete relationship | Democratic leadership behavior | 0.361 | 0.152 | 2.384* | 0.020 |
| Autocratic leadership behavior | −0.028 | 0.140 | −0.200 | 0.842 | |
| Athlete preference (implicit attitude) | 0.004 | 0.041 | 0.097 | 0.923 | |
| Athlete preference × democratic leadership behavior (interaction) | −0.019 | 0.089 | −0.216 | 0.829 | |
| Athlete preference × autocratic leadership behavior (interaction) | −0.037 | 0.086 | −0.427 | 0.671 |
Descriptive statistics of participant demographics_
| Background variables | Item | Number of participants | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 67 | 77.9 |
| Female | 19 | 21.1 | |
| Participation in the national intercollegiate athletic games | Yes | 73 | 84.9 |
| No | 13 | 15.1 | |
| Advancement to the finals of the national intercollegiate athletic games | Yes | 37 | 43.0 |
| No | 49 | 57.0 |
Summary of correlation analysis among coach leadership behavior, coach–athlete relationship, and leadership effectiveness_
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | −0.277* | ||||||||
| 3 | 0.684* | −0.342* | |||||||
| 4 | 0.629* | −0.258* | 0.898* | ||||||
| 5 | 0.515* | −0.310* | 0.803* | 0.582* | |||||
| 6 | 0.576* | −0.310* | 0.824* | 0.609* | 0.511* | ||||
| 7 | 0.607* | −0.216* | 0.654* | 0.534* | 0.548* | 0.590* | |||
| 8 | 0.509* | −0.403* | 0.658* | 0.527* | 0.650* | 0.513* | 0.780* | ||
| 9 | 0.545* | −0.145 | 0.414* | 0.313* | 0.340* | 0.413* | 0.779* | 0.484* | |
| 10 | 0.289* | 0.008 | 0.433* | 0.392* | 0.294* | 0.405* | 0.661* | 0.363* | 0.141* |
Summary of multiple regression analysis of coach leadership behavior on leadership effectiveness_
| Dependent variable | Independent variables | Raw score unstandardized regression coefficient | Standardized regression coefficient | t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership effectiveness | Democratic leadership behavior | 0.356 | 0.862 | 2.800* | 0.006 |
| Autocratic leadership behavior | 0.221 | 0.535 | 1.887 | 0.063 | |
| Athlete preference (implicit attitude) | −0.090 | −0.218 | −2.598* | 0.011 | |
| Athlete preference × democratic leadership behavior (interaction) | −0.059 | −0.240 | −0.794 | 0.430 | |
| Athlete preference × autocratic leadership behavior (interaction) | −0.155 | −0.594 | −2.143* | 0.035 |