以集群分析方式檢驗華人家長式領導在運動員基本心理需求與動機和動機相關變項間差異情形

Examination of relationships between paternalistic leadership behavior and psychological needs satisfaction or thwarting, motivation, and well-being or ill-being of college team sport athletes: A cluster analysis approach

緒論：教練領導行為被視為影響運動員動機及幸福感重要的社會因素之一。對應以西方文化為主的研究成果，華人家長領導行為對於運動員動機歷程和幸福感相關議題研究在國內較不受到重視。本研究以集群分析方式，針對華人家長式領導行為進行集群分組，探索有意義和實際的領導類型，並進一步考驗不同領導類型對於大專團隊運動員在心理需求的滿足和威脅、自我決定動機、幸福感相關指標上的差異。方法：以跨情境的研究設計，241 位大專團隊項目運動員 (男性佔61%) 為對象，進行資料蒐集。在取得知情同意後，填寫華人家長式領導、基本心理需求滿足與威脅、自我決定動機和主觀幸福感、活力感、正負面情緒以及運動倦怠等問卷，進行兩階段式的集群分析，並以多變量變異數分析，檢驗不同領導類型在動機歷程上相關變項上的差異。結果：集群分析發現，三個有意義的領導風格分組，分別是全面型 (n = 76)、全無型 (n = 81)、和威德型 (n = 73)。多變量變異數分析發現，不同組別有差異存在 (V = .40, F (32, 426) = 3.33, p < .05, Eta = .20)。後續分析發現，除了自主性和隸屬感需求受挫外，大部份的適應性結果（需求滿足、自主動機、主觀幸福感、活力感和正面情緒）與非適應性結果（勝任能力受挫、控制動機、無動機、負面情緒與運動倦怠分量表）存在不同領導類型間的差異。其中，全面型的運動員，呈現出高適應性和低非適應性的結果，而威德型則是相反。全無型的運動員在部份非適應性的變項上與威德型類似。結論：集群分析結果呈現特定華人家長式領導類型實際組合，提供各自理論主張的延伸。全無型和威德型在需求滿足受挫，動機類型以及動機結果上的差異提供仁慈領導之外威權領導產生的影響，並做為未來在自我決定理論中，探索本土教練威權領導的啟發。

Introduction: One of the most crucial social factors affecting athletes’ motivation and wellbeing is the coach. Few studies have investigated the impacts of paternalistic leadership (PL) behavior on satisfaction or thwarting of psychological needs and motivation- and well-being-related outcomes in sports in Taiwan. This study aimed to explore meaningful PL clusters using a cluster analysis approach and to examine differences in their impacts on satisfaction or thwarting of psychological needs, motivation, and well-being- or ill-being-related variables. Methods: Two hundred and fortyone college team sport athletes were involved in this study. A cross-sectional design was used, and questionnaires were delivered after informed consent was obtained. MANOVA was performed on SDT motivation and well-being-related variables after meaningful groups were found in the cluster analysis. Results: The cluster analysis yielded three groups: laisser-faire PL group (n = 81); authentic PL group (n = 76); and disciplinarian PL group (n = 73). The groups were significantly different (V = .40, F (32, 4268) = 3.33, p < .05, eta = .20). Post-hoc results revealed that the disciplinarian PL group was the most maladapted; in contrast, the laisser-faire PL group was similar to the disciplinarian PL group in some motivational variables. Conclusion: The combination of PL and needs satisfaction or thwarting suggests that further investigation of the relationship theory of SDT and PL is warranted.