Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rqrs21

Understanding coaches’ perspectives on building

trust in sport: a narrative inquiry approach

Cailie S. McGuire, Jeffrey G. Caron & Luc J. Martin

To cite this article: Cailie S. McGuire, Jeffrey G. Caron & Luc J. Martin (13 Nov 2024):
Understanding coaches’ perspectives on building trust in sport: a narrative inquiry approach,
Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, DOI: 10.1080/2159676X.2024.2428246

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2024.2428246

View supplementary material

Published online: 13 Nov 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rqrs21
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2024.2428246

Understanding coaches’ perspectives on building trust in sport:

a narrative inquiry approach
Cailie S. McGuirea, Jeffrey G. Caronb,c and Luc J. Martina
a
School of Kinesiology and Health Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; bUniversité de Montréal,
School of Kinesiology and Physical Activity Sciences, Montréal, Canada; cCenter for Interdisciplinary Research in
Rehabilitation of Greater Montréal, Montréal, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Quality relationships between coaches and their team members play an Received 31 May 2024
important role in promoting individual and team-level outcomes. Trust Accepted 7 November 2024
has been identified as a key feature of these quality relationships, yet little KEYWORDS
research exists examining how these trusting relationships can be built. By Coach-athlete relationship;
adopting a narrative inquiry approach, we sought to elicit coaches’ stories coach-coach relationship;
on their (a) perceived approaches to building trust with team members social constructionism;
(i.e. coaching staff, athletes) and (b) life experiences that shaped their vulnerability;
approaches. We recruited 18 Canadian interuniversity coaches who trustworthiness; stories;
engaged in semi-structured interviews which we analysed using a two- storyanalyst
phase storyanalyst approach (thematic narrative analysis and holistic-form
structural). From these conversations, we found that coaches drew from
one of two context-situated narratives with regard to initial trust devel­
opment: ‘It needs to be given’ and ‘It needs to be earned’. When sharing
stories about trust maintenance, however, all coaches drew upon a third
context-situated narrative: ‘It needs give and take’. Coaches’ stories were
then situated within higher-order narrative types (e.g. performance, sta­
bility). Altogether, our findings illuminate the personal and social com­
plexities of building trust from the coach perspective, while reinforcing
the importance of developing trusting relationships within sport teams.

Sport is a highly social endeavour, where the quality of interactions between key social agents (e.g.
coaches, athletes) can influence individual (e.g. member satisfaction) and team outcomes (e.g.
cohesion; Eys, Bruner, and Martin 2019). Specific to interpersonal relationships, researchers have
examined the important role that coaches play in fostering quality relations with their athletes
(Jowett 2017) and coaching staff (Sinotte, Bloom, and Caron 2015). Across this body of research, it is
interesting to note that trust has been described as a cornerstone of effective coaching and
a prerequisite to developing meaningful relationships (Jowett 2017). Surprisingly, despite the
perceived importance of trust in sport, it has received little research attention. Given that trust is
proposed to be a critical feature of quality intrateam relations, exploring it from the perspective of
the coach is warranted.
Whereas interpersonal trust (i.e. trust between two people, herein referred to as trust) has been
alluded to as an important feature of quality relationships within sport teams (Jowett 2017), there is
little understanding amongst sport researchers pertaining to what it is or how it can be established.
Looking beyond sport, researchers within the fields of industrial/organisational psychology have

CONTACT Cailie S. McGuire [email protected] School of Kinesiology, 6081 University Blvd., The University of British
Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 1Z1 Canada
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2024.2428246
© 2024 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

extensively examined the conceptual underpinnings and facilitators of trust in high-performing

teams (McGuire and Martin 2023). Though various conceptualisations have been advanced, trust is
commonly defined as ‘the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the
intentions or behaviour of another’ (Rousseau et al. 1998, 395). Moreover, the need for trust arises in
contexts characterised by risk (i.e. something is to be lost) and interdependence (i.e. required
interaction to achieve outcomes) – both of which are prevalent factors within high-performance
sport.
Importantly, building trust within high-performing teams has been associated with a wide range
of beneficial outcomes that are relevant for sport. For instance, when team members trust one
another, they are more likely to engage in organisational citizenship behaviours, perform better, and
experience enhanced perceptions of psychological safety (Costa, Fulmer, and Anderson 2018).
Pertaining to what influences trust development, researchers have examined various individual
characteristics, behaviours, and contextual conditions. For instance, specific behaviours of the
trustee (i.e. the one receiving the trust) have been identified including ability (i.e. skills), benevolence
(i.e. having the trustor’s best interests in mind), and integrity (i.e. adhering to beliefs that are just;
Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995). Additionally, researchers have considered relational (e.g. quality
of leader-member exchanges) and environmental (e.g. level of interdependence) conditions in
relation to trust (Costa, Fulmer, and Anderson 2018).
Within the sport context, researchers have primarily theorised about the importance of trust
specific to the coach-athlete relationship (CAR). For example, Jowett and Shanmugam (2016)
advanced the 3 + 1Cs model, proposing quality CARs to be operationalised by closeness (i.e. mutual
feelings of respect and trust), commitment (i.e. maintaining a close relationship over time), com­
plementarity (i.e. interpersonal behaviours of leadership), and co-orientation (i.e. interdependence
between a coach and athlete). Similarly, Mageau and Vallerand (2003) put forth a motivational model
of the CAR. Here, a coach’s engagement in autonomy supportive behaviours (e.g. providing choice),
while conveying messages of trust and respect, helped to satisfy athletes’ basic psychological needs.
Although these models include trust as a core component of quality CARs, the researchers did not
define trust nor explain how it can be developed. Accordingly, researchers have proposed various
leadership and coaching behaviours that may facilitate trust development. For instance, Turnnidge
and Côté (2019) suggested that trust and respect can be developed by demonstrating vulnerability
and humility (e.g. recognising gaps in knowledge, asking for help), which may positively contribute
to performance and well-being outcomes.
Researchers have also alluded to the importance of trust when examining coach-coach relations.
For instance, Sinotte, Bloom, and Caron (2015) examined the 3 + 1Cs model from the perspective of
assistant coaches, who described trust as the cornerstone of their personal and professional relation­
ships with their head coaches. Similarly, Zakrajsek et al. (2020) found head coaches’ trust in their
assistant coaches played an important role in supporting (or thwarting) assistant coaches’ basic
psychological needs. Altogether, these studies allude to the importance of trust between coaches,
yet little empirical research has examined how trust is built. When considering this gap, some
researchers have examined trust as the focal construct. Specific to facilitators of trust, Kao, Hsieh,
and Lee (2017) found coaching competency to predict athletes’ trust in their coach, whereas Zhang
and Chelladurai (2013) found that an athlete’s willingness to trust moderated the perceived trust­
worthiness-trust in coach relationship. Trust has also been identified as a mechanism for how
authentic leadership behaviours influence task cohesion (Bandura, Kavussanu, and Ong 2019).
Despite these promising findings, however, several limitations must be acknowledged.
First, and as previously highlighted, limited sport research has examined trust as the focal
construct. This hinders our understanding of what trust is and how it can be built. Second,
when explored directly, trust has been typically examined within the context of the CAR –
thereby neglecting to consider the broad array of social agents that coaches interact with
(e.g. assistant coaches) who may also benefit from trusting relationships. Third, and with
regard to methodological considerations, both within and beyond sport trust has typically
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH 3

been examined through a positivist lens to maximise the benefits associated with trusting
relationships (e.g. enhanced performance; McGuire and Martin 2023). While this research has
important implications for sport teams, such a perspective may overlook the central role that
trust plays in shaping the human experience more broadly (Ashleigh and Meyer 2015).
Indeed, trust researchers have advocated for more interpretive forms of inquiry to develop
a deeper understanding of the meanings attached to individuals’ experiences with trust
(Ashleigh and Meyer 2015). With these limitations in mind, personal stories could assist in
better comprehending coaches’ perspectives on trust – a theory and methodology referred
to as narrative inquiry (Smith 2016).
Humans are natural storytellers – living in and through the stories that they share (Book,
Svensson, and Stambulova 2024). As such, narrative inquiry aims to explore meaning and
lived experience by interpreting (a) the stories that people tell and (b) the broader narratives
that people draw from to craft their stories (Smith and Sparkes 2009). As an important
distinction, whereas stories are the actual tales people tell, a narrative reflects the underlying
properties that people use to shape their stories. Narratives can be further characterised
along a hierarchy spanning metanarratives, narrative types, and context-situated narratives
(Book, Svensson, and Stambulova 2024). Metanarratives are the highest level of narratives
that people draw from to story their lives regardless of context. This could include, for
example, the quest narrative (i.e. striving towards a new state). In comparison, narrative
types are derivatives of a metanarrative. This includes the performance narrative (i.e. empha­
sis is placed on winning), which could fall within the quest metanarrative (Carless and
Douglas 2013). Finally, context-situated narratives are relatable but may lack transferability
across contexts. These narratives stem from specific narrative types and metanarratives. As
one example, the ‘being noticed’ narrative – which reflected an athlete’s desire for their
coach to see potential in them (Gano-Overway 2023), could be a derivative of the perfor­
mance narrative type and quest metanarrative. In this study, we were interested in identify­
ing coaches’ context-situated narratives specific to trust and the narrative types they could
be derived from.
Narrative inquiry has gained momentum within sport psychology and more specifically, when
examining the lived experiences of coaches. For example, Trussell et al. (2024) used narrative
inquiry to uncover the nuances associated with gendered and generational coaching (e.g.
resisting dominant coaching discourses). Similarly, Allan et al. (2023) used a narrative approach
to establish a coach education tool to facilitate quality experiences for athletes with disabilities.
Of note, when engaging in narrative inquiry, researchers have typically adhered to an interpre­
tivist paradigm with emphasis on subjective experiences. However, narrative inquiry has also
benefited from researchers adopting a realist perspective (e.g. McAdams 2001). Altogether,
narrative inquiry is a salient avenue to better understand the lived experiences of coaches, and
the meanings they attribute to those experiences.
When considering the insight that can be gleaned from narrative inquiry, we expected this
approach to be useful for understanding coaches’ experiences with trust for several reasons. First,
by engaging in narrative inquiry, researchers can diversify their methodological repertoire and gain
a deeper comprehension of the meanings people attach to their trust-related experiences. Second,
narratives uncover the sociocultural factors that shape individuals’ interpretations of their lived
experiences. Thus, narrative inquiry can tell us about the person, and how society and culture
influence their interpretations. Third, because narratives ‘do things – for, with, and to people’ (Smith
and Sparkes 2009, 9), narrative inquiry can inform applied practice. For instance, identified trust
narratives could guide coach education programmes aimed at supporting the development of trust.
Altogether, the purpose of this qualitative study was to elicit coaches’ stories about (a) their
approaches to building trust with athletes and coaching staff, and (b) the life experiences that
shaped their approaches. These stories were then positioned within context-situated trust narratives
and higher-order narrative types to better understand the personal and social complexities of trust.
4 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

Table 1. Coach demographic information.

Coach
Pseudonym Gender Sport Athlete Gender Years Coaching Sport Head or Assistant Coach
Logan W Rugby M 30 Assistant
Parker M Track and Field Mixed 21 Head
Quinn M Football M 5 Assistant
Amelia W Rugby W 20 Head
Charlotte W Basketball W 10 Head
Rowan M Football M 20 Head
Alex M Football M 6 Assistant
Riley M Soccer W 18 Head
Micah W Track and Field Mixed 36 Head
Blair W Basketball W 21 Head
Amari M Hockey W 28 Head
Carter M Soccer M 18 Head
Mona W Basketball W 21 Head
Nora W Rugby W 11 Head
Rene W Basketball W 20 Head
Eveline W Rugby W 8 Head
Dahlia W Volleyball W 15 Assistant
Fallon W Basketball W 13 Head
For self-identifying coach gender, W = woman, M = man.

Method
Philosophical position
Given that we (the research team) adopted a qualitative approach to explore our research aims, it is
important to clearly articulate our collective philosophical position and how it influenced the
research process. As previously alluded to, narrative inquiry is typically guided by an interpretivist
paradigm, with researchers interested in understanding individuals’ personal truths rather than
a universal one (Book, Svensson, and Stambulova 2024). Specific to this study, all three authors
leaned towards a relativist ontological position and a social constructionist view of knowledge –
consistent with an interpretivist approach. In this way, we understood that the coaches (and research
team) have their own unique views of trust, and that the knowledge gained throughout this study is
theory-laden (not theory-free) whereby stories are co-constructed by the storyteller, interviewer, and
research team (see interviewer and research team section). Altogether, by adopting such an approach
we sought deeper comprehension with regard to coaches’ subjective trust experiences.

Participants
Upon receiving institutional ethical approval, we recruited participants using purposeful (e.g. exist­
ing partnerships) and snowball sampling techniques who were (a) currently a head or an assistant
coach at a Canadian university (USports), (b) at least 18 years of age, and (c) comfortable with the
English language. In total, we recruited 18 head (n = 14) and assistant (n = 4) coaches to participate in
individual semi-structured interviews (see Table 1). The coaches self-identified as women (61%) and
men (39%), were, on average, 40 years of age (SD = 8.57), and had 18 years of coaching experience
(SD = 8.54). When considering that trust takes time to build, the USports context was well suited to
explore this construct given the relatively stable membership of coaches and athletes.

Data collection
We created an open-ended semi-structured interview guide (see online supplemental file) to collect
coaches’ stories about trust across three overarching themes: (a) the meaning(s) of trust (e.g. ‘How would
you describe what trust is?’), (b) how they go about building trust (e.g. ‘Can you tell me about a time
when a coach/athlete trusted in you?’), and (c) the reasons for adopting such an approach (e.g. ‘What
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH 5

shaped your approach to building trust?’). Although these topics served as a general guide, in alignment
with our philosophical position we encouraged participants to share trust-related stories that did not
specifically fall within the pre-determined areas to capture coaches’ multiple and subjective realities. CM
conducted all interviews via Zoom, which were audio/video-recorded and later transcribed verbatim
(306 pages of single-spaced text). Given that the topic of trust can often result in the discussion of
sensitive topics, it was important for CM to develop trust and rapport with the coaches during the
interviews. To do so, they discussed why they were interested in trust (stemming from their own sport
experiences), described the purpose of the research study, and respected coaches’ boundaries during
the interviews (e.g. not probing further if a participant did not want to discuss a specific topic).
Altogether, interviews were on average 59 minutes in duration (SD = 8:61; range = 45 to 87 minutes).

Interviewer and research team

Aligned with our philosophical position, it was important for us (the research team) to reflect on how
we shaped the co-construction of knowledge. CM is a former varsity athlete and group dynamics/
trust researcher. Given that CM conducted all of the interviews, it was important for her to reflect on
their trust-related experiences in sport, and how these experiences may differ from the perspective
of coaches. For instance, some coaches’ approaches to building trust contradicted CM’s experience
of building trust from the athlete perspective. When these conversations occurred, CM did not share
her opinion during the interview but rather, reflected on her thoughts and feelings with the research
team during data analysis. Moreover, it was important for CM to acknowledge how her theoretically-
informed understanding of trust may shape her interpretations of coaches’ experiences. With this in
mind, and consistent with our philosophical position, rather than providing coaches with an existing
definition of trust, CM sought coaches’ subjective interpretations of what trust meant to them based
on their own lived experiences. In addition, LM is a group dynamics researcher who also competed in
varsity athletics. His interpretations of the data were not only informed by lived experience, but also
by group dynamics theory and research. JC is a sport psychology researcher and professional, with
expertise in qualitative methods and competed as a varsity athlete. In this way, his interpretations
were shaped by his experiences as an athlete and professional. Of note, throughout data collection
and analysis, CM met with LM separately, and jointly with JC, to reflect on their biases (i.e. research
interests and lived experiences), and how these biases could influence the co-construction of
knowledge.

Data analysis
Broadly speaking, narrative analysis can be categorised into a storyanalyst or storyteller approach
(Book, Svensson, and Stambulova 2024). Whereas a storyanalyst approach positions the narratives as
the focal point of analysis, within a storyteller approach, a story itself is the point of analysis and is
developed through the recast of data (e.g. creative non-fiction). Within this study, we adopted
a storyanalyst approach to identify both (a) coaches’ context-situated narratives specific to building
trust and (b) the higher-order narrative types. We selected two complementary narrative analyses.
Thematic narrative analysis was used to explore the what of stories (i.e. content; Riessman 2008),
whereas holistic-form structural drew attention to the how of stories (i.e. structure; Lieblich, Tuval-
Mashiach, and Zilber 1998). By engaging in analytical bracketing (i.e. moving back and forth between
examining core themes of stories and their structure), we identified narratives that coaches drew
from to make sense of their lived experiences (Smith 2016).

Thematic narrative analysis

To align with the first aim of this study (i.e. exploring coaches’ approaches to building trust),
the research team engaged with thematic narrative analysis. Following the guidelines
6 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

advanced by Riessman (2008) and Smith (2016), CM began with transcribing the interviews.
Throughout the transcription process, CM made note of any meaningful thoughts about the
stories coaches shared within the margins of the transcripts. CM then engaged in narrative
indwelling, which involved reflecting on and resonating with the coaches’ stories. Importantly,
this also included CM acknowledging how specific elements of coaches’ stories supported or
diverged from their preconceived notions about building trust that they developed through
their roles as a trust researcher and varsity athlete. After gaining familiarity with the stories, CM
identified narrative themes (i.e. patterns that ran through multiple stories) and relations
between these themes (e.g. stories that centred around vulnerability, power, and gender). At
this stage, CM was intentional not to over-code the transcripts to avoid fragmenting the
coaches’ stories. Based on the identified narrative themes that ran through multiple stories,
CM named, described, and interpreted each context-situated trust-building narrative (see
Results and Discussion). Through conversations with the research team, these narratives were
then interpreted alongside existing theory and narrative types (e.g. performance narrative;
Douglas and Carless 2006).

Holistic-form structural narrative analysis

After identifying the main themes of the context-situated narratives, and in line with the second aim
of this study (i.e. examining coaches’ experiences that shaped their approaches), CM reviewed each
transcription using holistic-form structural narrative analysis. In doing so, the research team sought
to (a) examine how coaches’ stories were structured and (b) identify the underlying plot of each
trust-building narrative (Smith 2016). CM engaged in the process of narrative indwelling again,
writing notes about the structure of coaches’ stories within the margins of the transcripts (e.g.
identifying similarities and/or differences across stories). To identify the underlying plots of each
trust-building narrative, CM identified common themes across stories regarding: (a) the direction of
stories being told (e.g. progression or decline), (b) reflections on various life chapters (e.g. earlier in
their coaching career versus present day), (c) evaluative comments (e.g. moments that changed their
approaches), and (d) changes in tone (e.g. pessimistic to optimistic). From these notes, we identified
the underlying plots of each context-situated narrative (e.g. progression, decline), which we then
examined alongside broader narrative types (e.g. redemption, contamination; McAdams 2001). We
then combined the results of each analysis into an abstract tale – connecting theory to the data (as
illustrated via a combined Results and Discussion section). Together, this tale not only captures the
context-situated trust narratives that coaches drew from, but also the broader narrative types which
they were derived from. Of note, whereas the aforementioned analysis is described in two distinct
stages, we engaged in an iterative process of moving back and forth between the content and
structure of coaches’ stories to develop the abstract tale (Smith 2016).

Methodological rigor
As a research team, we did not seek to determine one ‘truth’ but rather, present multiple possible
narratives that reflected the stories that coaches shared with us. We sought methodological
coherence by ensuring that our research question, philosophical position, and selected methods
were congruent (Riessman 2008). We strove for transparency by having members of the research
team serve as critical friends throughout the interview guide creation, analysis, and writing
processes (Smith and McGannon 2018). During these conversations, CM was challenged to
consider how coaches’ stories occurred under unique circumstances, which could influence
how they constructed their stories. With respect to width, we intentionally included quotes
from the coaches (with assigned pseudonyms) to bring life to their stories – providing the
readers with support for our suggested explanations yet providing space to make their own
judgements about our interpretations.
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH 7

Results and discussion

The coaches drew upon three context-situated narratives when sharing their stories about building
trust within their teams: Trust (a) needs to be given, (b) needs to be earned, and (c) needs give and
take. In the subsequent sections, we provide an overview of coaches’ interpretations of trust
followed by a description of each narrative – including their main themes and underlying plots –
as well as their relations with existing narrative types.

Coaches’ perspectives on trust

To better understand coaches’ stories, we first explored what they meant when they used the
word trust. When asked to define it in their own words, they shared stories about relying on
a team member to achieve an outcome that was important to them. By relinquishing control
over a situation, feelings of vulnerability remained central to these experiences. For example,
Amelia shared, ‘You trust someone by being vulnerable. I’m [sharing] something with you that is
really precious to me and I’m trusting you with it and how that situation gets navigated’.
Generally, descriptions of trust aligned with one of the most widely adopted definitions from
the psychology domain, wherein trust has been understood as one’s intention to accept vulner­
ability (Rousseau et al. 1998). Coaches’ descriptions of trust are further contextualised throughout
the narratives below.

Trust-building narratives for coaches

Whereas three trust-building narratives were identified, specific to initial trust development coaches
either drew from the ‘it needs to be given’ or ‘it needs to be earned’ narrative. From a trust
maintenance perspective, all coaches drew from the narrative, ‘it needs give and take’.

Trust: ‘it needs to be given’

When coaches (eleven head and two assistant) drew upon the ‘it needs to be given’ narrative, they
perceived it to be their responsibility to give trust to their team members first to in turn, gain it from
them. As one example, Logan likened the trust-building process to giving and earning respect, ‘The
biggest thing we can do [as coaches] to create trust is to give trust and show trust first. It’s like
respect; we give respect to get respect’. Similarly, Rowan shared, ‘So many times we [coaches] say, “I
want you to trust me!”, but unless I’m vulnerable and show you a different side of me, I’m not going
to be able to earn your trust’.

Key narrative themes. Within this narrative, a key theme was that coaches sought to counter the
broader assumption that the onus is on the subordinates to first trust in their leaders (Dirks and
Ferrin 2002). Amari shared, ‘There’s an authentic process of building [trusting] relationships and
when you get to that next step, exposing who you are, your deep secrets or fears, it’s hard. For
a coach, you need to do it first . . . there’s power in vulnerability’. As demonstrated by Amari, this
perceived responsibility to give trust first stemmed from coaches acknowledging the hierarchy in
sport and the inherent power they had over their athletes and for the head coaches, their coaching
staff (Magee and Galinsky 2008). Importantly, by enduring these uncomfortable feelings within their
position of power, the coaches who drew upon this narrative sought to normalise vulnerability for
their team members.
Dahlia also supported this sentiment:
This season I consciously gave trust. As an authority figure and a head coach, I hold certain power and
expectations over them . . . that power imbalance of them worrying about what I think. There is still room for
me to be more vulnerable.
8 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

Within the sport context, power and hierarchy have been described as inherent features of the CAR
(Potrac and Jones 2009). However, as demonstrated through Amari and Dahlia’s stories, the effects of
power are not automatically problematic, but dependent on what people do with their power.
Rather than using power over team members to reinforce a traditional dominance model, coaches
exemplified power with and to team members (Berger 2005) through the demonstration of
vulnerability.
When we asked coaches to share stories about giving trust, these stories often involved
demonstrating vulnerability. One way that coaches commonly demonstrated vulnerability was
by providing assistant coaches and athletes with more responsibility for meaningful tasks. For
instance, Mona described not intervening in a conversation between their assistant coach and an
athlete to demonstrate that they trusted the assistant coach’s decision-making abilities: ‘I don’t
always need to be in the know and step in. I think that builds trust with my coaching staff’.
Similarly, Micah shared, ‘I think a big part [of building trust] is me being vulnerable in my
position so they can really see me as a human being and not just a coach. I try my best to be as
vulnerable as I can alongside them’.
Regardless of how vulnerability was demonstrated, another key feature of this narrative was that
coaches positioned giving trust as a sign of strength rather than weakness (Hägglund et al. 2019).
Nora shared the following story, ‘Your ability to give trust, it’s how brave you are in a way. I’ve always
been a super trusting person, I am confident in who I am, and if I get hurt, that’s about them, not me’.
Here, Nora described trusting others as an act of bravery and counters the dominant mental
toughness narrative type wherein vulnerability is perceived as a weakness (Gucciardi, Hanton, and
Fleming 2017). Similarly, Eveline recalled a time during their team’s training camp when she shared
a personal story with her team which required her to demonstrate vulnerability, ‘My story was me
opening up about something that was pretty personal . . . I shared the challenges I faced . . . it wasn’t
easy for me to do that’. In sharing this story, Eveline aimed to reinforce that vulnerability would not
be met with judgement within the team. Eveline continued, ‘Being able to trust that I’m never going
to use [personal] information against you, as if it’s a sign of weakness, but if anything, thank you for
having the courage to share that’. Ultimately, coaches who drew from this narrative reinforced the
importance of engaging in vulnerable behaviours to encourage other team members (of objectively
lower power and status) to do the same.
Whereas both self-identifying men and women coaches challenged the meanings of mental
toughness and vulnerability, it was further observed that the men coaches used this narrative to
counter hegemonic narratives of masculinity (i.e. the idealised forms of masculinity; Messner 2011).
As one example, Rowan shared:

[In team meetings] we’ve shared our own mental health experiences . . . you create this trusting bond because
here’s me in my most vulnerable state versus this stereotypical coach that you see all the time who has to be
stern, and you can’t get through his hard shell. When our coaches open up, that’s where trust is developed.

Given that idealised forms of masculinity reduce the likelihood of engaging in help-seeking beha­
viours (Uphill and Hemmings 2017), Rowan and their coaching staff challenge gender-based norms
by openly discussing their own mental health struggles (Messner 2011) which in turn, was perceived
to support the development of trust.

Underlying narrative plots. Whereas all coaches who drew from this narrative shared stories of
giving trust first, the ways in which their stories were constructed differed. Coaches typically
structured their stories using a redemption (McAdams 2001) or stability narrative type (Gergen and
Gergen 1988). Pertaining to the former, some coaches reflected on a specific life chapter when they
gave trust and subsequently got ‘burned’ (i.e. trust was broken). Central to this storyline was that
rather than becoming more guarded and less willing to trust, they used the negative event as an
avenue for self-transformation (Dunlop and Tracy 2013; McAdams 2001). For instance, Rowan shared:
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH 9

There was a time when I was a younger coach and got burned. I said, ‘I’m not trusting anyone. I’m not letting
anyone get too close’. But I found I couldn’t live that way. It was so difficult to close off the world. I take
a different approach now where I’m trusting—in some cases maybe too trusting, but I find you’re going to get
more out of people that way.

Charlotte also drew from a redemption narrative type (Dunlop and Tracy 2013) by recalling
a negative experience with a former coach that prioritised performance over well-being which
negatively impacted their ability to trust them, ‘I didn’t want to be like them [former coach],
I wanted to be the opposite of that . . . A lot of the athletes will never extend a hand to the head
coach first, I have to establish that trust’.
In comparison, some coaches structured their stories in a way that reflected a stability narrative
type (Gergen and Gergen 1988) – in that they consistently trusted others across contexts and time.
For instance, Amari illustrated the stability narrative type by drawing on the parable of the scorpion
and the frog, emphasising that throughout their life they have always given trust first:
There’s a flood and a scorpion is trapped on an island. A frog swims by and the scorpion says, ‘Hey, Mr. Frog, can
you swim me to the shore?’ The frog says, ‘Are you crazy? You’re going to sting me’. To which he replies, ‘Why
would I do that? We’d both die then’. So the frog agrees and halfway to the land the frog feels a sting in his back
—‘Now we’re both gonna die’. The scorpion says, ‘I guess it’s just in my nature . . . ’. For me, you have to decide
whether you are a scorpion or frog. I will always be the frog . . . I’d rather [give trust] and get stung, because
I don’t ever want to be someone that stings.

As demonstrated by Amari, when these coaches drew from a stability narrative type, they closely
intertwined characteristics of personality (e.g. optimism) with their willingness to trust (i.e. one’s trust
propensity; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995). Interestingly, dispositions can serve as the basis of
one’s narrative identity, which influence how people structure and tell their stories (McAdams and
McLean 2013). In this way, coaches who identified as having a high disposition to trust, may have
been more likely to share stories that supported this perceived innate feature of themselves.

Trust: ‘it needs to be earned’

In contrast to the previous narrative, ‘it needs to be earned’ focuses on coaches (three head and two
assistant) expecting that team members prove they are trustworthy and deserving of their trust
before it is given. This narrative is depicted by Blair, ‘Trust is earned in small chunks. You don’t go
from zero to 100 in the span of a week. You go with smaller tasks, responsibilities . . . when they [team
members] do the little things consistently well, then you trust them’.

Key narrative themes. A main theme of this narrative was that existing hierarchies within the team
were often reinforced/upheld when expecting team members to earn the trust of the coach. For
instance, when we asked Alex about their approach to building trust they highlighted: ‘When the first
years come out of high school they are the big dogs. Then they come to university and realise
everybody was the big dog in their high school. Now they’ve got to earn it [trust]’. In this way, Alex
expected their athletes (and in particular the incoming athletes) to earn their trust. By placing the
expectation on the incoming athletes of objectively less power/status (Magee and Galinsky 2008) to
earn the trust of higher power members (the coaching staff), a more pronounced power differential
could be observed.
This reinforcement of hierarchy was especially evident when assistant coaches drew from this
narrative (as exemplified by Alex). Often, assistant coaches shared stories of having to earn their head
coach’s trust and as a result, imparted the same expectations on their athletes. As one example,
Quinn shared: ‘There is a part of me that’s like, “Yeah, you [athletes] have to earn my trust ” . . . you
have to show me you are going to carry the workload and participate in the culture’. Whereas not all
coaches who drew from this narrative explicitly discussed the need to reinforce hierarchy, by not
acknowledging the power imbalance that is inherent within CARs, this hierarchy was nevertheless
upheld (or strengthened). Indeed, close CARs provide coaches with the inherent opportunity to
10 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

exploit their power and when left unaddressed, can have severe negative repercussions for the
athlete (e.g. lack of trust; McHenry et al. 2021).
When we asked coaches to describe how team members could go about earning their trust, they
shared stories about observing team members engage in trustworthy behaviours (Mayer, Davis, and
Schoorman 1995). For instance, coaches highlighted that when team members embodied team values
(e.g. work ethic, leadership), consistently performed well, and exemplified positive character traits (e.g.
altruism, conscientiousness), perceptions of trustworthiness were strengthened. Riley felt that this
process of determining whether one was trustworthy began during the recruitment and onboarding
phases to help with player selection, ‘Especially when bringing people into the team. It takes some time
for me to do my research, see them work and talk to people, once those [criteria] are met, you are in’.
Indeed, research suggests that perceptions of trustworthiness – most often comprised of the trustee’s
ability, benevolence, and integrity – is a key antecedent of trust (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995).
Similar to the previous narrative, all coaches acknowledged the difficulties associated with
trusting others (e.g. fear, uncertainty). However, another theme unique to this narrative was how
some coaches described observing team member vulnerability as a sign of weakness rather than
strength. For instance, at the beginning of the interview Quinn shared a story when they benefitted
from being vulnerable with their coaching staff:

Day nine into the season the [position] coordinator looked at me and said, ‘You good?’ I just started crying and
said, ‘I’m really struggling with coaching. I don’t know if I’m going to make it’. He said, ‘Man, you’re doing a great
job. There’s absolutely a career for you here’. I was just like, whoa, the amount of confidence that gave me.
I [now] will do anything for [coach] . . . he’s got my best interest at heart.

Despite Quinn describing the benefits of being vulnerable with their fellow coach, as the interview
progressed they simultaneously discouraged their athletes from engaging in similar behaviours:

I want people to stay out of my way, and [head coach] is the same. If they want to talk to you, they’ll reach out . . .
I don’t know how I would react if a player came to me and said they were nervous before a game, because my
immediate thought would be ‘Why? Can I rely on you?’.

As demonstrated above, Quinn discouraged any behaviours that made them question their athletes’
abilities such as the self-disclosure of vulnerable emotions prior to a competition. Thus, there was
often a juxtaposition between stating that trust was pivotal for success, yet acts of vulnerability were
viewed differently by coaches depending on the individual’s status on the team (i.e. coach versus
athlete). Interestingly, this perspective reinforces the dominant mental toughness narrative type that
self-disclosing struggles or fears are signs of weakness (Uphill and Hemmings 2017) as well as the
performance narrative type whereby achieving high levels of performance are prioritised at the
expense of others and the self (Douglas and Carless 2006).

Underlying narrative plots. The ways that these coaches structured and told their stories largely
reflected either a contamination (McAdams 2001) or stability narrative type (Gergen and Gergen 1988).
Some coaches reflected on a specific life chapter within their coaching or athletic careers where trust was
given and broken. In contrast to the redemption narrative type, however, this negative experience
resulted in the coaches becoming more guarded and hesitant to trust others. As one example, Carter
reflected on the very beginning of their coaching career when they recruited athletes based solely on
their skill, giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would develop the interpersonal skills required
to be good teammates:

In my first two seasons I had a mature, older group of fourth or fifth year [athletes]. It was a successful season—
we only lost 4 games in two years. I relied on the same recipe [the next year]. You trust that the next group is
going to do exactly what that other group did and they don’t. I looked at their playing resume, but I actually
hadn’t met certain recruits. I trusted what was on paper . . . and then the first week of training camp was a toxic
nightmare.
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH 11

When this resulted in various problematic situations (e.g. athletes engaging in counterproductive
behaviours), Carter changed their approach to trust, ‘Earning my trust is now the hardest, I’m not
going to lie to you, I need to see action . . . there’s a lot of good salespeople out there, a lot of
distractions. I’ve learned my lesson, there’s a big vetting process for us’. As exemplified by Carter,
when drawing from a contamination narrative type, coaches’ stories were centred around a trust-
breaking experience that was perceived to be so threatening that they ‘narrowed’ their sense of self,
triggering a lack of a trusting identity and precluding any potential for redemption (McAdams 2001).
In comparison, some coaches structured their stories in a way that reflected a stability narrative
type (Gergen and Gergen 1988). Here, coaches shared stories that reinforced their natural tendency
to distrust others within and beyond sport (i.e. a low propensity to trust; Mayer, Davis, and
Schoorman 1995). For instance, Blair described that their pessimistic personality influenced their
approach to trust, ‘I’m a very critical person so it takes a while to earn my trust. There’s times as
a coach that you struggle with your personality because you wish that you were more trusting and
trusted faster, but it runs deep’. Interestingly, Blair went on to highlight the tension between their
personality and approach to trust – acknowledging the drawbacks of being hesitant to trust others
but at the same time, believing they could not change an innate characteristic of themselves:
I think the challenge for me is I will trust you when you create a safe space for me. But often the athlete’s
perspective is, ‘When you create a safe space for me, then I’ll start trusting you’. Whereas I come from [a place of
‘you should] earn my trust’.

Rather than never trusting again, Blair described observing trustworthy behaviours as a way to
combat the perceived limitations of their personality, and more specifically, as a facilitator for others
to earn their trust (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995).

Trust: ‘it needs give and take’

The third context-situated narrative, ‘it needs give and take’, reflects the ongoing effort required
from both parties to maintain a trusting relationship over time. All 18 coaches drew upon this
narrative emphasising that for a trusting relationship to maintain meaningfulness, both parties
needed to contribute. Nora articulated this in the following story:
I think with building trust . . . it [doesn’t] happen overnight. It is a conscious decision to give someone trust and it
can be really scary sometimes because it puts you in a vulnerable position, a position where you can be hurt.
Sport is a vulnerable place to be because you might fail. I think it’s similar with trust. You might fail. We might get
into conflict. But if we’re both willing to be in that vulnerable position, it’s scary, but it’s also special . . . it’s worth
giving trust [to each other].

Key narrative themes. As illustrated by Nora, a key narrative theme was that trust maintenance was
considered to be a ‘two-way street’, in that both parties needed to be willing to become vulnerable and
demonstrate trustworthiness over time. When we asked Amari how they maintained trust they said, ‘Trust
is not a one-time thing. You have to keep trying, it’s not a singular act that you do and then you are done’.
Nora and Amari both draw on the norm of reciprocity, in that when an individual engages in a vulnerable
behaviour, this may stimulate the trustee to engage in similar behaviours in return (Serva, Fuller, and
Mayer 2005). Alternatively, when trust is initiated but not reciprocated, the trusting relationship begins to
break down.
When drawing from this narrative, coaches demonstrated narrative flexibility (Ramos, Svensson, and
Stambulova 2024) in that they shifted from one narrative to another when seeking to maintain trust
(rather than develop it). This difference, based on contextual change, was particularly apparent for
coaches who had previously drew from the ‘it needs to be earned’ narrative, as these coaches shared
stories about the importance of reciprocal vulnerability. Blair shared:
If the athletes have these small tasks that they are not able to achieve, chances are I’m not going to trust them.
But if I don’t have to remind them of tasks, then we start building into bigger tasks and you start taking on larger
roles. Then I think they [athletes] naturally start to see the relationship change because trust is earned. From the
12 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

same perspective as a coach, I then need to earn their trust—by being vulnerable when it comes to apologizing
and being transparent.

In this way, narrative flexibility may have provided coaches who initially drew from ‘it needs to be
earned’ with the means to make sense of their differing approach to trust maintenance.
Another theme within this narrative was the importance of time. Time provided opportunities to
observe others consistently engage in behaviours indicative of trustworthiness. Logan shared, ‘A
relationship moves at the speed of trust . . . the more we can share of ourselves, that personal
disclosure, mutual sharing, the faster we can get to that 100% trust, rather than 1% trust’. Here,
Logan saw time as an opportunity to demonstrate vulnerability through self-disclosure, which
motivated team members to also demonstrate vulnerability. Similarly, Nora stated, ‘I’ve seen them
[team members] at their rawest, and they’ve seen me at mine. That’s what time does. It gives you
opportunities to get to know each other’. Logan and Nora evoke a relational narrative type that
prioritises interconnectedness and quality relationships (Douglas and Carless 2006). In this way,
maintaining trust between team members served to strengthen and enhance the quality of these
relationships.
Coaches also emphasised the challenges of maintaining trust within the confines of
a performance-oriented environment. They (especially head coaches) described that having to
make task-related decisions (e.g. playing time, hiring process) was a major barrier to maintaining
trust with athletes and coaching staff. As Blair illustrated:

[There have been instances] when an athlete shares something with me and now when I have to put my
coaching hat back on. I’m making a [performance] decision and I’m struggling with the things they shared with
me. [When I don’t play them] they now think I’m using [that information] against them.

In comparison to the relational narrative type, Blair’s story evokes a counter performance narrative type
(Douglas and Carless 2006). Indeed, tensions arose in coaches’ stories when trying to maintain trusting
relationships, but also perceiving the need to conform to the performance narrative type wherein the
main focus of sport is to win (Douglas and Carless 2006). Amari shared this perspective, ‘It’s challenging
because you are showing trust in people that are going to deliver more results, but that can take away
trust from others who don’t get those opportunities. You’re trying to manage high performance . . . it’s
spinning a lot of plates’. This performance script leads coaches to question whether trust can be truly
maintained within a performance-driven environment and as such, whether the breaking of trust – at
some point – is inevitable (e.g. by playing some athletes over others).
This tension was exacerbated when coaches shared stories of athletes blurring the lines of what
coaches perceived to be performance-oriented trust versus a personal/relational form of trust. For
instance, Blair shared the following story: ‘Trusting in your athletes [during a competition] is performance-
based, but you’re also trying to establish a personal connection with your athletes . . . It’s a tricky balance
of building trust, knowing that at some point you are going to disappoint them’. Blair emphasised the
impossible situation that many coaches found themselves in – wanting to maintain a more personal
trusting relationship with their athletes but breaking this person-oriented trust when making decisions
based purely on performance. In trying to reconcile these tensions, another identified narrative theme
was the importance of being proactive and intentional when implementing strategies to maintain trust
within the confines of a performance-oriented environment. For instance, Mona shared the following
story about an athlete self-disclosing a mental health difficulty, and the strategies they used to maintain
trust with this athlete even when they were not receiving much playing time:

I had a student-athlete who had opened up a lot with me over my time coaching about their mental illness . . . I was
not dressing them, and I felt terrible about it because I also understood the impact of them not traveling and
potentially self-harming. It’s a big burden but I would still say that they trusted me . . . I was open and honest. I was
giving them feedback on what they needed to do to improve. I think that was the biggest thing [to maintain that
trust].
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH 13

By being open and honest about their playing time decisions, Mona was able to manage the
aforementioned challenge more effectively. Indeed, research has shown that when coaches
clarify expectations, are transparent in their decision making, and openly communicate construc­
tive feedback, CARs can be maintained more effectively in the face of conflict (Rhind and Jowett
2010).
An additional strategy that coaches discussed when drawing upon this narrative was the impor­
tance of boundary setting to not only protect the athletes with whom they had trusting relation­
ships, but also themselves. For instance, coaches recalled conversations with athletes that fell
beyond their comfort level/perceived scope. Blair shared the following story:
You’re having conversations [with an athlete] and you’re not a therapist and it’s like, ‘Whoa, I’m not
a professional! I want to be a listening ear for you. However, I think this is maybe more conducive to
a conversation with a counselor . . . ’ [It’s about] how can I redirect them because I don’t want to lose the trust
that we’ve built.

In these moments, coaches emphasised the importance of having a network of support staff (e.g.
certified psychologists) that they trusted to assist them in navigating difficult conversations.

Underlying narrative plots. When drawing from this narrative, coaches typically framed their
stories within a progressive-stability or a regressive-/tragic narrative type, which was largely
dependent on the outcome of becoming vulnerable (Gergen and Gergen 1988). For instance,
Parker shared a story about being open and honest about their own mental health difficulties
which resulted in their athletes also demonstrating vulnerability: ‘The reason my athletes can
come to my office and be the first one to disclose a very horrible thing or even ask for help is
because that trust is there’. In instances when positive outcomes were felt by both the trustor
(facilitation of well-being) and trustee (enhanced perceptions of trustworthiness), the trusting
relationship was strengthened. Accordingly, these coaches structured their stories using
a progressive-stability narrative type representative of forward momentum (Gergen and
Gergen 1988).
In contrast, some coaches structured their stories in a way that emphasised the negative out­
comes of trusting others which resulted in either greater distrust (i.e. drawing from a regressive
narrative type) or its complete erosion (i.e. a regressive-/tragic narrative type; Gergen and Gergen
1988). Rene reflected on a time when they trusted their assistant coaches to adhere to a coach-
athlete boundary they had set and the repercussions when they did not:
Three years ago I fired an assistant coach. For me there was an understanding of, ‘We’re the coaches, they are the
players’, it’s two different groups. But I saw pictures on Instagram of them partying with them, hanging out with
them. You just can’t do that. I had a chat with them, and I said you have to stop doing this, and they didn’t. So
this season I said, ‘I trusted you, but you kept doing it, so I have to let you go’.

Here, Rene initially drew upon a regressive narrative type (Gergen and Gergen 1988) in that the first
time the coach-athlete boundary was crossed, trust in the assistant coach declined. When the boundary
continued to be crossed, an acceleration in this decline was observed, resulting in the complete erosion
of trust. A tragic narrative type is drawn upon then, wherein the breaking of trust was no longer
repairable. In this regard, although both the regressive and tragic narrative types reflect a decline in
trust, the acceleration of this decline and its subsequent impact on the trusting relationship differed.

Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to examine coaches’ perspectives on their approaches to building
trust within their teams and what experiences had shaped these approaches. In doing so, we
identified three context-situated narratives that coaches drew from to make sense of the trust-
related experiences and the higher-order narrative types that they could be derived from. Taken
together, this study has theoretical, methodological, and practical implications.
14 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

Theoretically, this study sheds light on the personal and social complexities of building trust. Not only
were trust-specific narratives identified, but so too were sociocultural factors that shaped coaches’
interpretations of their lived experiences (Douglas and Carless 2006). In addition, and specific to narrative
inquiry, researchers have called for the use of consistent terminology to promote coherence across this
field (Book, Svensson, and Stambulova 2024). In support of this call, we clearly differentiated between
stories, context-situated narratives, and narrative types. Methodologically, by adopting a two-phase
approach to narrative analysis, our study highlights how specific narrative techniques can contribute
uniquely to the research findings. By engaging with thematic narrative analysis (i.e. the ‘what’ of coaches’
stories) and holistic-form structural analysis (i.e. the ‘how’ of coaches’ stories), the main themes and
underlying plots of the context-situated narratives could be identified.
Pertaining to practical implications, by identifying multiple – at times conflicting – narratives, we hope
our findings can support sport partners in making sense of their trust-building experiences. Researchers
have highlighted the benefits of using narratives as pedagogical tools to stimulate reflection and
behaviour change within coach education (e.g. Zehntner and McMahon 2014). For instance, Zehntner
and McMahon (2014) used narratives as an avenue for reflexive action when reconstructing their own
coach identities. Accordingly, the findings of this study could be used as a template for coach education
tools aimed at developing trust within sport teams. Researchers have also shown that the actual act of
telling stories can build trust (Hagmann, Minson, and Tinsley 2024). As such, providing opportunities for
coaches to share their personal stories within trust-building workshops may also be beneficial.
Pertaining to future research directions, given that the key trust-building narratives are proposed to be
context-situated (i.e. they are relatable but potentially lack transferability; Book, Svensson, and
Stambulova 2024), it would be worthwhile to explore the applicability of these narratives across popula­
tions (e.g. athletes) or environments (e.g. exercise) and alongside existing metanarratives (e.g. quest,
chaos; Book, Svensson, and Stambulova 2024). Second, it is worth noting that whereas self-identifying
men coaches described demonstrating vulnerability as a means to challenge traditional masculine norms,
self-identifying women coaches did not emphasise this finding. Since vulnerability may in fact support
and reinforce traditional norms of hegemonic femininity (e.g. demonstrating emotion; Messner 2011),
applying a critical discourse analysis to shed light on the potential nuances associated with gender and
building trust is a worthwhile avenue.
In sum, coaches emphasised the importance of building trusting relationships with athletes and
coaching staff. Trust is a construct that should not be taken for granted and, as such, we encourage
sport researchers and practitioners to think critically about the complex meanings of trust, and how
sport environments can be best cultivated to support the development of trusting relations.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Notes on contributors
Cailie S. McGuire is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the School of Kinesiology at The University of British Columbia. Her research
interests fall within the umbrella field of sport psychology, exploring how team dynamics constructs such as trust,
subgroups, and leadership influence athlete well-being and performance.
Jeffrey G. Caron is an Associate Professor in the School of Kinesiology and Physical Activity Sciences, and
a Researcher within the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal. His area of
expertise is in sport and exercise psychology, and he also works with athletes, coaches, teams, and groups as
a Certified Mental Performance Consultant©.
 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH IN SPORT, EXERCISE AND HEALTH 15

Luc J. Martin is a Professor in the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies at Queen’s University. His research interests
focus generally on group dynamics constructs, with particular attention to topics such as subgroups/cliques, leadership,
social identity, and team building.

References
Allan, Veronica, Heather Gainforth, Jennifer Turnnidge, Timothy Konoval, Jean Côté, and Amy Latimer-Cheung. 2023.
“Narrative as a Learning Tool for Coaches of Athletes with a Disability: Using Stories to Translate Research into
Practice.” Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy 28 (5): 546–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.2006619.
Ashleigh, Melanie J., and Edgar Meyer. 2015. “Deepening the Understanding of Trust: Combining Repertory Grid and
Narrative to Explore the Uniqueness of Trust.” In Handbook of Research Methods on Trust, edited by Fergus Lyon,
Guido Mollering, and Mark N. K. Saunders, 138–148. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Bandura, Comille T., Maria Kavussanu, and Chin Wei Ong. 2019. “Authentic Leadership and Task Cohesion: The
Mediating Role of Trust and Team Sacrifice.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research & Practice 23 (3–4): 185–194.
https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000105.
Berger, Bruce K. 2005. “Power Over, Power With, and Power to Relations: Critical Reflections on Public Relations, the
Dominant Coalition, and Activism.” Journal of Public Relations Research 17 (1): 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s1532754xjprr1701_3.
Book, Robert T., Joar Svensson, and Natalia Stambulova. 2024. “Narrative Research in Sport and Exercise Science in the
Early 21st Century: A State-Of-The-Art Critical Review.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise & Health 16 (6): 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2024.2374827.
Carless, David, and Kitrina Douglas. 2013. “Living, Resisting, and Playing the Part of Athlete: Narrative Tensions in Elite
Sport.” Psychology of Sport & Exercise 14 (5): 701–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.05.003.
Costa, Ana Cristina, C. Ashley Fulmer, and Neil R. Anderson. 2018. “Trust in Work Teams: An Integrative Review, Multilevel
Model, and Future Directions.” Journal of Organisational Behaviour 39 (2): 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2213.
Dirks, Kurt T., and Donald L. Ferrin. 2002. “Trust in Leadership: Meta-Analytic Findings and Implications for Research and
Practice.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (4): 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611.
Douglas, Kitrina, and David Carless. 2006. “Performance, Discovery, and Relational Narratives Among Women Professional
Tournament Golfers.” Women in Sport & Physical Activity Journal 15 (2): 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.15.2.14.
Dunlop, William L., and Jessica L. Tracy. 2013. “Sobering Stories: Narratives of Self-Redemption Predict Behavioural
Change and Improved Health Among Recovering Alcoholics.” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 104 (3):
576–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031185.
Eys, Mark, Mark W. Bruner, and Luc J. Martin. 2019. “The Dynamic Group Environment in Sport and Exercise.” Psychology
of Sport & Exercise 42 (1): 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.001.
Gano-Overway, Lori A. 2023. “Athletes’ Narratives of Caring Coaches Who Made a Difference.” Sports Coaching Review
12 (1): 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2021.1896208.
Gergen, Kenneth J., and Mary M. Gergen. 1988. “Narrative and the Self as Relationship.” In Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology vol. 21, edited by Leonard Berkowitz, 17–56. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press.
Gucciardi, Daniel F., Sheldon Hanton, and Scott Fleming. 2017. “Are Mental Toughness and Mental Health Contradictory
Concepts in Elite Sport? A Narrative Review of Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Science & Medicine in Sport 20 (3):
307–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2016.08.006.
Hägglund, Karin, Göran Kenttä, Richard Thelwell, and Christopher R. D. Wagstaff. 2019. “Is There an Upside of
Vulnerability in Sport? A Mindfulness Approach Applied in the Pursuit of Psychological Strength.” Journal of Sport
Psychology in Action 10 (4): 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520704.2018.1549642.
Hagmann, David, Julia A. Minson, and Catherine H. Tinsley. 2024. “Personal Narratives Build Trust Across Ideological
Divides.” Journal of Applied Psychology 109 (11): 1693–1715. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001201.
Jowett, Sophia. 2017. “Coaching Effectiveness: The Coach-Athlete Relationship at Its Heart.” Current Opinion in
Psychology 16 (1): 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.05.006.
Jowett, Sophia, and Vaithehy Shanmugam. 2016. “Relational Coaching in Sport: Its Psychological Underpinnings and
Practical Effectiveness.” In Routledge International Handbook of Sport Psychology, edited by Robert J. Schinke, R.Kerry ,
McGannon, and Brett Smith, 471–484. London, UK: Routledge.
Kao, San-Fu, Ming-Hui Hsieh, and Po-Lun Lee. 2017. “Coaching Competency and Trust in Coach in Sport Teams.”
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 12 (3): 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954117710508.
Lieblich, Amia, Rivka Tuval-Mashiach, and Tamar Zilber. 1998. Narrative Research: Reading, Analysis, and Interpretation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mageau, Geneviève A., and Robert J. Vallerand. 2003. “The Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Motivational Model.” Journal of
Sports Science 21 (11): 883–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/0264041031000140374.
Magee, Joe C., and Adam D. Galinsky. 2008. “The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status.” Academy of Management
Annals 2 (1): 351–398. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211628.
16 C. S. MCGUIRE ET AL.

Mayer, Roger C., James H. Davis, and F. David Schoorman. 1995. “An Integrative Model of Organisational Trust.” Academy
of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792.
McAdams, Dan P. 2001. “The Psychology of Life Stories.” Review of General Psychology 5 (2): 100–122. https://doi.org/10.
1037/1089-2680.5.2.100.
McAdams, Dan P., and Kate C. McLean. 2013. “Narrative Identity.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 22 (3):
233–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622.
McGuire, Cailie S., and Luc J. Martin. 2023. “The Scientific Structure and Evolution of Trust within Performance-Oriented
Teams Research: A Citation Network Analysis and Critical Review.” Sport, Exercise, & Performance Psychology 12 (4):
290–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000326.
McHenry, Lauren K., Jeff L. Cochran, Rebecca A. Zakrajsek, Leslee A. Fisher, Sharon R. Couch, and Brittany S. Hill. 2021.
“Elite Figure Skaters’ Experiences of Harm in the Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Person-Centered Theory Perspective.”
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 33 (4): 420–440. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1689536
Messner, Micheal. 2011. “Gender Ideologies, Youth Sports, and the Production of Soft Essentialism.” Sociology of Sport
Journal 28 (2): 151–170. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.28.2.151.
Potrac, Paul, and Robyn Jones. 2009. “Power, Conflict, and Cooperation: Toward a Micropolitics of Coaching.” Quest
61 (2): 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2009.10483612.
Ramos, Andres, Joar Svensson, and Natalia Stambulova. 2024. “Navigating the Unknown: A Narrative Exploration of
Career Pathways in Esports.” Scandinavian Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 6: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.7146/
sjsep.v6i.140390
Rhind, Daniel J.A., and Sophia Jowett. 2010. “Relationship Maintenance Strategies in the Coach-Athlete Relationship:
The Development of the COMPASS Model.” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 22 (1): 106–121. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10413200903474472.
Riessman, Catherine K. 2008. Narrative Methods for the Human Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rousseau, Denise M., Sim B. Sitkin, Ronald S. Burt, and Colin Camerer. 1998. “Not so Different After All: A Cross-Discipline
View of Trust.” Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 393–404. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617.
Serva, Mark A., Mark A. Fuller, and Roger C. Mayer. 2005. “The Reciprocal Nature of Trust: A Longitudinal Study of
Interacting Teams.” The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organisational Psychology and Behaviour
26 (6): 625–648. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.331.
Sinotte, Charles-Antoine, Gordon A. Bloom, and Jeffrey G. Caron. 2015. “Roles, Responsibilities and Relationships of Full-Time
University Assistant Coaches.” Sports Coaching Review 4 (2): 99–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2016.1158542.
Smith, Brett. 2016. “Narrative Analysis in Sport and Exercise: How Can it Be Done?” In Routledge Handbook of Qualitative
Research in Sport and Exercise, edited by Brett Smith and Andrew C. Sparkes, 260–273. London, UK: Routledge.
Smith, Brett, and Kerry R. McGannon. 2018. “Developing Rigor in Qualitative Research: Problems and Opportunities
within Sport and Exercise Psychology.” International Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology 11 (1): 101–121. https://doi.
org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357.
Smith, Brett, and Andrew C. Sparkes. 2009. “Narrative Inquiry in Sport and Exercise Psychology: What Can it Mean, and
Why Might We Do It?” Psychology of Sport & Exercise 10 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.01.004.
Trussell, Dawn E., Jennifer Mooradian, Jesse Porter, and Ryan Clutterbuck. 2024. “Motherhood and Competitive
Coaching: Six Stories of Generational Differences in Persisting and Resisting Gender Inequities in Sport.”
Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise & Health 16 (6): 598–613 https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2024.2375617 .
Turnnidge, Jennifer, and Jean Côté. 2019. “Observing Coaches’ Leadership Behaviours: The Development of the Coach
Leadership Assessment System (CLAS).” Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 23 (3): 214–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2019.1602835.
Uphill, Mark A., and Brian Hemmings. 2017. “Vulnerability: Ripples from Reflections on Mental Toughness.” The Sport
Psychologist 31 (3): 299–307. https://doi.org/10.1123/tsp.2016-0034.
Zakrajsek, Rebecca A., Johannes Raabe, Tucker Readdy, Sara Erdner, and Andrew Bass. 2020. “Collegiate Assistant
Coaches’ Perceptions of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Thwarting from Head Coaches: A Qualitative
Investigation.” Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 32 (1): 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2019.1581855.
Zehntner, Chris, and Jenny McMahon. 2014. “The Impact of a Coaching/Sporting Culture on One Coach’s Identity: How
Narrative Became a Useful Tool in Reconstructing Coaching Ideologies.” Sports Coaching Review 3 (2): 145–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21640629.2015.1051883.
Zhang, Zhu, and Packianathan Chelladurai. 2013. “Antecedents and Consequences of Athlete’s Trust in the Coach.”
Journal of Sport and Health Science 2 (2): 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2012.03.002.