Highlights • Dyadic coping was used to manage stressors in coach-athlete relationships. • Verbal and non-verbal communication promoted the use of dyadic coping. • Dyadic coping can have long-term effects on well-being and functioning. • Dyadic coping can be both adaptive and maladaptive for performance. Abstract Objectives: The purpose of this study was to make an original contribution to sport psychology literature by offering a substantive grounded theory of dyadic coping in coach-athlete relationships. Specifically, this study aimed to capture the development and manifestation of dyadic coping for coaches and athletes operating in individual sports. Design: Using constructionist grounded theory methodology as a guide, a theory of dyadic coping was constructed by the authors, 13 coaches, 15 athletes, and five sport and exercise psychology practitioners. Method: Theoretical sampling procedures ensured that data collection was directed by the developing theoretical concepts, rather than a set of predefined criteria. We conducted individual interviews (n = 16) with coaches and athletes, and one 90-min workshop with coaches, athletes, and sport and exercise psychology practitioners. Methodological rigor was enhanced by focusing on credibility, originality, resonance, and usefulness. Results: The theory proposes that when coaches and athletes appraise a stressor communicated in their dyad as significant and meaningful, they use dyadic coping to protect themselves and their coach-athlete relationships. This process is moderated by a number of personal (e.g., personality), relationship (e.g., length), and organizational (e.g., leadership behaviors) characteristics. Conclusion: The theory presented here represents a notable shift in thinking away from coping as an individual process and toward coping as an important interpersonal phenomenon. This type of coping can have long-term effects on coaches` and athletes` relationship functioning, well-being, and performance.
© Copyright 2020 Psychology of Sport and Exercise. Elsevier. All rights reserved.