Athlete personal growth and satisfaction have been repeatedly identified as essential aspects of sport participation (e.g., Williams, 2001). Recently research on interpersonal dynamics as antecedents to satisfactory experiences in collegiate sports has been invigorated (Poczwardowski, 2002). This poster presents the results of two studies examining the interpersonal athlete-coach dyads in Division III collegiate sports. In Study 1 with 93 athletes and their four head coaches, it was hypothesized that high inclusion in the coach interpersonal behavior and low discrepancy scores between the inclusion behavior that athletes ‘desire’ and the inclusion behavior their coaches ‘express’ is associated with increased athlete satisfaction. Inclusion was quantified by a non-sport specific measure – Fundamental Interpersonal Relations-B (FIRO-B; Schutz, 1966). Although the general hypotheses were not supported, compared to male athletes, lower discrepancy between ‘desired’ inclusion of female athletes and ‘expressed’ inclusion behavior of coaches was associated with higher satisfaction of personal outcome (r=.33, p=.043). Recognizing the limitations of Study 1, Study 2 added a sport-specific measure of the interpersonal dynamics and included more variables that have been shown to predict compatible athlete-coach dyads. Again, collegiate athletes (n=117) and their coaches (n=6) participated in this study. Athletes completed an inclusion scale from a sport-adapted FIRO-B (Horne & Carron, 1985), Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS; Chelladurai & Saleh, 1980), Scale of Athlete Satisfaction (SAS; Chelladurai et al., 1988), Trait Sport-Confidence Inventory (Vealey’s, 1986), and a demographics questionnaire. Linear regression yielded seven variables in the model of “best” fit: number of seasons with the coach, satisfaction, training and instruction, democratic behavior, autocratic behavior, social support, and positive feedback. Together, these predictors accounted for 59.1% of the variance in the athlete—coach compatibility scores (p<.01). Inclusion was not included in the model (r=.078, p>.05) and the gender difference identified in Study 1 was not confirmed with respect to athlete-coach compatibility (r=.028, p>.05). It is possible that the questions from the modified FIRO-B are too general to accurately assess interactions between athletes and coaches. Future research should develop a reliable sport-adapted version of FIRO-B or design a new measure for the sport setting. Qualitative and quantitative projects should consider other theoretically sound concepts, such as enjoyment (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979), as possible correlates of the athlete-coach compatibility. In pursuit of more productive interpersonal relationships with their athletes, coaches should structure the on and off-field experiences that invite frequent interactions with their athletes and ensure satisfying sport and personal experiences. Keyword(s): coaching, college level issues