|
COPYRIGHT 2007 University of South Alabama
Within the next three decades more than 70 million Americans will be older than 65, and the 85-and-older group will be the fastest growing segment. Although aging causes inevitable physical changes, it is during these later years that physical activity associated with sports competition becomes even more important, regardless of performance outcome (Cimons, 1999). Many structural and psychological barriers have limited opportunities for senior athletes to engage in organized athletic competitions. Society has historically viewed, and limited, physical activity and competing in sports to young, able-bodied and (until recently) male participants. When athletes were "past their prime" they were encouraged to retire gracefully and discontinue any activity deemed "too strenuous." For those who ignored these pleas, there were limited opportunities to engage in organized senior adult competition.
Much has changed over the past two decades. Not only have attitudes shifted, but the emergence of organized nationwide senior games competitions have flourished since their inception in the early 1980s. The National Senior Games Association started senior games competition in 1987 with over 2500 senior athletes from across the United States. The 1997 participation in the Senior Sports Classic grew to more than 10,000 athletes, making it the largest multi-sport event held on American soil (National Senior Games Association, 1997). The Missouri State Senior Games is an Olympic-style sports festival for senior athletes (age 50 years and over). After the inaugural Missouri State Senior Games in 1995 drew only 470 participants there was a dramatic increase in participation over the next seven years, with 981 participants in 2001 (Missouri State Senior Games, 1997, 2001). It was the data from the 2001 Missouri Senior Games that was analyzed in the current investigation.
Not-with-standing our interest in studying the motives and motivational determinants of older adults, most of the literature has focused on children and young adults (Standage & Duda, 2004). A life-span perspective, however, is important for a fuller understanding of the process involved in exercise and sport motivation (Ashford & Rickhuss, 1992; Brodkin & Weiss, 1990). In particular, there is a need to study senior athletes, as this age group is understudied relative to contemporary research in exercise and sport psychology. The research that has been conducted on older adults clearly links physical activity with lower levels of depression and negative mood (Ruuskanen & Ruoppila, 1995; Engels, Drouin, Ahu, & Kazmierski, 1998), enhanced levels of life satisfaction (Mihalko & McAuley, 1996), increased self-efficacy (Deforche & Bourdeaudhuij, 2000), enhanced positive mood states (Arent, Landers, & Etnier, 2000), and increased subjective well-being (McAuley, Blissmer, Katula, & Duncan, 2000). These established relationships make it clear why it is important to encourage physical activity in older adults and why it is important to understand what motivates older adults to exercise and engage in athletic competition.
While not particularly theoretical in nature, studies involving motivation have tended to focus upon reasons that sport and exercise participants give for participating in sport and exercise activities. Research involving youth sport participants, for example, has shown that the number one reason that children give for participating in sport is to have fun. Other motives that have been shown to be important to young participants include learning new skills, becoming physically fit, being challenged, and enjoying friendships (Ewing & Seefeldt, 1996; Gill, Gross & Huddleston, 1983; Wankel & Kreisel, 1985; White, Duda, & Keller, 1998). Research with older Australian adults indicates that staying healthy and improving fitness are primary motives for participating in sport and exercise, with such motives as enjoyment and maintaining joint mobility also being important (Kolt, Driver, & Giles, 2004). Kolt et al. (2004) also reported a gender and age relationship with participation motives. Women rated the participation motives of social interactions, getting involved outside the home, and medical benefits as being important to a greater extent than men. The age of the participant was also important relative to valuing different motives for participation. For example, the oldest age category (75 years and older) rated exercising for medical reasons as being more important compared to younger participants. Conversely, older adults between the ages of 55-64 rated social reasons higher that those 65-74 years of age.
Three general social-cognitive models of motivation have been instrumental in helping researchers to understand why some older adults participate in physical activities and why others do not. These models or theories include self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1997), achievement goal theory (Dweck, 1999; Nicholls, 1989), and self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). In the present investigation we focus to a large degree upon self-determination theory as a way to understand motivation and how motivation influences participation motivation (reasons for participating). In this respect, we are also interested in how gender and age of older adult relates to regulation of motivational styles and how self-determination and regulation relate to participation motives of senior athletes. In this regard, research reported by Losier, Bourque and Vallerand (1993) suggests that self-determination is linked to numerous positive psychological outcomes including the motive to participate. As previously indicated, an association between age and gender has been observed with sport participation motives of older adults. Less is known, however, relative to the relationship between age and gender with self-determined motivational styles. One exception to this observation is data provided by Pelletier et al. (1995) which show some gender differences on motivations scales for college age students. For example, external regulation was higher for males, but intrinsic motivation was higher for females.
Our reference point in the present investigation is Vallerand and Losier's (1999) integrated theory of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. The key construct within the integrated model is self-determination theory. In the integrated model, social factors (e.g., success/failure, competition/cooperation, and coaches' behavior) predict psychological mediators (i.e., perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness), which predict motivation (i.e., amotivation, intrinsic motivation, and extrinsic motivation), which in turn predicts the consequences of motivation (e.g., affect, sportspersonship, persistence, and reasons for participating). In order to develop intrinsic motivation, an athlete must feel competent, in control (autonomy), and relate to other people in a meaningful way (Gagne, Ryan, & Bargman, 2003).
In a simplistic sense, motivation can be categorized as being either extrinsic or intrinsic in nature, with amotivation being the absence of motivation. Ryan and Deci's (2000) notion of self-determination, however, places these three kinds of motivation on a continuum leading from a lack of self-determination to complete self-determination. In this regard, self-determination embraces the concept of internalization. As explained by Ryan and Deci (2000) different regulatory styles form the basis of the different kinds of motivation. Motivation that is externally regulated is considered to lack self-determination and is not internalized by the individual. An older adult who participates in sport for purely external reasons (trophy) is controlled by external rewards. If the reward were to be removed, it is likely that the motive to participate would be lessened because it was not internalized.
Consistent with self-determination theory and the integrated theory of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport, the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; Pelletier et al., 1995) was developed to measure regulatory style along the motivation continuum. The continuum runs from amotivation (non-regulation) through extrinsic motivation (external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation) to intrinsic regulation. At the level of intrinsic regulation, motivation is completely internalized and self-determined. External regulation is the least internalized form of extrinsic motivation,...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
