|
COPYRIGHT 2008 University of South Alabama
There are countless answers to the question, "why do people do what they do." For instance, people may perform certain tasks in order to better themselves and develop a more integrated sense of self. On the other hand, people may act in order to obtain external outcomes. The same diversity of motives appears in athletes, who report many different reasons for their sport participation. They may, for example, participate for the simple love of the game, for recognition, or for money, among other reasons. Identifying the determinants of athletes' motivation is an important goal for coaches and practitioners, as this type of information can lead to the development and implementation of effective motivational strategies. Understanding motivation has also been a popular focus of research, where numerous social-contextual and interpersonal factors have been identified as potential determinants of motivation in athletes (see Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, 2002). The general goal of this study was to explore how athletes' perceptions of the motivational climate created by their coaches function as determinants of athletes' sport motivation.
A common approach used to understand motivation is Deci and Ryan's (1985, Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002) self-determination theory (SDT). According to this theory, the reasons behind athletes' motivation, or why they choose to participate, exert effort, and continue in an activity, can be organized along a continuum of self-determined behavior. At the most self-determined end of the continuum is intrinsic motivation (IM), which is participating in an activity for the enjoyment of the activity itself. On the other hand, the least self-determined form of motivation is amotivation (AM), which is lacking intention or reasons for participation. In the center of the self-determination continuum is extrinsic motivation (EM). Extrinsically motivated athletes participate for instrumental reasons or as a means to some desired end. There are several types of extrinsic motivation (i.e., external, introjected, identified, and integrated regulation) that differ in their level of self-determination (see Ryan & Deci, 2002; Vallerand & Losier, 1999).
People may participate in sport for a combination of reasons--some intrinsic and some extrinsic. Engaging in sport for more self-determined motives, especially intrinsic reasons, has been associated with a number of benefits including greater persistence and enjoyment in an activity, more positive affect, and less risk of dropout (Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). As such, understanding how to promote or facilitate more self-determined motivation is an important question for scholars and practitioners.
According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 20002), individuals will develop a more self-determined motivational orientation when participation in an activity leads to the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs. These needs include competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Perceived competence involves a feeling of being effective at a certain task. Autonomy is perceiving choice and control over one's own behavior. Finally, relatedness is a feeling of belongingness with significant others. Based on SDT, individuals will seek out activities that satisfy these three fundamental needs, and ultimately, anything that impacts one's sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness will impact the type of motivation that the individual develops for that activity.
Numerous factors may influence individuals' need satisfaction and thus their motivation, but much of the research has focused on social-contextual determinants. For instance, research has revealed that rewards, feedback, imposed deadlines, competition, surveillance, and the interpersonal styles of authority figures can all affect people's motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Henderlong & Lepper, 2002; Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Vallerand & Losier, 1999). The importance of the coach is apparent here because he or she is able to influence most of these factors. The behaviors coaches engage in help to create a motivational climate, which appears to be a critical element in influencing need satisfaction and motivation (see Amorose, in press). The motivational climate is identified as the definition of success and failure emphasized in a social environment, such as a classroom or an athletic team (see Ames, 1992). For example, a mastery (also called task-involving) motivational climate describes an environment that emphasizes learning, improvement, and effort as the keys to success. In contrast, a performance (also called ego-involving) motivational climate emphasizes competition, winning, and outperforming others (see Amorose, in press; McArdle & Duda, 2002).
Research shows that athletes' perceptions of the motivational climate relate to various motivational outcomes (see Ames & Archer, 1988; Amorose, in press; Duda & Hall, 2001; Weiss & Ferrer-Caja, 2002). Perceptions of a mastery climate positively predict indices of self-determined motivation, while perceptions of a performance climate negatively relate to intrinsic motivation and positively relate to both amotivation and indices of extrinsic motivation (e.g., Goudas, 1998; Kavussanu & Roberts, 1996; Newton & Duda, 1999; Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000; Petherick & Weigand, 2002; Seifriz, Duda, & Chi, 1992; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003; Theeboom, De Knop, & Weiss, 1995).
Research consistently shows a relationship between the motivational climate and athletes' motivational orientation; however, only a few studies have tested the pattern of relationships predicted by self-determination theory. From this perspective, the motivational climate influences the athletes' need satisfaction, which in turn, influences their motivation. Most of the studies that have tested this pattern of relationships focused on a physical education context and generally found support for SDT (Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000; Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage et al., 2003). These studies support the link between motivational climate and motivational orientation, and suggest that this relationship is mediated by the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Although relatively few in number, similar findings are reported in organized competitive sport settings (Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002). For instance, Sarrazin et al. (2002) measured motivational climate, the needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, motivational orientation, and dropout (i.e., future sport intentions of either dropping out or continuing) in 13-15 year-old female handball players. In line with SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002), results from a structural equation modeling analysis showed that a mastery motivational climate was a positive predictor of the three needs, which in turn, positively predicted self-determined motivation. A performance climate negatively predicted the need for autonomy, which positively related to self-determined motivation. Importantly, the authors noted that the impact of climate on motivation was mediated by the three needs, and together the climate and the needs explained 78% of the variance in self-determined motivation toward handball.
In summary, these research studies in physical education and sport show that the type of social context in which athletes are exposed, specifically the perceived motivational climate, relates to the type of motivation that the athletes display. A mastery climate, which emphasizes learning and self-improvement, positively relates to more self-determined forms of...
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
