Feelings of acceptance and intimacy among teammates predict motivation in intercollegiate sport.
Stults-Kolehmainen, Matthew A. ; Gilson, Todd A. ; Abolt, Charles J. 等
Athletes are motivated to participate in sport for a variety of
reasons, ranging from the love of a challenge or the fascination of
experiencing a new activity, to external factors such as rewards and
social pressures. The perspective of Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
categorizes the former of these motives as "intrinsic" forms
of motivation (IM) and the latter as "extrinsic" forms of
motivation (EM; Deci & Ryan, 1985). According to this theory, those
athletes who are more intrinsically motivated are more self-determined,
meaning that they act willfully upon an innate desire to participate in
sport (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self-determined behaviors are stronger
than those that are not, resulting in greater overall participation and
effort--and for this reason, coaches and trainers have an obvious
interest in promoting adaptive self-determined behavior among their
athletes. It follows, therefore, that research is warranted into the
social and environmental factors, such as gender, sport division, sport
type, and relatedness with teammates, which promote self-determined
behaviors in intercollegiate athletics.
Self-Determination Theory
In one of the foundational texts of Self-Determination Theory, Deci
and Ryan (1985) propose that self-determination is the "capacity or
fundamental need to choose and to have choices, rather than
reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other forces or pressures,
to be the determinants of one's actions" (p. 38).
Self-determined individuals, in other words, act upon fully internalized
motivations, which operate through three distinct drives: IM to know, IM
to accomplish things, and IM to experience stimulation (Vallerand, 1997;
Vallerand, Blais, Briere, & Pelletier, 1989). Beyond intrinsic
motivation, Self-Determination Theory also addresses different forms of
extrinsic motivation (EM), which are placed into a hierarchy
representing increasing levels of self-determination. At the bottom is
external regulation, which refers to constraints, punishments, or
rewards used by another individual, such as a coach, to regulate
one's behavior. Above this is introjected regulation, or the
internalization of previously external contingencies in the forms of
guilt, anxiety, or related self-esteem dynamics, and above this still is
identification, referring to the appropriation of externally placed
values to the extent that associated behaviors become judged as
important and being chosen by oneself (Ryan & Deci, 2007).
Identified regulation therefore represents the most self-determined of
the extrinsic motivations. Beyond extrinsic motivations, the theory also
places one final type of motivation, amotivation, at the very bottom of
the self-determination spectrum. Amotivated individuals believe that
their circumstances and behaviors are shaped by forces fully outside of
their own control, and their condition is similar to that of learned
helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Amotivation,
therefore, represents a complete lack of self-determination, and in this
respect is directly opposed to intrinsic motivation.
Relatedness
How one's innate desire for sport participation fluctuates is
theoretically a consequence of innate psychological needs. In other
words, humans are intrinsically motivated to pursue experiences that
will fulfill basic requirements, such as competence, autonomy and
relatedness with others (Ryan, 1991). Indeed, relatedness refers to the
desire to feel connected with significant others (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). Relatedness, moreover, is divisible into two categories,
as psychologists suggest that it may be conceptualized as either
acceptance from or intimacy with others, such as peers and teammates
(Ryan, 1991). Compared to competence and autonomy, relatedness is a
relatively untouched factor in quantitative examinations of an
athlete's experience of sport. Although this need is often
discussed in the context of the other psychological needs, no study has
yet examined its association with each form of motivation addressed by
Self-Determination Theory. Nonetheless, several investigations have
provided some context for the present study. Specifically, relatedness
has been shown to predict indices of self-determination (Balaguer,
Castillo, & Duda, 2008; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier,
& Cury, 2002) and intrinsic motivation (Joesaar, Hein, & Hagger,
2011; Murcia, Marin, Silva, & Coil, 2008) for both sport
participation and exercise behavior. It also negatively predicts
amotivation (Murcia, Rojas, & Coil, 2008). In fact, it has been
implied that relatedness may even predict self-determination more
strongly than competence or autonomy (Murcia, Roman, Galindo, Alonso,
& Gonzalez-Cutre, 2008), although this finding is contradicted by
Sarrazin et al. (2002). Perhaps more importantly, relatedness may
support a motivational profile conducive of a strong athletic identity
(Vlachopoulos, Kaperoni, & Moustaka, 2011), feelings of enjoyment
(Murcia, Roman, et al., 2008) and perceptions of flow (Kowal &
Fortier, 1999). Relatedness is also associated with sport participation
and attrition (Sarrazin et al., 2002). A study examining sport officials
provides evidence that relatedness has a stronger association with sport
involvement than commitment (Gray & Wilson, 2008). It appears that
only when relatedness is studied in the context of physical education
has this factor had a negligible impact on motivation (Ntoumanis, 2011).
Nonetheless, no study has yet examined both acceptance and intimacy in
relation to sport motivation, and few studies investigate these factors
within the context of sanctioned intercollegiate athletics.
Influence of Sport Division and Gender
The relationships of relatedness and motivation are, however,
influenced by a variety of global and contextual factors, such as gender
and characteristics of the sporting environment and task
(Stults-Kolehmainen, Ciccolo, Bartholomew, Seifert, & Portman, in
press; Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand & Lalande, 2011). For instance,
sport division represents one factor that likely modulates perceptions
of relatedness and motivation given the differences between sport
divisions in areas such as availability of scholarships, social status
of the athletes, and other externally placed pressures to succeed in
intercollegiate sport. This is particularly of importance as SDT posits
that an increase in extrinsic motivation (e.g., awards) for a given
behavior has the capacity to displace intrinsic motivation (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). As such, athletes awarded scholarships to play sport, a
phenomenon most observed in NCAA Division I, may demonstrate corroded
intrinsic motivation. Supporting this claim, an early study by Ryan
(1980) found that a sample of male college football players began their
college experiences citing a love of the sport, though their
motivational profiles shifted to focus more on financial reward by the
end of their careers--a less desirable circumstance likely representing
the displacement of intrinsic motivation by external regulation. Whether
this process and outcome are similar across athletic divisions is
unknown. Nevertheless, initial data supports the supposition that
intrinsic motivation differs between divisions, but not in the direction
anticipated. In one study, for example, athletes from a NCAA Division I
school reported greater intrinsic motivation than a Division III
institution (MacDougall, 2000). Perhaps this concordance may be
explained by heterogeneity in social processes within intercollegiate
athletics, which vary by level of task interdependence (Hirst, 1988).
Deci and Ryan (2000) argue, for instance, that relatedness and resulting
motivation may vary by the degree to which activities are carried out in
isolation. If this is true, there may be substantive differences in the
association between relatedness and motivation for particular types of
sport (i.e., individual versus team; Carron, Hausenblas, & Eys,
2005).
Although at this time psychologists have reached a consensus
holding that the psychological characteristics associated with females
and males are neither dichotomous nor based solely on biological factors
(Deaux, 1984; Gill, 1992; Gill, 1999), surveys have revealed that
differences persist between the genders in areas including motivation,
relatedness, goal orientation, and achievement (Borman & Kurdek,
1987; Gill, 1999; Stults-Kolehmainen et al., in press). Women, for
example, are more likely than men to participate in sport for the
opportunity to affiliate with a team and develop supportive bonds with
other members, whereas men view competition as central to athletic
participation (Flood & Hellstedt, 1991). A gender difference in
external regulation likely exists as women tend to view rewards, when
received, foremost as information about their competency in sport, while
men tend to regard external rewards as valuable in their own right,
demonstrating a greater importance placed on extrinsic motivations
(Ryan, 1980). One possible consequence of these distinctions could be
greater IM among female athletes than males, which has been supported
empirically, but at least one study finds the opposite (Amorose &
Horn, 2000; Fortier, Vallerand, Briere, & Provencher, 1995;
Pelletier et al., 1995). A number of other studies have also challenged
these distinctions, the trend being for women and men to display
increasingly similar motivational profiles (Gill, 1988; Gill, 1999;
MacDougall, 2000; Murray & Matheson, 1993; Ntoumanis, 2011). Despite
equivocal findings, given the multifarious influence social factors have
on sport participation, continued investigation into motivational
differences across gender, sport type, and sport division holds an
obvious interest for coaches and trainers.
The Present Study
The present study aims to examine the association between perceived
relatedness (both intimacy and acceptance) and athletic motivation (IM,
EM, and motivation) and to investigate how these factors vary by gender,
sport division, and sport type. The following was hypothesized.
1) Intrinsic motivation will have a positive relationship with
intimacy and acceptance, subcomponents of relatedness, but extrinsic
motivation will relate inversely to relatedness.
2) Men and women will report similar intrinsic motivation, but men
will be more motivated to participate in sport by extrinsic factors and
more prone to amotivation.
3) NCAA Division II /III athletes will report greater intrinsic
motivation than their Division I peers, who will be more extrinsically
motivated.
4) There will be a gender difference in relatedness with men
reporting relatively greater perceptions of acceptance compared to
intimacy and women scoring higher on the subset of intimacy.
5) Athletes in team-oriented (task interdependent) sports will
report higher intimacy and acceptance relatedness along with intrinsic
motivation than their peers in individual-oriented (task independent)
sports.
Method
Participants
Participants included 241 athletes, both male (n = 91) and female
(n = 150), participating in intercollegiate athletics at nine schools in
California and one school in Indiana. Athletes represented NCAA Division
I (n = 67), NCAA Division II (n = 59), and NCAA Division III (n = 115).
Sports represented included men's and women's basketball (n =
133), women's gymnastics (n = 14), men's and women's
swimming (n = 40), men's and women's indoor track (n = 42),
and wrestling (n = 12). The mean age was 20.01 (SD = 1.58).
Questionnaires
Participants completed two questionnaires, the first of which was
the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS), developed by Briere, Vallerand, Blais,
& Pelleier (1995). The SMS consists of 28 items, each representing a
possible reason why athletes participate in sport, which are assessed by
participants on a seven-point Likert scale (1 representing "not at
all" and 7 representing "exactly"). The items are divided
into seven subscales of four items each, which in turn provide
measurements of intrinsic motivation (IM stimulation, IM accomplishment,
and IM knowledge), extrinsic motivation (EM identification, EM
introjection, and EM external regulation) and amotivation. The scale has
been shown to possess a satisfactory level of internal consistency and
confirmatory factor analyses have affirmed the determination continuum
and the construct validity of the scale; furthermore, the test-retest
reliability of the scale has been confirmed (Pelletier et al., 1995).
Chronbach alphas ranged from .72 to .83 for intrinsic motivation, .71 to
.75 for extrinsic motivation, and .76 for amotivation.
Additionally, athletes were evaluated for relatedness with to the
Perceived Relatedness Scale (PRS), developed by Richer and Vallerand
(1998). This bi-dimensional scale consists of two subscales of five
items each, measuring intimacy and acceptance. Each item contains a
statement exploring the way an athlete feels towards his or her
teammates and is responded to according to a seven-point Likert scale (1
representing "not at all" and 7 representing "very
strongly"). All items in the PRS begin with the phrase, "In
relation to my teammates I feel ..." These statements are concluded
with phrases such as, "attached to them,"
"included," and "listened to." In this study, the
Cronbach alpha coefficient for both the intimacy and acceptance
subscales of the PRS was .92.
Procedure
Upon IRB approval, coaches were initially contacted to explain the
purposes of the study and the procedures. Appointments were scheduled
for at least one of the researchers in the byline to personally
administer the questionnaires to the athletes, either before or after a
scheduled practice at the start of the sport season. After introducing
the researcher(s) to athletes, coach(es) were not present during data
collection to prevent any possible coercion of answers. The researcher
assured confidentiality and gave instructions on how to complete the
questionnaires. Athletes who agreed to participate signed a letter of
informed consent before completing the surveys. Finally, the athletes
were given as much time as necessary and were free to ask questions at
any time.
Results
Statistical analysis
Ratings of overall motivation and relatedness (via the SMS and PRS,
respectively) for each participant were calculated by summing each
response value and dividing by the total number of items. The same
procedure was performed for each of the seven subscales of the SMS and
the two subscales of the PRS. Assumptions of normality were met for each
subscale.
Multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine if
relatedness scores predicted SMS subscales. Both intimacy relatedness
and acceptance relatedness were examined, as well as the three subsets
of IM, the three subsets of extrinsic motivation, and amotivation.
Three separate 2 (gender) x 3 (sport division) multivariate
analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were performed to determine differences
in motivation and relatedness in respect to these factors. In the first
MANOVA, the dependent variables were the three subscales of intrinsic
motivation, and in the second, the dependent variables were the three
subscales of extrinsic motivation. The last MANOVA was run on the
relatedness subscales (a univariate ANOVA was additionally performed for
amotivation). The independent variables were represented as gender (male
or female) and sport division (NCAA I, NCAA II, and NCAA III).
In order to test the effect of sport type (i.e., team-oriented
versus individual oriented activity) on motivation a 2 (gender) x 2
(sport type) x 3 (sport division) MANOVA was additionally performed on
the data. Basketball, the only team sport, was compared to all other
sports combined. A three-way interaction between all independent
variables was not possible due to missing data, but several patterns in
the results were noted. In order to address both the issue of missing
information and these emerging patterns, six hierarchical multiple
regression analyses (MHRA) were utilized to determine moderation of
sport type and gender on the relationship of relatedness and intrinsic
motivation. IM constructs were the outcome variables. In the first step
of the model, relatedness (either intimacy or acceptance) was entered
along with gender and sport type. In the second model, two-way
interaction terms were included. In the third step, a three way
interaction term was modeled (relatedness x gender x sport type). To
facilitate interpretation, and in accordance with Aiken and West (1991),
relatedness variables were centered on their respective means.
Pearson's product correlations were run for relatedness and
intrinsic motivation to determine possible threats from
multicollinearity.
Regressing Relatedness onto Motivation
Entering acceptance and intimacy as predictors in a multiple
regression analysis and IM stimulation as an outcome variable yielded a
significant overall equation. Only intimacy, however, accounted for a
significant portion of this variation ([R.sup.2] = .09; F (2, 239) =
12.02, p < .001). Of the two forms of relatedness, acceptance was the
only predictor for IM accomplishment ([R.sup.2] = .06; F (2, 239) =
7.06, p = .001), and acceptance alone was a significant predictor for IM
knowledge ([R.sup.2] = .04; F (2, 239) = 5.02, p < .05). Neither form
of relatedness could account for variance in either external regulation
or introjected regulation. Intimacy alone significantly predicted
variation of identification among athletes ([R.sup.2] = .08; F (2,239) =
9.83, p < .001). Finally, acceptance (but not intimacy) significantly
predicted amotivation ([R.sup.2] = .05; F (2, 239) = 6.04, p < .05).
See Table 1.
Relationships of IM and EM with other Factors
The extrinsic motivation MANOVA revealed a significant relationship
between gender and external regulation (F (1,239) = 6.14, p = .01), with
men (M = 4.18, SE = 0.15) scoring higher than women (M = 3.74, SE =
0.12). Sport division was related significantly to identification (F (2,
239) = 3.64, p < .05). Specifically, a Student-Newman-Keul's
posthoc analysis revealed that athletes in NCAA I schools (M = 4.70, SE
= 0.19) scored higher in identified regulation than those competing in
NCAA II (M = 4.70, SE = 0.16) and NCAA III (M = 4.52, SE = 0.11). Also,
the MANOVA revealed that sport type was related to introjected
regulation, with individual athletes (M = 3.92, SE = 0.12) scoring
higher on this factor than team-oriented athletes (M = 3.53, SE = 0.13).
No interactions were observed between the independent variables.
The ANOVA with amotivation as a dependent variable revealed an
interaction of gender and division (F (2, 239) = 3.97, p < .05)
whereby females reported greater amotivation with increasing status of
sport division, while males showed the exact opposite trend. Male
amotivation was highest and female amotivation lowest among athletes
competing in NCAA III (Figure 1). See Table 2 for means. Additionally, a
significant interaction was found for sport type and division (F (2,239)
= 3.53, p = .031), whereby the greatest difference in amotivation was
found between team and individual athletes competing in NCAA Division
II.
The MANOVA with intrinsic motivations as the dependent variables
revealed significant differences in IM accomplishment as varying by
sport division. NCAA I (M = 5.50, SE = 0.17) athletes scored higher than
those in NCAA II (M = 4.99, SE = 0.16) and NCAA III (M = 5.07, SE =
0.12) (F (2,239) = 3.50, p < .05). A Student-Newman-Keul's post
hoc analysis, however, did not confirm the difference between the
divisions for IM accomplishment. There were no significant differences
observed for IM knowledge or IM stimulation. Men and women did not
differ in IM constructs, and no 2-way interactions were significant. See
"Fable 2 for means. With regards to sport type, the MANOVA showed
that athletes in team-oriented sports (M = 5.48, SE = 0.10) rated
themselves higher in IM stimulation than athletes in individual-oriented
sports (M = 5.02, SE = 0.11) (F (1,239)) = 4.27, p = .04). The remaining
categories of IM, however, did not significantly differ by sport type.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Relationships of Relatedness with other Factors
Several significant results were revealed with respect to the
subscales of relatedness. Men (M = 5.41, SE = 0.17) scored higher than
women (M = 4.95, SE = 0.11) in intimacy (F (1,239) = 5.31, p < .05).
Men (M = 5.75, SE = 0.15) also scored higher than women (M = 5.15, SE =
0.10) in acceptance (F(1,239) = 10.84,p = 0.001). NCAA I (M = 5.72, SE =
0.21) athletes rated themselves higher in intimacy than those in NCAA II
(M = 5.01, SE = 0.18) and NCAA II (M = 4.81, SE = 0.12) (F (2,239) =
7.01, p = 0.001). NCAA I athletes (M = 5.84, SE = 0.19) likewise scored
higher in acceptance than those in NCAA II (M = 5.44, SE = 0.16) and
NCAA III (M = 5.07, SE = 0.11) (F (2, 239) = 6.44, p < .05). See
Table 3.
Athletes in team-oriented sports (M = 5.41, SE = 0.12) reported
higher intimacy levels than athletes in individual-oriented sports (M =
4.78, SE = 0.13) (F (1,239) = 6.42, p = .012). Team sports (M = 5.59, SE
= 0.11) also outranked individual sports (M = 5.09, SE = 0.11) in
acceptance (F (1,239) = 6.16, p = .014). Interactions were observed
between gender and sport type for intimacy (F (1,239) = 5.89, p = .016)
and acceptance (F (1,239) = 7.99, p = .005), whereby female athletes in
individual-oriented sports scored the lowest for both factors.
Significant interactions were also found for division and sport type on
intimacy (F (2, 239) = 5.12, p = .007), and acceptance (F (2, 239) =
7.60, p = .001), whereby athletes in teamoriented sports in NCAA
Division II scored higher than their peers in individual sports on both
subscales of relatedness.
Finally, the hierarchical multiple regression analyses detected a
three-way interaction between gender, sport type and relatedness for
intrinsic motivation. Specifically, the relationship between intimacy
and IM accomplishment was moderated by gender and sport type (final
model Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .04, F (6,231) = 2.64, p = 0.017). The
relationship between intimacy and accomplishment was strongest for
female individual-sport athletes. No other three-way interactions were
observed for intrinsic motivation.
Discussion
The primary aim of this investigation was to examine the
theoretical association between perceived relatedness and athletic
motivation, then to investigate how these variables differ by gender,
sport division, and sport type. We hypothesized, foremost, that intimacy
and acceptance, forms of relatedness, would predict motivation (as
predicted by Self-Determination Theory). Relatedness did in fact predict
all three kinds of IM. In regards to gender, it was anticipated that men
and women would differ on perceptions of relatedness, extrinsic
motivation, and amotivation, but would report similar intrinsic
motivation. Men and women were similar in IM, but men reported higher
EM, acceptance and intimacy, and there was no gender difference in
amotivation. We additionally predicted that motivation would vary by
sport division. Although NCAA Division I athletes reported the greatest
EM, IM levels were identical between sport divisions. Lastly, we
hypothesized that sport type would be associated with perceptions of
relatedness and intrinsic motivation. It was discovered that athletes
participating in team-oriented sports reported greater relatedness and
intrinsic motivation than those on individual-oriented sport teams. A
three-way interaction was observed such that both gender and sport type
moderated the relatedness--motivation association. In short, women in
task-independent (individual) sports exhibited the strongest
relationship between intimacy and intrinsic motivation for
accomplishment.
The Relationship between Motivation and Perceived Relatedness
The central hypothesis of this investigation was supported by the
results, as the data revealed that relatedness (both acceptance and
intimacy) is a predictor of several types motivation. Among the forms of
intrinsic motivation, IM stimulation was only predicted by intimacy,
whereas acceptance was the only predictor of IM knowledge and IM
accomplishment. In other words, those who were internally driven to
participate in sport to experience stimulation tended to report greater
perceptions of intimacy with their teammates however those who were
motivated to gain knowledge of their sport and experience accomplishment
perceived greater acceptance from their peers.
Interestingly, a positive relationship seems to exist between
intimacy and EM identification, contrary to predictions. In other words,
athletes who are extrinsically motivated to participate in sport due to
reasons of identification (i.e., an internal valuing of external
rewards) report statistically greater perceptions of intimacy
relatedness. This trend, however, may not fully contradict the reasoning
of Self-Determination Theory. Identification ranks as the highest form
of EM on the self-determination continuum, directly below the intrinsic
motivations. The practical implication, then, is that the development of
identified regulation
may be highly impacted by intimate others. The opposite may also be
true. Furthermore, the fact that neither acceptance nor intimacy was a
good predictor for the remaining extrinsic motivations also may be
predicted by Self-Determination Theory. Motivations ranking lower in
self-determination are less impacted by innate psychological needs (Ryan
& Deci, 2000).
Gender
The results of the present study provide mixed support for
hypotheses concerning gender. In alignment with our hypotheses, men and
women reported similar intrinsic motivation, and men scored higher on
both external regulation and overall extrinsic motivations. Contrary to
predictions, however, men and women did not vary in amotivation,
suggesting that self-determination in male athletes is not more prone to
this state of motivational depletion. These findings partially concur
with data from Pelletier et al. (1995), which conversely report that men
are more prone to amotivation and women are more intrinsically
motivated, but which affirm that men are more subject to external
regulation. With regards to subsets of relatedness, the current study
finds that men reported higher acceptance and intimacy, supporting the
hypothesis that men would rank higher in acceptance but contradicting
our hypothesis that women would have greater perceptions of intimacy. In
other words, active male athletes perceive a greater sense of both
intimacy with and acceptance from their teammates than do their female
counterparts. This finding is surprising given differential
socialization of the genders and the tendency within Western culture to
view relatedness overall, and intimacy in particular, as a generally
more feminine than masculine concept (Block, 1983; Borman & Kurdek,
1987; Imamoglu, 2001). However, it interestingly seems to support the
proposal from Imamoglu (2001) that processes of male individuation may
not necessarily contradict but rather complement processes to maintain a
related self. Indeed, sport may provide an important vehicle for male
bonding, whereas women may have other outlets for processes of social
attachment. If this is the case, it would follow that men could perceive
relatively greater intimacy with teammates within the context of
athletics, even as their experience of intimacy could be less in other
life situations. Indeed, such a conclusion may perhaps be a contributing
factor to the continued, yet slowly improving, inequity of gender in
sport participation (Anderson, Cheslock & Ehrenberg, 2006).
Division
The present study's findings with regards to sport division
also partially supported the hypotheses. As predicted, NCAA Division I
athletes reported the highest extrinsic motivation, indicating that
factors, such as increased money and prestige associated with this
intercollegiate division, affect the motivational profiles of the
individuals competing in it (Brennan, 1986). This is not surprising as
Division I athletes report greater pressure to perform athletically than
their Division II and III counterparts (Leonard, 1986). Contradicting
the predictions, there was no difference between the divisions in
intrinsic motivation or amotivation. Nevertheless, there was an
interaction between gender and sport division in which male amotivation
decreased and female amotivation increased. The finding that
self-determination did not vary consistently by sport division is
mirrored by a finding that, although NCAA Division I athletes reported
greater intimacy and acceptance, the remaining divisions did not vary
significantly in perceptions of relatedness. These results are
especially interesting given the fact that NCAA Division II athletes,
unlike their peers, are often divided within a single team between those
who receive scholarships and those who do not. The findings imply that,
whether or not this disparity results in perceptions of inequality, it
does not seem to impede either bonding among teammates or maintenance of
intrinsic motivation.
Integration of Extrinsic Motivation
At first glance the results for gender and sport division appear to
contradict the predictions of Self-Determination Theory in one principal
way: men and NCAA Division I athletes, despite reporting greater
intimacy and acceptance relatedness than their peers, are nonetheless
similar to other athletes in 1M. While Self-Determination Theory posits
that those individuals whose psychological needs are more directly fed
by any given activity should be more intrinsically motivated to pursue
it, these results may in fact support the predictions of Organismic
Integration Theory. This subset of Self-Determination Theory suggests
that an alternative function of perceived relatedness, beyond sustaining
IM, is to facilitate the internalization (or "integration") of
external motivations (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In the area of academics,
for example, one study demonstrated that young children who feel
securely connected to and cared for by their parents and teachers are
more likely to internalize regulations for positive school-related
behaviors (Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994). A potential consequence of
this observation is that NCAA I athletes, who both experience the
greatest amount of extrinsic motivations (in the form scholarships and
social status--e.g., recognition, public acclaim, etc.) and perceive the
greatest amount of relatedness with teammates, have come to identify
with extrinsic motivators as a part of a culture that goes hand-in-hand
with competitive sport, elevating these very motivators in levels of
self-determination. In other words, we suggest that with the proper
social forces in place, athletes may remain authentically motivated
while navigating a great quantity of external regulators. Indeed, this
suggestion is affirmed by NCAA Division I athletes' uniquely high
results in EM identification in the current study. With regards to
gender differences, men do not report higher identified regulation than
women in the present results. Their similarity with the opposite sex in
terms of IM may be explained as a balance between the bolstering effects
of increased relatedness and the undermining effects of increased
extrinsic motivations.
Sport Type
The investigation's analysis of sport type yielded the insight
that athletes who participated in basketball, a team-oriented sport,
rated higher in their perceptions of intimacy and acceptance than
athletes competing in individual-oriented sports (i.e., gymnastics,
track, swimming and wrestling). Team-sport athletes, likewise, reported
greater IM stimulation and lower EM introjection than individual-sport
athletes, suggesting greater overall perceptions of self-determination
in their experience of sport (Brennan, 1986). This finding is logical as
team sports are task interdependent and coaches train athletes in
team-oriented sports to function as a cohesive unit, where cooperation
is key for success (Carron et al., 2005; Hirst, 1988). The results
indicate that the relationships formed within such a framework
constitute positive social interactions, and that these interactions may
provide inherent reward and motivation for those drawn to participate.
Sport type interacted with gender to impact the relatedness -
motivation association. Specifically, female individual-sport athletes
exhibited the strongest relationship between intimacy and accomplishment
motivation. Significance was not achieved for other types of intrinsic
motivation and relatedness. Therefore, findings of this interaction must
be interpreted with caution. However, if such a relationship holds it
would have implications for coaches wishing to maximize motivation in
women's individual sports. As individual sports are inherently
based on tasks performed independently, coaches may seek to optimize
feelings of relatedness through strategic team-building activities or
similar methods (Yukelson, 1997). Furthermore, regardless of their
specific approach, coaches should continue to provide opportunities for
autonomous decisions by athletes as a way of enhancing intrinsic
motivation (Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007).
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study was limited by its sample population in at least
two ways that should be addressed by future research. Most notably, a
lack of male athletes precluded analysis of three-way interactions
between gender, sport division, and sport type. The study did not
include any male individual-sport athletes in NCAA Division I or male
team-sport athletes in NCAA Division If. Additionally, a larger sample
size is needed, especially as the small number of female athletes in
NCAA Division II individual sports may not be representative of the
remainder of their peers. Future research should seek to confirm or
reevaluate suggestions made in this paper using an improved sample
population.
Future work should record athletes' changes in intimacy,
acceptance and motivation over time, along with associated substantive
outcomes including: behavioral intentions, enjoyment, adherence/dropout,
fitness development, performance, and over-commitment along with
concomitant outcomes such as overtraining and health endpoints
(Ntoumanis, 2012; Sarrazin et al., 2002). Tracking athletes through
situations in which their feelings of relatedness may be compromised or
in a state of flux (i.e., injury, off-season training, conflict, etc.)
may provide insights on how motivation waxes and wanes over time and/or
how the need for relatedness may drive further motivation for
participation. This would be particularly interesting in the case of
NCAA Division II and III schools, which (collectively) have much greater
intercollegiate sport participation (on average upwards of 20%) than
their peer institutions at the Division I level (NCAA, 2010). Future
studies could aim to determine whether this increased participation is
in fact a behavioral outcome related to a different motivational climate
at these schools, resulting from factors such as increased opportunity
to affiliate with others in an atmosphere conducive for relatedness
paired with decreased risk in terms of losing scholarships or other
privileges. Inferences drawn from prospective research may ultimately
inform and further substantiate proposed causal sequences of needs
satisfaction, motivation and proximal and distal outcomes (Vallerand,
2007).
Lastly, gender differences, a divisive area of inquiry, deserve
continuing attention as a factor influencing intimacy, acceptance and
motivation. Such efforts may try to elaborate on current findings by
evaluating athletes according to more complex theoretical frameworks
(Imamoglu, 1998; Vallerand, 2007). Along these lines, research also
needs to be conducted on the interplay between social factors,
relatedness, and stress within the context of sport. The model proposed
by Taylor et al. (2000) that women "tend and befriend" while
men "fight or flight" in the face of stress may have salience
within this setting. Indeed, relatedness may have a greater pull on
motivation than competence and autonomy when in the throes of adversity
(Quested, 2011).
Conclusion
Whether it is sport participation or giving maximal effort, Ryan
and Deci remind us with a simple but powerful affirmation that
"motivation produces" (2000, p. 69). While this aphorism is
concise, motivation is not a simple construct, and it varies by gender,
sport division and sport type. This study demonstrates that
athletes' internal motivations for sport participation are
associated with how closely related they feel with those whom they
practice and compete. Specifically, perceptions of either acceptance
from or intimacy with teammates statistically predict all three types of
intrinsic motivation identified by Self-Determination Theory. Although
sport division and gender do not influence perceptions of intrinsic
motivation, men report greater external regulation. Men also report
higher amotivation than women in NCAA Division III while a trend in the
opposite direction was detected for Division I. Lastly, the association
between intrinsic motivation and relatedness is modulated by both gender
and sport type. Coaches seeking to mobilize their athletes should be
aware of the motivational profile unique to each gender, sport type and
division. Furthermore, to facilitate high levels of motivation, the
relational environment needs to be considered. For those athletes who
may not have these needs sufficiently addressed (such as athletes in
individual-oriented sports), or who operate in environments of high
external regulation (such as those competing in high-status sport
divisions), interventions designed to enhance and sustain elements of
social support may be desirable to maintain or prevent deterioration of
intrinsic motivation. Finally, we suggest that future research should
determine whether discontinuation from sport is a consequence of low or
diminishing feelings of acceptance or intimacy within the social
framework of sport, along with a resultant impairment of intrinsic
motivation.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. R, & Teasdale, J. D. (1978).
Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression:
Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007).
Autonomy-supportive coaching and self determined motivation in high
school and college athletes: A test of self-determination theory.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 654-671.
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation:
Relationships with collegiate athletes' gender, scholarship status,
and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84.
Anderson, D. J., Cheslock, J. J., Ehrenbelg, R. G. (2006). Gender
equity in intercollegiate athletics: Determinants of Title IX
compliance. The Journal of Higher Education, 77, 225-250.
Balaguer, I., Castillo, I., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Autonomy
support, needs satisfaction, motivation and well-being in competitive
athletes: A test of self-determination theory. Revista de psicologia del
deporte, 17, 123-139.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong:
Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Block, J. (1983). Differential premises arising from differential
socialization of the sexes: Some conjectures. Child Development, 54,
1335-1354.
Borman, K. M., & Kurdek, L. A. (1987). Gender differences
associated with playing high school varsity soccer. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 16, 379-400.
Brennan, S. J. (1986). Intrinsic motivation of intercollegiate male
and female athletes in team and individual sport groups. Paper
contributed to the Annual Meeting of the North American Society for the
Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity. Abstract retrieved from
SPORTDiscus Database. (Accession No. SPH338912)
Briere, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L.
G. (1995). Development and validation of the EMS for the measurement of
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and non-motivation in
sports--Echelle de Motivation dans les Sports. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 26, 465-489.
Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Eys, M. A. (2005). Group
dynamics in sport (3rd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fimess Information
Technology. Deaux, K. (1984). From individual differences to social
categories: Analysis of a decade's research on gender. American
Psychologist, 39, 105-116.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and
Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and
"why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination
of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Flood, S. E., & Hellstedt, J. C. (1991). Gender differences in
motivation for intercollegiate athletic participation. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 14, 159-167.
Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., & Provencher,
E J. (1995). Competitive and recreational sport structures and gender: A
test of their relationship with sport motivation. International Journal
of Sport Psychology, 26, 24-39.
Gill, D. L. (1988). Gender differences in competitive orientation
and sport participation. international Journal of Sport Psychology, 19,
145-159.
Gill, D. L. (1992). Gender and sport behavior. In T. S. Horn (Ed.)
Advances in Sport Psychology (pp. 143-160). Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Gill, D. L. (1999). Gender and competitive motivation: From the
recreation center to the Olympic arena. In: D. Berstein (ed.) Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation: Volume 45. Gender and Motivation (pp. 198-207).
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Gray, C. E., & Wilson, E M. (2008). The relationship between
organizational commitment, perceived relatedness and intentions to
continue in Canadian track and field officials. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 30, 44-63.
Hirst, M. K. (1988). Intrinsic motivation as influenced by task
interdependence and goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,
96-101.
Imamoglu, E. O. (2003). Individuation and relatedness: Not opposing
but distinct and complementary. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 129, 367-402.
Joesaar, H., Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2011). Peer influence
on young athletes' need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and
persistence in sport: A 12-month prospective study. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 12, 500-508.
Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants
of flow: Contributions from self-determination theory. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 139, 355-368. Leonard, W. M., Jr. (1986).
Exploitation in collegiate sport: The views of basketball players in
NCAA Divisions I, II, and III. Journal of Sport Behavior, 9, 11-30.
MacDougall, S. A. (2000). Intrinsic motivation and participation in
sport as perceived leisure (Master's Thesis). Abstract retrieved
from SPORTDiscus Database. (Accession No. SPHS-849877)
Murcia, J. A. M., Marin, L. C., Silva, F. B., & Coll, D. G. C.
(2008). Basic psychological needs, intrinsic motivation and autotelic
experience propensity in physical exercise. Revista mexicana de
psicologia, 25, 305-312.
Murcia, J. A. M., Rojas, N. R, & Coll, D. G. C. (2008).
Influence of autonomy support, social goals and relatedness on
amotivation in physical education classes. Psicothemia, 20, 636-641.
Murcia, J. A. M., Roman, M. L. D., Galindo, C. M., Alonso, N.,
& Gonzalez-Cutre, D. (2008). Peers' influence on exercise
enjoyment: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Sports
Science and Medicine, 7, 23-31.
Murray, M., & Matheson, H. (1993). Competition: Perceived
Barriers to Success. In G. Cohen (Ed.) Women in Sport: Issues and
Controversies (pp. 217-229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
NCAA (2010). Student-athlete participation: 1981-82 - 2009-10.
Retrieved October 28, 2001, from:
http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/PR2011.pdf
Ntoumanis, N. (2011). A self-determination approach to the
understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 225-242.
Ntoumanis, N. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on
motivation in sport and physical education: Current trends and possible
future research directions. In G. C. Roberts & D. C. Treasure
(Eds.), Advances in Motivation in Sport and Exercise (3rd ed., pp.
91-128). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M.,
Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of
intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports:
The Sport Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
17, 35-53.
Quested, E., Bosch, J. A., Burns, V. E., Cumming, J., Ntoumanis,
N., & Duda, J. L. (2011). Basic psychological need satisfaction,
stress-related appraisals, and dancers' cortisol and anxiety
responses. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 828-846.
Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Construction et
validation de l'echelle du sentiment d'appartenance sociale.
Revue europeenne de psychologic appliquee, 48, 129-137.
Ryan, E. D. (1980). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and
athletics: A replication and extension. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R.
Halliwell, K. M. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds.) Psychology of Motor
Behavior and Sport- 1979. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory
and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and
well-being. American Pyschologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2007). Active human nature:
Self-determination theory and the promotion and maintenance of sport,
exercise and health. In M. S. Haggar & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis
(Eds.), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Exercise and
Sport (pp. 1-20). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. H. (1994).
Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as
predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early
Adolescence, 14, 226-249.
Sarrazin, E, Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury,
F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month
prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.
Stults-Kolehmainen, M. A., Ciccolo, J. T., Bartholomew, J. B.,
Seifert, J., & Portman, R. S. (In Press). Age and gender-related
changes in exercise motivation among highly active individuals. Athletic
Insight.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. E, Gruenwald, T. L., Gurung,
R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Behavioral responses to stress
in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological
Review, 107, 411-429.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
29, 271-360.
Vallerand, R. J., & Lalande, D. R. (2011). The MPIC Model: The
perspective of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 45-51.
Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Briere, N. M., & Pelletier, L.
G. (1989). Construction et validation de l'echelle de motivation en
education (EME). Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 21,
323-349.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., Kaperoni, M., & Moustaka, F. C. (2011).
The relationship of self-determination theory variables to exercise
identity. Psychology of sport and exercise, 12, 265-272.
Yukelson, D. (1997). Principles of effective team-building
interventions in sport: A direct services approach at Penn State
University. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9, 73-86.
Matthew A. Stults-Kolehmainen
Yale School of Medicine
Todd A. Gilson
Northern Illinois University
Charles J. Abolt
The University of Texas at Austin
Address correspondence to: Matthew A. Stults-Kolehmainen, Yale
Stress Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06519. E-mail:
matthew.stults-kolehmainen@yale.edu
Table 1
Multiple regression analyses predicting intrinsic motivations,
extrinsic motivations, and a" iotivation front acceptance and
intinsacy.
Motivation Predictor B t p
IM Stimulation Intimacy 0.29 2.33 <.05
Acceptance 0.02 0.19 n.s.
IM Accomplishment Intimacy -0.05 -0.39 n.s.
Acceptance 0.28 2.21 <.05
IM Knowledge Intimacy -0.04 -0.30 n.s.
Acceptance 0.24 1.84 <.05
Identified Regulation Intimacy 0.21 1.66 <.05
Acceptance 0.08 0.62 n.s.
Introjected Regulation Intimacy 0.05 0.36 n.s.
Acceptance -0.10 -0.80 n.s.
External Regulation Intimacy 0.01 0.08 n.s.
Acceptance 0.08 0.58 n.s.
Amotivation Intimacy 0.08 0.63 n.s.
Acceptance -0.29 -2.25 <.05
Table 2
Mean ratings of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation as
functions of intercollegiate sport division and gender.
Intrinsic- Intrinsic- Intrinsic-
Knowledge Accomplish Stimulation
Sport
Division Gender M SE M SE M SE
NCAA I Male 4.90 0.38 5.92 0.35 5.69 0.31
Female 4.29 0.27 5.24 0.24 5.30 0.21
NCAA II Male 4.14 0.28 4.93 0.26 5.07 0.22
Female 4.12 0.31 5.03 0.29 5.21 0.25
NCAA III Male 4.21 0.25 5.11 0.24 5.36 0.20
Female 4.11 0.25 4.96 0.23 5.04 0.20
Identified Introjected External
Regulation Regulation Regulation
Sport
Division Gender M SE M SE M SE
NCAA I Male 5.23 0.34 3.81 0.40 4.60 0.38
Female 5.00 0.24 3.63 0.27 3.98 0.27
NCAA II Male 4.65 0.25 3.82 0.29 4.08 0.28
Female 4.76 0.29 3.60 0.32 3.64 0.32
NCAA III Male 4.49 0.23 3.89 0.26 4.03 0.25
Female 4.55 0.23 3.54 0.25 3.60 0.25
Amotivation
Sport
Division Gender M SE
NCAA I Male 1.81 0.34
Female 2.47 0.24
NCAA II Male 2.00 0.25
Female 2.33 0.28
NCAA III Male 2.45 0.23
Female 2.01 0.22
Table 3
Mean perceived relatedness scores (acceptance and intimacy) as
functions of intercollegiate sport division and gender.
Relatedness: Relatedness:
Acceptance Intimacy
Sport Division Gender M SE M SE
NCAA I Male 6.07 0.32 5.90 0.36
Female 5.60 0.24 5.55 0.27
NCAA II Male 5.81 0.24 5.28 0.27
Female 5.07 0.27 4.74 0.30
NCAA III Male 5.37 0.22 5.06 0.25
Female 4.76 0.21 4.56 0.24
