Defining success in strength training using achievement goal orientations.

Gilson, Todd A. ; Chow, Graig M. ; Ewing, Martha E. 等

Despite the importance associated with strength training in athletics, research exploring achievement goals in a strength training achievement arena is sparse. Using questionnaire data and semi-structured interviews, the present study investigated definitions of success in strength training and explored relationships among five goal orientations: taskorientation, self-enhancing ego-orientation, self-defeating ego-orientation, social-approval orientation, and work-avoidance orientation. Participants were current varsity collegiate athletes from 15 different sports ( N = 133) and comprised 90 males and 43females at a major Midwestern university. Fifteen of the participants, based on demonstrating a stronger predisposition to only one achievement goal orientation, were also interviewed to gain a more in-depth understanding of their definitions of success. Results showed that the strongest achievement goal orientations reported were task- and social-approval. Four higher order themes (accomplishing a task, giving maximum effort, pleasing others, and injury recovery) were prevalent among the interviewed athletes when describing a time they felt successful in the weightroom with accomplishing a task as the most prevalent. Furthermore, findings of social-approval and work-avoidance orientations among athletes highlight avenues for future research.

In the past 35 years, strength training has become an important dimension for achieving excellence in sport. Strength training offers numerous benefits to all athletes which include increased strength, improved speed, increased neuromuscular coordination, and increased resistance to injury (Epley, 2004). Because of these benefits, the strength coach has surpassed the sport coach as the individual that the NCAA allows each athlete to spend the most time with every year (NCAA, 2004). Additionally, in strength training, athletes may define success in a number of ways. For example, some athletes may view success in the weightroom as simply completing each day's workout, other athletes may look forward to the opportunity to out-perform what coaches expect of them, while still other athletes may define success as receiving recognition from teammates based on their own accomplishments. The ways that athletes perceive their success in the weightroom can be better understood when examined by Nicholls' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory.

Nicholls' (1984) Achievement Goal Theory states that individuals can be categorized as low or high in (at least) two separate dimensions: task-orientation and ego-orientation. These same orientations can be seen in physical activity and sport (see Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999 for a review). Specifically, athletes who are high in task-orientation define success relative to their ability to perform certain tasks or activities competently. Research has shown that athletes high in task orientation believe success in sport is achieved through giving high effort, always doing their best, collaborating with teammates, and enjoying sport (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Duda & White, 1992; King & Williams, 1997; Newton & Duda, 1993). Additionally, high taskoriented athletes set task-oriented goals, such as learning a new skill or improving a skill (Duda, Fox, Biddle, & Armstrong, 1991). Consequently, task-oriented individuals usually foster intrinsic motivation and experience fewer feelings of incompetence because their ability is based on a criterion that is individually referenced (Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, & Catley, 1995).

In contrast to task-orientation, an athlete high in ego-orientation defines success in relation to how other athletes perform. Athletes who are high in ego-orientation believe that factors such as demonstrating higher ability than others, having the right equipment, and relying on luck cause success in sport (Duda & White, 1992; Lochbaum & Roberts, 1993; Roberts, Treasure; & Kavussanu, 1996; Treasure & Roberts, 1994). Additionally, high ego-orientated athletes believe that innate ability can result in success (Newton & Duda, 1993) and this high ability is a stable attribute that cannot be changed through hard work or effort (Sarrazin, Biddle, Famose, Cury, Fox, & Durand, 1996).

While task-and ego-orientation have been extensively researched in the past 25 years, recently new dimensions of Achievement Goal Theory have been proposed to better understand how each athlete derives definitions of success. The first of these added orientations is essentially the splitting of ego-orientation into two opposing groups: self-enhancing ego-orientation and self-defeating ego-orientation (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Skaalvik, 1997). While Elliot and Harackiewicz used the terms performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientation, these terms are analogous to self-enhancing ego-and self-defeating egoorientation used by Skaalvik. Athletes who have a high self-enhancing ego-orientation are generally concerned with trying to outperform everyone else during practice and competition. Conversely, athletes with a high self-defeating ego-orientation are mainly concerned with not being the poorest performer or least skilled athlete in the competition.

Another dimension that scholars have argued for re-inclusion is the concept of social-approval when participating in high achievement situations. With high social-approval orientation, athletes feel competent and successful when others praise them for the effort they put forth. Furthermore, Maehr and Nicholls (1980) contend that effort, unlike ability, is voluntary. Thus, if athletes exert high effort and fail they may still perceive their attempt as successful based on the positive feedback received. Though originally proposed in 1980, Urdan and Maehr (1995) contend that over time social-approval goals have been joined with ego-oriented goals when studying individual orientations. This has mainly occurred with questionnaires that have been constructed to measure achievement goal orientations; and thus, there is a need to distinguish these two achievement goal orientations from each other.

The fifth and final orientation is the concept of work-avoidance, first utilized in a classroom setting by Meece, Blumenfeld, and Hoyle (1988). According to Meece et al., individuals strong in this orientation define success by performing a skill (or avoiding failure at a task), even though they put forth minimal effort. Therefore, in an athletic setting, achievement is the result of being successful (however defined) while expending as little effort as possible.

In response to the increase in the literature advocating for the inclusion of other forms of achievement goal orientations besides simply task-and ego-orientation, Stefanek, GanoOverway, Cumming, and Ewing (2001) constructed the Multiple Goal Orientation Scale Questionnaire (MGOSQ) to assess an individual in all five proposed goal orientations. In study #1, Stefanek et al. found partial support for construct validity involving 124 undergraduates with athletic experience, as effort attributions related positively to task-orientation and perceived athletic competence was positively related to self-enhancing ego-orientation and negatively related to work avoidance orientation. In study #2, Stefanek et al. showed partial support for predictive validity as task-orientation was positively related to perceptions of effort and work avoidance orientation was negatively related to perceptions of effort. Furthermore, task-orientation was positively associated with enjoyment, while work avoidance was negatively associated with enjoyment. Finally, self-defeating ego-orientation was positively correlated with anxiety. In light of these previous findings, Stefanek et al. have called for more work using the MGOSQ with different populations, current athletes, and cross-cultural groups to further test construct and predictive validity.

It is known that task- and ego-orientation influence perceptions of success during strength training (Fry & Fry, 1999); however, research exploring this topic with five goal orientations, as opposed to the primary two, does not exist. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate if different achievement goal orientations affect how athletes define success in strength training. Specifically, we hypothesize: (1) the differences between self-enhancing ego- and self-defeating ego-orientation will be negligible in a strength training arena; (2) social-approval orientation will manifest itself in a strength training domain through definitions of success; and (3) a work-avoidance orientation will exist when athletes define their perceptions of success in strength training. To best accomplish this objective questionnaire data were combined with semi-structured interviews to clarify what we already know and explore the new and re-introduced achievement goal orientations in this unique and popular achievement arena.

Method

Participants

Participants for this study were current varsity collegiate athletes (N = 133), comprised 90 males and 43 females at a major Midwestern university. Participants ranged in age from 1824 years (M = 20.26, SD = 1.28) and were recruited from a total of 15 sports (football, n = 48; men's hockey, n = 14; women's basketball, n = 14; volleyball, n = 11; wrestling, n = 11; men's basketball, n = 10; women's crew, n = 5; men's track and field, n = 4; field hockey, n = 3; softball, n = 3; women's gymnastics, n = 3; women's soccer, n = 3; baseball, n = 2; men's soccer, n = 1; women's track and field, n = 1). In addition, all participants engaged in strength training between 1 and 5 hours a week under supervision of their strength coach(es). From this initial group, 15 participants were interviewed to gain a more in-depth understanding of their definitions of success.

Instrumentation

Demographics. All participants completed a demographic questionnaire at the onset of this study. This survey gathered information about participants' age, sex, race, years of experience in their chosen sport, and hours of strength training engaged in per week. In addition, confidential contact information was gathered to facilitate the interview process.

MGOSQ. To assess each participant's goal orientation in the weightroom, a modified version of the MGOSQ (Stefanek et al., 2001 ) was completed by each participant (see Appendix). In this modified version, the words sport, practice, least skilled, or coach were changed to weightroom specific terms (e.g., strength training, weight, weakest, or strength coach). This modified version of the MGOSQ is a 28-item inventory, in which participants are given a variety of graded statements dealing with how they experience strength training. There are 7 items for task-orientation, 6 items for self-enhancing ego-orientation, 6 items for self-defeating egoorientation, 5 items for social-approval orientation, and 4 items for work-avoidance orientation. Responses to the MGOSQ are reported on a Likert Scale, ranging from 1 = (strongly agree) to 5 = (strongly disagree). Scores were calculated for each athlete on all five scales by summing the responses to the items under each orientation. Lower scores represented a strong propensity toward the given orientation.

Interview Guide. Interviews conducted by the researchers were semi-structured in nature and focused on times when participants perceived they were successful during strength training. All interviews were identical with the researchers covering the same set of questions in the same manner with all participants. However, probes were used by the researchers to clarify participants' answers or to acquire more information regarding a specific topic (Patton, 2002).

Procedures

Following approval from the Institutional Review Board, contact was made by the lead researcher to the strength and conditioning department at a major Midwestern university. Once approval was granted by the athletic department, the lead researcher attended strength training lifting sessions to recruit athletes. At the end of each lifting session the lead researcher spoke to the group of athletes in a location familiar to them (without the strength coach present) about the nature and goals of the study. For the athletes who agreed to participate, packets containing a consent form, demographic questionnaire, and MGOSQ were distributed. Packets were completed in the presence of the researcher and stored in a secure location to maintain anonymous participation. Participants were then rank ordered for their total score on each goal orientation from MGOSQ results. Following this procedure, participants in each goal orientation (n = 3) who scored below the sample mean in one achievement goal orientation and above the sample mean in the other four achievement goal orientations, thus demonstrating a stronger predisposition to only one achievement goal orientation, were contacted to schedule an interview with the researcher. Important to note is the fact that only one social-approval athlete who met the above criteria was found in this study's population, as self-enhancing ego-orientation was strongly correlated to social-approval orientation. To address this concern, we selected the final two athletes for the social-approval interview group based on the highest (or weakest) score in the secondary orientation of self-enhancing ego-orientation. This procedure was done so that these two social-approval athletes answers' would relate most to their dominant achievement goal orientation. There was a 100% response rate for athletes contacted for an interview.

Interviews were scheduled at a time convenient for both the participant and researcher, located in a conference room or classroom not in use during the interview time and outside of the building that houses the weightroom to protect the anonymity of the participants. Participants were informed of the interview topic (definitions of success in the weightroom) and were then given one sample question to confirm the digital voice recorder was on and the participant's voice was audible to the researchers. All interviews lasted approximately 20 minutes and participants were free to elaborate on a topic in the course of discussion once presented.

Data Analysis

After completion of each interview, digital voice recordings were transcribed verbatim by the lead researcher. Next, the first and second authors worked through each interview to develop lower-order themes using an inductive method (Patton, 2002). Additionally, the two authors completed this process without knowing the dominant achievement goal orientation of each participant, so that findings would not be skewed. Once complete, the third author served to triangulate the findings and any disagreements were discussed amongst all authors until a consensus was reached. This process was then repeated for higher-order themes.

Results

The results for this study are presented in two forms. First, descriptive statistics are presented for all athletes and for selected athletes who participated in interviews (see Tables 1 and 2). Second, results from interviewed athletes are provided in the form of higher and lower order themes with supporting examples.

Descriptives

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and Pearson Product Moment correlations of the MGOSQ subscales for the total sample of participants (N = 133). Reviewing the means for all athletes who partook in this study, one can see that, as a group, the lowest scores (and therefore the most prevalent) achievement goal orientations reported were task-and social-approval. These were followed by self-enhancing ego, self-defeating ego, and work-avoidance. Bivariate correlations were calculated to explore relationships among the five achievement goal subscales. As shown in Table 1, task-orientation demonstrated significant positive relationships with self-enhancing ego and social-approval, whereas there was a significant negative correlation between task-orientation and work-avoidance orientation. Additionally, the self-enhancing ego--social-approval correlation coefficient (.52) represented the strongest association among the subscales. Cronbach alpha's for the five subscales were all acceptable as task-orientation [alpha] = .77, self-enhancing ego-orientation [alpha] = .88, self-defeating egoorientation [alpha] = .79, social-approval orientation [alpha] = .77, and work-avoidance orientation [alpha] = .71.

Means and standard deviations for only the athletes who participated in the interviews (n = 15) are displayed in Table 2. There were five groups of three athletes, which reflected the five achievement goal orientations. The descriptive statistics for each orientation category show the group's average scores on the five MGOSQ subscales. As mentioned earlier, athletes who scored considerably low on one subscale and considerably high on the remaining four formed a specific orientation group.

Outlined below are higher and lower order themes. While athletes were grouped by dominant achievement goal orientations for analysis, as assessed by the MGOSQ, it was unclear how the arena of strength training would mask dispositional goal orientations. Therefore, athletes' answers were first grouped by common themes before exploring specific hypotheses.

Athletes 'Definitions of Success

Four higher order themes were prevalent among the interviewed athletes when describing a time they felt successful in the weightroom. These were: (a) accomplishing a task, (b) giving maximum effort, (c) pleasing others, and (d) injury recovery (see Figure 1).

Accomplishing a Task

This higher order theme was the most prevalent among the athletes interviewed, as 11 out of the 15 athletes used accomplishing a task to define a portion of their success in the weightroom. Additionally, as expected, all three athletes interviewed who were classified as dominant in task-orientation spoke about the importance of this theme in defining strength training success. For example, Casey (all names are fictitious), a hockey player whose foremost achievement goal orientation was task-orientation stated:

I think physical testing is something that makes you feel successful ... I've noticed a change in my physical testing from anything from bench to leg press to sprints. When you notice that you've gotten better each year, I think that makes you feel successful and makes you feel like you accomplished something.

Additionally, Mandy, a member of the women's basketball team, whose strongest achievement goal orientation was also task orientation, said success came from "Actually learning the technique [of a squat] you know, and getting down the proper squatting position." From their responses, Casey and Mandy are focused on their own improvement during strength training, rather than "keeping up" with the other members of the team or pleasing people who are important to them through their effort. These results coincide with what researchers have known about the type of achievement strategies exhibited by task-oriented athletes (Lochbaum & Roberts, 1993).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Giving Maximum Effort

Another higher order theme that emerged from interviews with athletes was the belief that success in the weightroom comes from giving maximum effort. While this notion makes intuitive sense, only two of the 15 athletes discussed how success in the weightroom is fostered through giving maximum effort. In addition, the predominant achievement goal orientations of these two athletes was surprising, as one was categorized as high in social-approval orientation while the other's foremost achievement goal orientation was work-avoidance.

Ross, a wrestler, whose highest score was in social-approval orientation, spoke to the fact that he needed to push his body to physical fatigue when he said:

[It] seems like you feel more successful the more broken down you are. I don't like leaving the weightroom when you didn't get anything accomplished and I feel like I got something accomplished when.., my body's broken down.

Denise, whose central achievement goal orientation was work-avoidance and was a member of the women's crew team, spoke to this same idea of always working hard in the weightroom, "I feel successful everyday when I go in there and I do all of the exercises to the best of my ability and I put forth as much effort as I possibly can." These results might have occurred because all athletes in this study's population held task-oriented beliefs to some extent.

Pleasing Others

Two athletes who were interviewed believed that to experience success in strength training, they had to please their teammates and/or the strength coach. Teri, a volleyball player, who was high in social-approval orientation, discussed both of these scenarios. When asked about a time that she felt successful, Teri first mentioned general times during strength training and the satisfaction she felt when receiving praise, "I mean, it's always good to hear from [the strength coach] that you're doing a good job..." Teri then continued on, as she specifically recalled her most successful time in the weight room with the captain of the volleyball team:

Probably my first time I was ever in the weightroom ... I went with the captain of the team and I was in the garbage can the whole time.., that really showed that I was working hard and that no one's ever pushed me to work as hard as she did. John, a football player, who was categorized as a work-avoidance athlete, also contended that pleasing his strength coach was a way he felt successful when he stated:

When I work with one of the [strength] coaches, ahh ... I usually ask them to show me how it's done and everything and then somebody who does it real well, I watch them, and it shows [me] how to do it and then I do it. And when I get it right, they're happy I guess.

Once again, the data support the notion of all athletes aspiring to be successful in the weightroom, regardless of achievement goal orientation. However, when examining John's response, it is also clear that he is somewhat confused about what his strength coach(es) desire from him in the weightroom.

Injury Recovery

The final higher order theme that arose during interviews was the notion of athletes feeling successful in strength training when it aided in their recovery from an injury. This theme holds great significance because the only two athletes who discussed the prospect of injury recovery as a form of achieving success were classified as high in task-orientation. For example, Mary, a volleyball player, shared her perception of success in the weightroom, "I think after I was recovering from my ACL injury when I started to get pushed again and when I got to an equal weight ... [of] 125 [lbs.] for both legs [on] leg press I felt really successful." In addition to Mary's response, Mandy, a member of the women's basketball team, also discussed experiencing feelings of success during strength training when recovering from an ACL injury, "Probably with my squatting ... getting that full strength is different. I had on about 1501bs., which is a lot for me coming back, so I think I was successful in that." Gilbourne and Taylor (1998) argue that injured athletes, who undergo a goal setting program that fosters the learning of task-oriented skills, can develop enhanced feelings of control during a future life crisis. Based on the responses from participants in this group, strength training served this purpose.

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between achievement goal orientations and collegiate athletes' definitions of success in the weightroom. Findings supported the notion that self-enhancing ego-and self-defeating ego-orientations showed little difference among athletes when it came to defining success. Additionally, partial support was obtained for the existence of a social-approval orientation in a strength training environment. However, little to no qualitative evidence was found supporting the existence of a dominant work-avoidance orientation among this population of athletes. This is not to say that work-avoidance athletes are absent from sport settings, only that their primary goal orientation does not "stand out," perhaps because of the constant supervision by coaches of these high level athletes. It is quite possible that without supervision these athletes may do very little in a strength training setting; however, this study cannot confirm this notion with the present data collected.

Athletes who were robust in self-enhancing ego-and self-defeating ego-orientation all cited accomplishing a task as the one and only way they felt successful in the weightroom. For example, Danny, a football player, classified as high in self-defeating ego-orientation stated, "I remember the first time I got here and I couldn't do 225 lbs. (on bench press). I kept working on it and recently we had a test and I did it eight times ... " Danny's response was similar to Kelly's, a women's basketball player, who defined what it meant to be successful in the weightroom by sharing a previous unsuccessful experience:

I'm a lower body lifter and I am not that successful in my upper body. [On bench press] I could never get over the hump. I could get 130, but I couldn't get 135 and to me it felt like more of a mental thing, because am I physical incapable of lifting 5 more lbs.? It was frustrating when you see people who are smaller, like little guards doing 135 and post players putting up 180.

Other athletes in self-enhancing ego-and self-defeating ego-orientation groups also mentioned the importance of "meeting or beating the weight" that was required for the day. As evident from the above quotations and examples, all of the responses show that the difference between self-enhancing ego-orientation and self-defeating ego-orientation is a fine line in a strength training context.

Athletes who were strong in social-approval derived their perceptions of success from two sources: accomplishing a task and pleasing others. These statements coincide with the contentions of Maehr and Nicholls (1980) when they asserted that athletes high in socialapproval orientation feel successful when others praise them for the effort they exerted. In addition, it is also important to note that Teri (who played volleyball) did not discuss actually succeeding at any specific exercise in her interview. Instead, the positive feedback she received from others was her only criterion for achieving success. Therefore, according to Maehr and Nicholls, even if Teri had failed at a specific exercise, her reliance on others to provide feedback corresponds with an athlete high in social-approval orientation.

The findings of work-avoidance athletes proved to be the most complex. These three athletes discussed feeling successful in the weightroom when they accomplished a task, gave maximum effort, or pleased others. While it is possible that the answers from all of these athletes revealed their true methods for achieving success, eliminating pressure felt from strength coach(es) and teammates to work harder may have been the ultimate goal of work-avoidance athletes. This research cannot prove that contention; and conversely, it is also quite feasible that a work-avoidance orientation does not manifest itself in a climate such as strength training, because of the emphasis placed on personal improvement and public records of achievement.

While our study offers insight into how athletes define success in the preparatory stages of performance and contributes to the literature on achievement goal theory in sport, the findings should be interpreted with some caution. The primary limitation of this study was the categorization of athletes into selected achievement goal orientation groups. Most athletes failed to report one primary orientation; rather, there were variations in responses among the five achievement goal orientations, which is consistent with Nicholls (1984) original description of achievement goal orientations. For example, athletes in the self-enhancing ego interview group were strong in both self-enhancing ego and social-approval, which is not surprising considering that self-enhancing ego was highly related to social-approval.

In addition to the difficulty of finding athletes who were high in one achievement goal orientation and low in the other four, the strength training environment may have been a significant influence on the dispositional goal orientations of athletes. Strength training is a unique achievement arena in the sense that personal improvement is stressed by coaches, training sessions are mandatory for all athletes, and athletes must complete all tasks during each session. Together these factors may prevent a work-avoidance oriented athlete, for example, from being successful utilizing the strategies of their dominant goal orientation. Thus, the motivational climate may have had a significant interaction effect on individual achievement goals.

While college athletes varied in their dominant achievement goal orientations during strength training sessions, future research is still needed with athletes in this domain. Specifically, further validation of the psychometric properties of the MGOSQ with a large sample of athletes is warranted. Additionally, future studies should explore the distinguishing differences of social-approval orientation and ego-orientation, in general; a contention first highlighted by Urdan and Maehr (1995) and partially supported in this study. Finally, impending work should examine the existence and implications of the five distinct achievement goal orientations with athletes when failure occurs, in strength training or sport, as true differences may present themselves in how athletes define failure and work through various set-backs.

Appendix: Modified Multiple Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (MGOSQ)

Directions: Please read each of the statements listed below and circle your response in accordance to how much you agree with each statement. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers for any statement.

Note: Each item is responded to on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree.

1. I feel successful in strength training when I do my very best. (Task-Orientation)

2. I feel successful in strength training when I perform better than my teammates. (Self-Enhancing Ego-Orientation)

3. I feel successful when I don't make a fool of myself in strength training. (Self-Defeating EgoOrientation)

4. I feel successful when I please people important to me. (Social-Approval Orientation)

5. I feel successful when the strength coach doesn't work us too hard. (Work-Avoidance Orientation)

6. I feel successful in strength training when I learn new skills or lifts and it makes me want to train more. (Task-Orientation)

7. I feel successful in strength training when I do better than other players. (Self-Enhancing Ego-Orientation)

8. I feel successful when my training helps me avoid being embarrassed. (Self-Defeating EgoOrientation)

9. I feel successful when I am able to do as little as possible at strength training. (WorkAvoidance Orientation)

10. I feel successful in strength training when I work really hard. (Task-Orientation)

11. I feel successful in strength training when I can lift the most weight as compared to others. (Self-Enhancing Ego-Orientation)

12. I feel successful when others don't think poorly of me when I train badly. (Self-Defeating Ego-Orientation)

13. I feel successful when I demonstrate my worth to others. (Social-Approval Orientation)

14. I feel successful when there is no hard work in strength training. (Work-Avoidance Orientation)

15. I feel successful in strength training when I learn something new that is also fun to do. (Task-Orientation)

16. I feel successful in strength training when I am able to perform skills or lifts that others cannot. (Self-Enhancing Ego-Orientation)

17. I feel successful when my training makes others not think I am one of the weakest players. (Self-Defeating Ego-Orientation)

18. I feel successful when others thought I trained well. (Social-Approval Orientation)

19. I feel successful when I avoid difficult lifts or workouts. (Work-Avoidance Orientation)

20. I feel successful in strength training when something I learn makes me want to train more. (Task-Orientation)

21. I feel successful in strength training when I show that I can do lilts better than my teammates. (Self-Enhancing Ego-Orientation)

22. I feel successful when others don't notice when I make a mistake in training. (Self-Defeating Ego-Orientation)

23. I feel successful when other people tell me I performed well. (Social-Approval Orientation)

24. I feel successful in strength training when a new skill or lift I learn really feels right. (Task-Orientation)

25. I feel successful in strength training when I am the only one who can do a skill or lilt. (Self-Defeating Ego-Orientation)

26. I feel successful when I avoid looking stupid while training. (Self-Defeating Ego-Orientation)

27. I feel successful when I make other people happy. (Social-Approval Orientation)

28. I feel successful in strength training when I learn a new skill or lift by trying hard. (Task Orientation)

Author Notes

We acknowledge Deborah L. Feltz for her helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

References

Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M. L., Walling, M. D., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 40-63.

Duda, J. L., Fox, K. R., Biddle, S. J. H., & Armstrong, N. (1991). Children's achievement goals and beliefs about success in sport. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 313-323.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

Duda, J. L., & White, S. A. (1992). Goal orientations and beliefs about the causes of success among elite skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 334-343.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-475.

Epley, B. (2004). The path to athletic power. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Fry, M. D., & Fry, A. C. (1999). Goal perspectives and motivational responses of elite junior weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 13, 311-317.

Gilbourne, D., & Taylor, A. H. (1998). From theory to practice: The integration of goal perspective theory and life development approaches within an injury-specific goalsetting program. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 124-139.

King, L. A., & Williams, T. A. (1997). Goal orientation and performance in martial arts. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20, 397-411.

Lochbaum, M. R., & Roberts, G. C. (1993). Goal orientations and perceptions of the sport experience. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 160-171.

Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 221-267). New York: Academic Press.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientation and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

NCAA. (2005, August 1). 2005-06 NCAA division I manual: Constitution operating bylaws administrative bylaws. Retrieved October 11, 2006, from http://www.ncaa.org/library/ membership/division i manual/2005-06/2005-06 dl manual.pdf#search=%22ncaa%202005-06%20division%201%20manual%22

Newton, M., & Duda; J. L. (1993). Elite adolescent athletes' achievement goals and beliefs concerning success in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 15, 437-448.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91,328-346.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). A review of motivational climate in physical activity. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17, 643-665.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Kavussanu, M. (1996). Orthogonaliiy of achievement goals and its relationship to beliefs about success and satisfaction in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 398-408.

Sarrazin, P., Biddle, S. J. H., Famose, J. P., Cury, F., Fox, K., & Durand, M. (1996). Goal orientations and conceptions of the nature of sport ability in children: A social cognitive approach. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 399-414.

Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego-orientation: Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71-81.

Stefanek, K. A., Gano-Overway, L. A., Cumming, S. P., & Ewing, M. E. (2001, September). The multiple goal orientation in sport questionnaire: Construct and validation. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology, Orlando, FL.

Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1994). Cognitive and affective concomitants of task and ego goal orientations during the middle-school years. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 15-28.

Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213-243.

Todd A. Gilson, Graig M. Chow, and Martha E. Ewing,

Michigan State University

Address Correspondence To: Todd A. Gilson, 39 IM Sports Circle, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, Phone: 517-432-712, Fax: 517-353-2944, E-mail: gilsonto@msu.edu

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlations for MGOSQ
Subscales (N = 133)

Subscale M (1) SD (1) M (2) SD (2) 1 2

1. Task 11.37 2.97 1.62 .42 --
2. Self-Enhancing 13.81 4.54 2.30 .76 .24 ** --
3. Self-Defeating 18.59 4.29 3.01 .72 .02 .25 **
4. Social-Approval 10.13 3.03 2.03 .61 .39 ** .52 **
5. Work-Avoidance 17.15 2.35 4.29 .59 -.37 ** -.06

Subscale 3 4 5

1. Task
2. Self-Enhancing
3. Self-Defeating --
4. Social-Approval .35 ** --
5. Work-Avoidance .38 ** -.04 --

(1) Raw means and standard deviations of the MGOSQ.

(2) Standardized means and standard deviations of the MGOSQ.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Interview Groups on MGOSQ Subscales
(n = 15)

 TO SE-E SD-E SA
Group M SD M SD M SD M SD

TO 11.00 0.00 19.67 1.53 24.00 2.65 12.33 2.31
SE-E 15.00 3.61 9.33 3.51 20.00 1.00 8.33 2.08
SD-E 13.33 0.58 16.00 2.00 16.33 1.15 12.00 1.00
SA 12.33 0.58 14.33 1.53 23.00 2.00 7.67 2.08
W A 15.33 2.89 18.33 3.21 21.67 2.89 14.67 3.79

 WA
Group M SD

TO 18.67 1.15
SE-E 19.00 1.00
SD-E 16.67 2.89
SA 17.67 1.53
W A 16.67 0.58

Note. TO = task-orientation; SE-E = self-enhancing ego-orientation;
SD-E = self- defeating ego-orientation; SA = social-approval
orientation; WA = work-avoidance orientation.