Facilitating Feelings
of Self-Determination and
Intrinsic Motivation in Athletes
Tony Amorose, Ph.D.
Illinois State University
Questions?
Why do people get involved in sport?
Why do they continue to participate?
Common Motives for
Sport Participation
• competence (learn and improve, reach goals)
• affiliation (make new friends, be with friends)
• fitness (get or stay in shape, look good)
• team aspects (being part of group)
• competition (to win, be successful)
• fun (excitement, challenge, action)
The Nature of Motivation According
to Self-Determination Theory
• motives can be classified along a
continuum of self-determination
Continuum of Self-Determination
non
self-determined
self-determined
Extrinsic Motivation
Intrinsic
Motivation
integrated
regulation
identified
regulation
introjected
regulation
external
regulation
Amotivation
Intrinsic Motivation (IM)
• engaging in an activity for its own sake (e.g.,
for the fun, pleasure, or sense of personal
mastery provided by the task itself)
• types of intrinsic motivation…
– IM to know
– IM to accomplish
– IM to experience stimulation
Extrinsic Motivation (EM)
• engaging in an activity for instrumental
reasons (e.g., for rewards, social approval,
please others, personal pressure or goals)
• types of extrinsic motivation…
– integrated regulation
– identified regulation
– introjected regulation
– external regulation
Amotivation (AM)
• a state of lacking intention
to act, and thus the relative
absence of motivation
Question?
How would you classify these motives?
Why Do You Practice Your Sport?
“For the excitement I feel when I am really
involved in the activity.”
IM
“For the prestige of being an athlete.”
EM
“Because I would feel bad if I was not taking
time to do it.”
EM
“For the pleasure it gives me to know more
about the sport I practice.”
IM
“Because it is one of the best ways I have
chosen to develop other aspects of myself.”
EM
“It is not clear to me anymore; I don’t think
my place is in sport anymore.”
AM
Important Points
• people have multiple motives
• likely a combination of intrinsic and
extrinsic reasons
Key Questions
which reasons are most important?
do you participate primarily for intrinsic or
extrinsic reasons?
Motivational Orientation
intrinsic motivational orientation
• participating primarily for intrinsic reasons
(i.e., self-determined reasons)
extrinsic motivational orientation
• participating primarily for extrinsic reasons
(i.e., more non self-determined reasons)
Question…Which are You?
Question?
Does it matter if we are more
intrinsically or extrinsically motivated?
Potential Benefits
Those with an intrinsic motivational
orientation (i.e., more self-determined
motivation) are more likely to…
1. consistently demonstrate motivated
behavior (i.e., choice, effort, persistence)
2. experience greater enjoyment
3. experience lower anxiety
4. exhibit greater learning and performance
5. demonstrate better concentration
6. be creative in their activities
Question?
How can we promote or facilitate
intrinsic motivation in sport participants?
Wonder Years Video
Describe Paul’s motivated behavior at the beginning,
middle, and end of the show.
Speculate on the primary reasons why Paul participates at
these points in the show (intrinsic vs. extrinsic).
What are some specific factors (personal, situational) that
may have contributed to the change in Paul’s motivation?
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Basic Premise
the fulfillment of the basic needs of
competence, autonomy, and relatedness are
essential for the facilitation of self-
determined motivation, social
development, and personal well-being
Three Basic Needs
need for competence
– the need to interact effectively with the
environment
need for autonomy (self-determination)
– the need to engage in activities of one’s
choosing and to be the origin of one’s behavior
need for relatedness
– the need to feel connected to others and to
experience a sense of belongingness
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)
• sub-theory within SDT
• goal is to specify conditions that
support or undermine IM
• IM will be maximized if individuals
feel competent and autonomous
Key Point
Any event (external or internal) which
can affect perceived competence or selfdetermination will ultimately impact IM
Possible events?
rewards
competition
surveillance
deadlines
imposed goals
feedback
leadership
others?
Functional Aspect of Events
1. controlling aspect
– related to feeling or autonomy or self-determination
event
perceived as
“controlling”
event perceived
as providing
“choice”
decreased
autonomy
decreased
intrinsic
motivation
increased
autonomy
increased
intrinsic
motivation
Functional Aspect of Events
2. informational aspect
– related to feelings of competence
if event
provides
positive info
increased
perceived
competence
increased
intrinsic
motivation
if event
provides
negative info
decreased
perceived
competence
decreased
intrinsic
motivation
Important Point
It is the functional significance of the
events that will impact IM
Which aspect is most important or salient to
the individual?
How does the individual perceive the event?
Other Important Points
• IM is only evident for activities that are…
– personally interesting
– provide optimal challenges
• changes in perceived competence will only
affect IM under conditions where the one
feels autonomous
• relatedness has a more distal affect on IM
Research on IM
• rewards
• competition
• coaching/instructor feedback
• leadership styles and behaviors
Research on Rewards and IM
Basic Procedures of Lab Research
1. Random Assignment to Groups
• control (no reward)
• experimental (received reward for participation)
2. Perform an Interesting Task (e.g., puzzle, game)
3. Experimental Group Receives Reward
4. Experimenter Leaves
5. Free Choice Period
6. Time Spent on Task as Measure of IM
Results
Those receiving a reward spend
significantly less time participating in free
choice period
Conclusion
Rewards undermine IM
Potential Problems?
1. Lab-based (not “real world of sport”)
2. Alternative reasons for participating
during the free choice period
3. Others?
Scholarships and IM
Ryan (1977)
Purpose
To determine whether scholarship and nonscholarship athletes differed on level of IM
Method
male football players
• scholarship
• non-scholarship
Measures
IM (i.e., enjoyment, free time spent practicing,
participate without scholarship?)
Results
• scholarship athletes reported lower IM
• IM decreased every year the athletes had
scholarship
Conclusion
scholarship (rewards) undermine IM
Ryan (1980)
replicated earlier study but examined football
players, wrestlers, and female athletes from a
variety of sports
Basic Results …
• scholarship football players reported lower IM than
non-scholarship football players
• scholarship wrestlers and female athletes reported
higher IM than non-scholarship athletes
How can you explain these results?
Explanation of Results Using CET
wrestlers and female athletes
• scholarships provided positive competence
information given number of scholarships available
•  perceived competence   IM
football players
• scholarships provided no competence information
given number of scholarships available, rather…
• scholarships viewed as controlling
•  self-determination   IM
Conclusions
1. rewards are not necessarily bad, rather it
depends on how they are perceived
2. there are conditions where rewards are not
detrimental to IM (e.g., rewards given
contingent to performance or achievement)
3. rewards will not undermine IM if there was
no interest in the activity in the first place
Research on IM
• rewards
• competition
• coaching/instructor feedback
• leadership styles and behaviors
Leadership Styles and IM
Question?
How should the following leadership
styles influence athletes’ IM?
Hollembeak and Amorose (in press)
Purpose
• To test whether perceived competence, autonomy,
and relatedness mediate the relationship between
athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ behavior
and the athletes’ IM
• To determine the specific coaching behaviors that
are positively or negatively related to IM
Methods
Participants
• Division I college athletes (M age = 19.73)
– male (n = 146)
– female (n = 134)
– various individual and team sports
• years of participation (M =10.19, SD =1.36)
• years with current coach (M =1.40, SD =1.42)
Measures
• perceived coaching behaviors (LSS)
• intrinsic motivation (SMS)
• fundamental needs according to SDT
– perceived competence
– autonomy
– relatedness
Results
• mediational effect of needs
• coaching behaviors as positive or negative
predictors of IM
Full Model
Training and
Instruction
Positive
Feedback
Autocratic
Behavior
Perceived
Competence
Autonomy
Democratic
Behavior
Relatedness
Social Support
“Model is a perfect fit!”
Intrinsic
Motivation
Mediational Model
Training and
Instruction
Positive
Feedback
Autocratic
Behavior
Perceived
Competence
Autonomy
Democratic
Behavior
Relatedness
Social Support
Intrinsic
Motivation
Hypothesized Model
Training and
Instruction
Positive
Feedback
Autocratic
Behavior
Perceived
Competence
Autonomy
Democratic
Behavior
Relatedness
Social Support
Intrinsic
Motivation
Modified Mediational Model
Training and
Instruction
.13
-.16
Positive
Feedback
.98
Perceived
Competence
.11
-.13
.64
.19
Autocratic
Behavior
-.40
.78
.32
Autonomy
-.13
.92
Democratic
Behavior
.43
.25
Relatedness
Social Support
.06
Intrinsic
Motivation
Results
• mediational effect of needs
• coaching behaviors as positive or negative
predictors of IM
• groups differences in pattern of relationships?
Limitations
• only considered IM
• other behaviors that may impact motivation
Practical Implications
• democratic coaching styles may facilitate more
intrinsically motivated athletes
Summary
• IM affected by perceptions of competence,
autonomy, and relatedness
• important given benefits of IM orientation
• SDT is practical in sense that we can use
this information to facilitate IM
Question?
How can we promote or facilitate…
• perceived competence
• autonomy
• relatedness