D

o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Understanding motivation in sport: An experimental test
of achievement goal and self determination theories
CHRISTOPHER M. SPRAY
1
, C. K. JOHN WANG
2
, STUART J. H. BIDDLE
1
, &
NIKOS L. D. CHATZISARANTIS
3
1
Institute of Youth Sport, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, UK,
2
Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore, and
3
School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, UK
Abstract
This paper presents an experimental test of two contemporary motivation theories in the physical domain. The study
combined experimentally-induced achievement goal involvement with autonomous and controlling communication styles
based on self determination theory to examine young peoples enjoyment, free-choice behavior and performance in relation
to a golf task. Results showed that those in the autonomous condition, regardless of their goal involvement, reported greater
enjoyment, persisted longer at the task and performed better than those in the controlling communication condition.
Participants in the task involved condition performed better than those in the ego involved condition. Findings point to the
need for further studies that test multiple theories in sport. The motivational impact of goal involvement may be better
understood when considered concurrently with the autonomous or controlling nature of the context. Promoting autonomy
and task involvement is likely to enhance positive affect and adaptive behaviors in sport among young people.
Keywords: Goal involvement, motivation, self determination, sport, youth
Introduction
Motivation has been a central topic in general
psychology for several decades (Weiner, 1992) as
well as, more recently, in sport and exercise psychol-
ogy (Roberts, 2001). Equally, great interest has
been shown in the physical activity of youth, either
from the point of view of sport involvement and
performance (Brustad, 1993) or activity for health
(Sallis, Prochaska, & Taylor, 2000). Various national
surveys are available identifying the reasons children
and youth give for participation or non-participation
in sport and exercise (Heartbeat Wales, 1987;
Mason, 1995) and there appear to be numerous
reasons why children and youth might take part or
cease their involvement. Descriptive surveys of this
type are useful. They provide what appear to be
ecologically valid responses from young people
reflecting commonsense notions of motivation. How-
ever, many researchers advocate the adoption of a
theoretical stance to advance understanding beyond
descriptive data. Roberts (1992), for instance, says
that if we begin to synthesize our theories and
data . . . we will better understand the process of
motivation in sport and exercise (p. 28). Similarly,
Weiner (1992) believes that by not encompassing
theoretical frameworks insights . . . will be missing;
there is likely to be prediction without scientific
understanding, and making sense without making
deep discoveries (p. 5).
Theoretical perspectives on sport and exercise
motivation are numerous. However, when studying
youth in physical contexts, a social-cognitive per-
spective has become dominant in the past two
decades. In particular, sport psychologists have
enthusiastically embraced the tenets of achievement
goal theory (Duda, 2001; Duda & Hall, 2001;
Roberts, 2001). At the same time, other theoretical
approaches have been advocated that appear to be
conceptually related. For example, Deci and Ryan
provide an over-arching view of motivation through
their self determination theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000a,b). Researchers have
Correspondence: Dr Christopher Spray, Institute of Youth Sport, School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, Loughborough University, UK.
European Journal of Sport Science, March 2006; 6(1): 43/51
ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2006 European College of Sport Science
DOI: 10.1080/17461390500422879
PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

advocated testing the conceptual convergence of
such theories (Biddle, 1999; Roberts, 1992).
A weakness of contemporary research on motiva-
tion in sport and exercise, and in sport and exercise
psychology more generally, is that too few studies are
able to test for causal influence due to the weak
nature of research designs (Biddle, 1994, 1997;
Morris, 1999). To meet the needs of an evidence-
based approach to sport and exercise practice, and to
advance understanding of motivational mechanisms,
we need more studies where causality is tested. This
paper, therefore, provides an experimental test of
achievement goal theory and self determination
theory.
Achievement goal theory
The goals young people may hold in achievement
settings, such as exercise or sport, are important
motivational factors (Duda, 2001). Stemming from
educational psychology, Nicholls (1989) proposed
that people define success and construe ability in
different ways. In certain situations, an individual
might emphasize task mastery, self-improvement,
and effort, and hence depict a task goal. On the
other hand, someone may primarily strive to win and
demonstrate high normative ability, even with low
effort. This reflects an ego goal. Such situational
goals are thought to be a reflection of both individual
differences and situational factors. Individual differ-
ences associated with goals are the goal orientations
held by the individual in a specific life domain, such
as sport. These tendencies are usually expressed as
task and ego goal orientations, and are assessed
typically through self-report items referring to when
people feel most successful in the domain of interest.
Situational factors determine the perceived motiva-
tional climate. The climate created by a teacher or
coach can reflect task and ego qualities (Ames,
1992a,b; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999).
Research predictions typically propose that ego
oriented children, focused on normative ability, will
be motivationally fragile when they doubt their own
competence, but will evidence more adaptive out-
comes when confident in their ability. Task oriented
children, on the other hand, are interested in self-
improvement and thus tend to be motivated regard-
less of perceived ability or competence. Research has
demonstrated, quite clearly, that a high task orienta-
tion, either singly or in combination with a high ego
orientation, is motivationally adaptive in physical
activity for children (Duda, 2001; Duda & Hall,
2001). Whereas goal orientations are assessed at the
contextual level of measurement, better prediction of
behavior is likely to come from assessing situational
goals (Harwood et al., 2000; Harwood & Swain,
1998). Despite this, relatively few studies have
adopted this approach.
Self determination theory
Self determination theory extends traditional notions
of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and includes the
psychological needs for competence, autonomy and
relatedness that are assumed to drive motivated
behavior. Deci and Ryan (1985) proposed that a
continuum is formed whereby different types of
extrinsically regulated behavior can be located.
Four types of extrinsic motivation are proposed:
external, introjected, identified, and integrated reg-
ulations. These reflect behaviors associated with
external pressures (external), internal pressures to
avoid guilt (introjected), and self determined moti-
vation associated with personal values and goals
(identified). Integrated regulation is more abstract
and reflects behaviors fully assimilated to the self,
which means they have been evaluated and brought
into congruence with ones other values and needs
(Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 73). Self determination and
autonomy increases as one moves from external to
integrated regulation. Intrinsic motivation, reflecting
enjoyment, interest and inherent satisfaction, is the
clearest form of autonomy and reflects true self
determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Importantly,
Deci and Ryan (1985) suggest that when the needs
for autonomy, competence and relatedness are
satisfied, behaviors that may not have been initially
intrinsically motivated are taken in and internalized
to become more autonomously regulated. For
example, an individual may initially take part in
sport because of parental pressure and threat of
punishment (external regulation). In time, if the
three needs are met, the individual may come to
appreciate the value of the activity and want to take
part (identified regulation), rather than feel they
have to take part.
The self determination continuum has been used
to assess childrens motivation in physical contexts.
Perceptions of autonomy are predictive of intrinsic
interest in physical activity (Goudas et al., 1994).
In addition, intentions of adolescents to participate
in leisure-time exercise have been studied in terms
of both autonomous and controlling forms of
intention. Intentions predict physical activity
when they are autonomous rather than controlling
(Chatzisarantis et al., 1997). In a study of over 700
Hungarian youths, more self-determined forms
of motivation predicted intentions to be active in
the future while extrinsic regulations predicted
intentions very weakly and in a negative direction
(Biddle et al., 1999). As proposed by Deci and
Flaste (1995), the important distinction in human
44 C. M. Spray et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

motivation is between whether a behavior is auton-
omous or controlled.
There is compelling evidence linking both achieve-
ment goal and SDT perspectives to motivated
behavior (Duda & Hall, 2001; Vallerand & Rous-
seau, 2001). However, much of the contemporary
research on motivation in physical activity contexts
suffers from three major weaknesses. First, despite
the conceptual overlap, few studies have addressed
these two key theories coherently in the same paper.
Goals may be better understood within the frame-
work of autonomous and controlling motivation.
Second, scientific knowledge in sport and exercise
motivation generally, and goal orientations in parti-
cular, is based mainly on cross-sectional research
(Biddle, 1994, 1997). Third, motivational research
in the physical domain suffers from a lack of data
investigating behavioral outcomes. Many studies
have assessed only cognitive and affective constructs
as dependent variables.
Combining achievement goal and SDT
approaches
The present paper, therefore, reports a field-based
experiment testing achievement goal theory and
SDT with 147 11/16 year olds involved in a golf
putting task. According to Nicholls (1989), indivi-
duals high in task involvement and ego involved
individuals with high perceived competence will not
differ in their levels of reported enjoyment and
intrinsic motivation. However, goals, like any other
event, can have two functions (Deci & Ryan, 1987).
A controlling function, termed controlling functional
significance, refers to perceptions or processes sig-
nifying that stimuli frustrate psychological needs for
competence, autonomy, and relatedness. An infor-
mational or autonomous function refers to percep-
tions or processes signifying that stimuli support
such psychological needs. How stimuli will be
perceived depends on how events in the environment
are communicated. An event will be perceived as
autonomous when the environment supports psy-
chological needs. In contrast, an event will be
perceived as controlling when the context frustrates
psychological needs. Whether a stimulus is perceived
as autonomous or controlling can be deduced by
assessing intrinsic motivation after communicating
stimuli in autonomous or controlling ways. There-
fore, we examined whether task and ego goals can
have an autonomous and a controlling aspect by
measuring both affective and behavioral indices after
communicating goals in autonomous or controlling
ways. We hypothesized that participants in the
autonomous condition would report greater enjoy-
ment during the assessment trials and during a free-
choice period, as well as greater free-choice behavior,
than those in the controlling condition, regardless of
goal involvement (Deci et al., 1994; Goudas et al.,
1995). We were also interested in exploring the main
effects of goal involvement and communication style
on performance in golf putting, along with the
interactive effects of experimental conditions on
enjoyment, free-choice behavior and performance.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 147 secondary school students (80
boys, 67 girls) from two comprehensive schools in
the English Midlands. The students ranged in age
from 11/16 years (M/13.43, SD/1.26). All the
participants were novice golf players.
Procedures
The study was conducted in two sessions. Students
dispositional goal orientations and general perceived
physical competence were measured in the first
session, and an experimental session was conducted
two weeks later during normal physical education
(PE) lessons. In the experimental session, partici-
pants were randomly assigned to one of four condi-
tions. Participants received either a task-involving
induction or an ego-involving induction. In addition,
participants received either autonomous communi-
cation or controlling communication.
A golf putting task was chosen as the target
activity. Participants were given 10 practice trials
followed by 10 assessment trials. The aim of the task
was to putt the golf ball into the hole from a line 1m
away on an artificial grass mat with one putt.
Participants were tested individually by two experi-
menters in a quiet room which contained the golf
putting equipment, a chair and a table with some
topical magazines (see Free-choice period).
Goal involvement induction. Seventy-nine participants
received a task-involving induction whereby they
were told that their aim was to learn and master the
techniques of golf putting. They were also told not to
worry about making mistakes or how others per-
formed and that there would be an assessment of
their learning at the end of the session. Sixty-eight
participants received the ego-involving induction.
Participants were informed that the purpose of the
task was to outperform other students in the school
in golf putting. The students in this condition were
told that they would be considered one of the best in
golf putting in the school if they scored more than 2
out of 10 in the assessment trials. The criterion was
set at 2 because, in an earlier study (Spray et al., in
press), more than 90% of the sample could not score
Motivation in sport 45
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

more than 4 on the same putting task. Those scoring
less than 2 were eliminated from further analyses
(n/7). Participants were reassured of their high
competence through positive feedback during the
assessment trials.
Manipulation of autonomous and controlling
communication. After the participants had been told
about the purpose of the task through the appro-
priate goal involvement induction, they were as-
signed to one of the two communication conditions.
Those assigned to the autonomy condition were
given a rationale, acknowledgement , and choice con-
cerning participation (Deci et al., 1994). The
rationale for participation in the task-involving con-
dition was given as:
Seeking improvement is very important in daily
lives. This is one of the main reasons you attend
school. You seek to improve everything you do.
In the ego-involving condition, participants were
told that:
Competition is a fact of life. That is how society
moves forward. You always seek to do better than
others.
The acknowledgement of the participants possible
disinterest in the task was considered through the
following statements for each condition:
I know that you may not like to improve (task
involvement condition)/compete (ego involvement
condition) in golf putting or even find the task
boring. I can perfectly understand and accept that
you might not find it very interesting or may not
want to improve (task involvement)/compete (ego
involvement).
After the rationale and acknowledgement were
given, the participants were then given a consent
form to sign to indicate their choice to take part. Five
participants refused to participate and were with-
drawn from the study. In the controlling commu-
nication condition, no rationale, acknowledgement
or choice were given. Participants were told that
You will be taught exactly how to hold the golf club
and how to hit the ball. You should learn the
techniques and ought to improve your skills as you
practice. You must practice the skills as taught.
Throughout the giving of instructions, words such as
should, must, and have to were used, for
example you should learn the techniques and you
should putt now.
Free-choice period. After the assessment trials, each
participant was told that the session had finished.
The experimenter then said that he needed a few
minutes to fetch another participant from the class.
Participants were told that while they waited they
were free to do whatever they wanted, including
reading magazines or practicing golf putting. Each
participant was left alone in the room for four
minutes. During this free-choice period, a second
experimenter, unaware of the participants experi-
mental condition, observed the individual through a
small glass panel and recorded the amount of time
the participant spent putting (free-choice behavior).
Caution was taken not to allow the experimenter to
be seen by the participant. After the free-choice
period, the first experimenter returned to the room.
All participants were then carefully debriefed.
Closing procedure. After completion of the final
questionnaire, but before returning to their PE class,
each participant was told not to inform anyone about
the experiment. As a check, participants were invited
to take part in a game to guess the correct number of
mini golf balls in a jar. They would win a prize for
the correct answer. The actual number of golf balls
was such that a correct guess would be highly
unlikely. Each participant was informed of the
correct answer as they left the room. If subsequent
participants correctly guessed the number, they may
have received information concerning the study. Five
participants were eliminated from the experiment
based on this procedure (although it is recognized
that these pupils may only have been informed of the
number of golf balls in the jar and not necessarily
about the experiment itself).
Measures
Two weeks before the experiment, the participants
dispositional goal orientations were measured using
the Perception of Success Questionnaire (POSQ;
Roberts et al., 1998). Satisfactory Cronbach alpha
coefficients were reported for both task (0.86) and
ego (0.87) subscales. The 6 items from the Sport
Competence subscale of the Physical Self-Perception
Profile (PSPP-PC; Whitehead, 1995) were used to
measure general perceived physical competence, and
internal consistency was satisfactory (0.78). Re-
sponses were given on 5-point scales ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for both
the POSQ and PSPP-PC.
After the experimental manipulations but before
taking part in the task, participants completed the
first questionnaire. This contained manipulation
check items to measure goal involvement and
perceived autonomy.
46 C. M. Spray et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

Goal involvement. Four items from the POSQ were
adapted to assess the goal involvement of the
participants. The stem for each question was I
will feel most successful in the golf putting task today
in school if . . . . Task involvement included two
statements: I show clear personal improvement
and I master something I couldnt do before. Ego
involvement was also assessed through two state-
ments: I beat other people and I am the best. A
5-point scale was used anchored by strongly disagree
(1) and strongly agree (5). These four items were
selected because they showed the highest factor
loadings in a confirmatory factor analysis of the
POSQ (administered prior to the experimental
session).
Perceived autonomy. To assess the perceived auton-
omy of the participants, we asked how much choice
and responsibility they perceived in engaging in the
task. Specifically, they were asked To what extent
did you feel you have choice over the decision to do
the golf putting? and To what extent do you feel
responsible over the decision to do the golf put-
ting?. Responses were given on 7-point scales
ranging from not at all (1) to very much so (7).
The number of successful putts out of 10 assess-
ment trials was recorded as a measure of golf putting
performance.
Following the assessment trials, a second ques-
tionnaire containing two items was administered.
One item was utilized to measure enjoyment experi-
enced in the putting task (task enjoyment) on a 7-
point scale from not at all (1) to very much so (7).
Following the free-choice period, one item assessed
enjoyment experienced in the free-choice period (free-
choice enjoyment), using the same 7-point scale.
Results
Manipulation check
Before the main analyses, two 2/2 (task/ego in-
volvement induction/autonomous/controlling com-
munication induction) MANCOVAs were calculated
to evaluate the success of the induction procedures.
First, goal involvement (task/ego) and second, per-
ceived autonomy (choice/responsibility) served as
dependent variables with participants dispositional
goal orientation and general perceived physical
competence as covariates. This procedure accounted
for differences among participants with regard to
their achievement goal orientations and perceptions
of ability in sport. Table I shows correlations between
the covariates and the manipulation check variables.
The relationships were weak to moderate, and in
both MANCOVAs, there were no significant effects
of the covariates.
In the first MANCOVA, no main effect for the
communication induction on task and ego involve-
ment was found (Wilks l/0.987, F(2, 139)/0.93,
p /0.05, h
2
/0.01), but there was a significant effect
for the goal involvement induction (Wilks l/0.923,
F(2, 139)/5.79, p B/0.05, l/0.08). Follow-up
tests indicated that participants in the ego-involving
condition scored higher in ego involvement than
those in the task-involving condition [F(1, 140)/
10.74, p B/0.05, l/0.07]. There was no interaction
effect (Wilks l/0.986, F(2, 139)/0.96, p /0.05,
l/0.01).
In the second MANCOVA, no main effect for goal
involvement induction on perceived choice and
responsibility emerged [Wilks l/0.999, F(2,
138)/0.08, p /0.05, l/0.001]. However, there
was a significant multivariate effect for communica-
tion induction [Wilks l/0.800, F(2, 138)/17.23,
p B/0.001, l/0.20). Participants who received the
autonomous induction reported greater perceived
choice [F(1, 139)/24.41, p B/0.001, l/0.15) and
felt more responsible [F(1, 139)/27.27, p B/0.001,
l/0.16] than participants receiving the controlling
induction. No interaction effect was found [Wilks
l/0.978, F(2, 138)/1.56, p /0.05, l/0.02).
Descriptive statistics for the manipulation check
variables are shown in Table II.
In summary, the results of the manipulation
checks showed that participants who received the
task-involving induction endorsed high task involve-
ment and low ego involvement, whereas participants
in the ego-involving induction were also highly task
involved and reported significantly higher ego
involvement (although still below the scale mid-
point). In addition, the autonomous induction led
participants to perceive greater choice and responsi-
bility.
Main analyses
Multivariate analysis of covariance. The means and
standard deviations for task enjoyment, free-choice
enjoyment, free-choice behavior, and performance
Table I. Intercorrelations among study variables and covariates.
Ego
orientation
Task
orientation
Perceived
competence
Task involvement 0.18 0.34** 0.11
Ego involvement 0.46** 0.17 0.24*
Choice 0.10 /0.03 0.05
Responsibility 0.09 /0.00 0.16
Task enjoyment 0.09 0.04 0.17
Free-choice enjoyment /0.12 /0.15 /0.04
Free-choice behavior /0.00 /0.03 0.06
Performance 0.08 0.03 0.08
*p B/0.05; **p B/0.01.
Motivation in sport 47
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

scores are presented in Table III. Task enjoyment
and free-choice enjoyment were entered as depen-
dent variables and were analyzed using a 2/2 (goal
involvement /communication) MANCOVA. A sec-
ond MANCOVA examined free-choice behavior and
performance scores as the dependent variables. Goal
orientations and perceived competence again served
as covariates in these analyses. However, in both
cases, there were no significant effects of the
covariates (see Table I for correlations between the
covariates and the dependent variables).
In the first analysis, neither a main effect for goal
involvement [Wilks l/0.976, F(2, 133)/1.67,
p /0.05, h
2
/0.02] nor an interaction [Wilks l/
0.975, F(2, 133)/1.70, p /0.05, h
2
/0.02] were
found. A significant main effect existed, however, for
the communication induction [Wilks l/0.930,
F(2, 133)/5.03, p B/0.01, h
2
/0.07] for both types
of enjoyment. Participants in the autonomous con-
dition reported greater enjoyment than did those in
the controlling condition for both task enjoyment
[F(1, 134)/3.79, p B/0.05, h
2
/0.03] and free-
choice enjoyment [F(1, 134)/9.82, p B/0.01, h
2
/
0.07].
With respect to free-choice behavior and perfor-
mance scores, the results of the second MANCOVA
revealed significant main effects for goal involvement
[Wilks l/0.918, F(2, 135)/6.04, p B/0.01, h
2
/
0.08] and communication (Wilks l/0.767, F(2,
135)/20.52, p B/0.01, h
2
/0.23). Participants in
the task-involving condition performed better in the
assessment trials than those in the ego-involving
condition [F(1, 136)/11.56, p B/0.001, h
2
/0.08].
Those in the autonomous condition also performed
better than those in the controlling condition [F(1,
136)/35.37, p B/0.001, h
2
/0.21]. Participants in
the autonomous condition spent more time putting
golf balls during the free-choice period compared to
those in the controlling condition [F(1, 136)/4.79,
p B/0.05, h
2
/0.03]. There was no interaction be-
tween goal involvement and communication condi-
tions [Wilks l/0.966, F(2, 135)/2.40, p /0.05,
h
2
/0.03] (see Table III).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test the motiva-
tional impact of communicating achievement goals
in autonomy-supportive or controlling ways among
young people engaged in a sport task. Researchers
have suggested that testing multiple theories of
motivation in physical activity contexts can provide
a more comprehensive understanding of achieve-
ment-relevant phenomena (Biddle, 1999; Roberts,
1992, 2001). To our knowledge, no previous study
has paired goal involvement with interpersonal
communication style in examining indices of intrin-
sic motivation and performance. The present inves-
tigation sought to examine the independent and
interactive effects of goal involvement and commu-
Table II. Descriptive statistics for manipulation check variables.
Goal involvement Communication
Task-involving N/79 Ego-involving N/68 Autonomous N/80 Controlling N/67
M SD M SD F h
2
M SD M SD F h
2
Task involvement 4.41 0.72 4.21 0.89 0.29 0.00 4.32 0.79 4.33 .82 1.18 0.01
Ego involvement 2.33
a
1.16 2.88
b
1.30 10.74 0.07 2.45 1.16 2.72 1.36 0.92 0.01
Choice 4.74 1.92 4.70 1.52 0.02 0.00 5.34
a
1.40 3.82
b
1.84 24.41 0.15
Responsibility 5.02 1.67 5.05 1.43 0.06 0.00 5.59
a
1.25 4.21
b
1.63 27.27 0.16
Note . Means within the same row not sharing the same superscript are significantly different (p B/0.05).
Table III. Descriptive statistics for dependent variables.
Goal involvement Communication
Task-involving
N/79
Ego-involving
N/68
Autonomous
N/80
Controlling
N/67
M SD M SD F h
2
M SD M SD F h
2
Task enjoyment 4.11 1.06 3.72 1.29 3.33 0.02 4.21
a
1.00 3.60
b
1.30 3.79 0.03
Free-choice enjoyment 3.30 1.66 3.07 2.35 0.97 0.01 3.73
a
1.52 2.50
b
2.26 9.82 0.07
Free-choice behavior (seconds) 84.20 97.63 93.08 97.53 0.87 0.01 106.42
a
101.86 61.74
b
84.63 4.79 0.03
Performance 5.27
a
2.36 4.03
b
1.96 11.56 0.08 5.63
a
2.30 3.58
b
1.65 35.37 0.21
Note . Means within the same row not sharing the same superscript are significantly different (p B/0.05).
48 C. M. Spray et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

nication style. In so doing, we adopted an experi-
mental design rather than the more commonly
utilized correlational approach to determine both
affective and behavioral outcomes.
The experimental design involved random assign-
ment of participants to task/ego involvement and
autonomous/controlling conditions. Checks revealed
that the autonomous, controlling and ego involve-
ment manipulations were successful. However, the
task involvement manipulation failed to significantly
separate low from high task involved groups, even
after controlling for participants task orientation
scores i.e., participants in both goal involvement
conditions reported similarly high levels of task
orientation and task involvement. Although the
mean scores for task involvement were in the
expected direction, this finding highlights the chal-
lenges to researchers in creating conditions of low
task involvement, even when situational cues are
designed to increase the salience of ego involvement.
Two contextual factors may account for the difficulty
in distinguishing the groups in terms of task involve-
ment in the current study. First, experimental trials
occurred within the context of the school physical
education lesson. Physical education teachers, and
the school environment generally, may be seen to
promote working hard, doing ones best and perso-
nal improvement irrespective of the task at hand.
Although teachers were not present during the
experimental trials, the putting task took place
during a PE lesson using school facilities. Second,
the golf putting activity represented a novel task to
the participants, who, consequently, may have been
inclined to focus on the how of the activity in both
the task involved and ego involved conditions.
Despite the difficulties encountered in manipulating
levels of task involvement, most of the significant
differences in indices of intrinsic motivation and
performance were found between the autonomous
and controlling conditions i.e., main effects for the
communication induction emerged irrespective of
goal involvement.
Multivariate analyses showed that, under condi-
tions of positive feedback, communication style
affected enjoyment and free-choice behavior such
that the autonomous style had a more positive
motivational impact. According to SDT, the beha-
vior of significant others can impact on the intrinsic
motivation of the individual. For example, teachers
can interact with students in a controlling manner
such that students feel pressured to think or act in
particular ways, or an autonomy-supportive style
such that students are encouraged to make their own
decisions and choices (Ryan & Deci, 2000a,b).
These interpersonal contexts are posited to have an
impact on students motivation through their influ-
ence on perceptions of autonomy, competence and
relatedness. Empirical research has shown that
autonomy-supportive teachers enhance students
intrinsic motivation, curiosity, and challenge-seeking
behavior compared to teachers with controlling
styles (Deci et al., 1994; Goudas et al., 1995).
Contextual events thus play an important role in
supporting or inhibiting the internalization process.
Deci and colleagues have suggested that the social
context supports self determination and internaliza-
tion when a rationale, acknowledgement of possible
disinterest and choice are provided (Deci et al.,
1994). Present results lend support to these asser-
tions.
Current findings also showed adaptive perfor-
mance consequences for those in both the autono-
mous and task involved conditions. Little previous
research has examined performance as a conse-
quence of feeling autonomous or task involved
when undertaking sport tasks (Harwood et al.,
2000; Vallerand, 2001). Self determination theory
holds that social contexts promoting more self-
determined forms of motivation, via the satisfaction
of innate needs, produce positive consequences,
including performance (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Valler-
and, 1997). Individuals pursuing tasks with a sense
of autonomy are more likely to employ adaptive self-
regulatory processes, such as concentration, which
result in enhanced performance. Similarly, task
involved individuals devote attentional resources to
the inherent aspects of the activity, rather than adopt
a self-evaluative external perspective, as when ego
involved. Focusing on the inherent components of a
skill can facilitate performance particularly with
respect to novel tasks. High ego involvement and
more controlling forms of motivation can detract
from attention to process-based factors that lead to
mastery of the activity. Clearly, present results
require verification in new research studies that
seek to identify the mechanisms by which a sense
of autonomy and task involvement enhance perfor-
mance in sport. It has also been suggested that, in
the short term at least, less self determined forms of
motivation may be associated with enhanced perfor-
mance (Vallerand, 2001). This notion requires
testing in physical activity contexts.
In the present investigation, there were no inter-
action effects between the goal involvement and
communication conditions. This suggests that the
effects of one factor operate across levels of the
second factor. One explanation for the absence of
interactions is that the groups did not differ sig-
nificantly in terms of task involvement, and there-
fore, it was not possible to examine the effects of
the communication condition when task involve-
ment was low versus when task involvement was
high. However, it appears that the beneficial con-
sequences of the autonomous condition were evident
Motivation in sport 49
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

irrespective of low or high ego involvement. Simi-
larly, high task involvement may have overridden
feelings of being controlled when undertaking the
putting activity to positively affect performance.
The links between controlling / self determined
motivation and goal involvement have been articu-
lated in the literature, from both SDT and achieve-
ment goal perspectives. According to achievement
goal theorists, when an individual is task involved,
the attentional focus is on the task and individuals
participate in an activity for its own sake, thereby
increasing intrinsic motivation. Ego involved indivi-
duals engage in the task to demonstrate high
normative competence, rather than to engage in
the inherent aspects of the task itself, thereby leading
to a decrease in intrinsic motivation (Nicholls,
1989). Self determination theory also considers
task involvement to bear considerable relation to
intrinsic motivation when applied to the achieve-
ment domain (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 260). On the
other hand, SDT posits that, when ego involved,
individuals feel internally controlled and pressured
to maintain their self-esteem or prove their compe-
tence, which results in an external locus of causality
and less self determined motivation (Deci & Ryan,
1987). From the SDT perspective, therefore, ego
involvement is viewed as a form of introjected
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Self determination
theory also asserts, however, that normatively de-
fined competence goals can be pursued for relatively
autonomous reasons and thus produce adaptive
motivational and behavioral consequences, or they
can be pursued for relatively controlled reasons and
thus produce more negative consequences (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). In the present investigation, correla-
tions between ego involvement and free-choice
enjoyment and behavior were non-significant, but
there was a trend toward positive intercorrelations in
the autonomous condition but negative associations
in the controlling condition. Thus, an autonomy-
supportive social context may, under certain circum-
stances, help to offset potentially maladaptive
consequences of ego involvement. However, further
experimental studies are necessary to explicate the
empirical links between ego involvement and indices
of intrinsic motivation in autonomous versus con-
trolling contexts.
In summary, this study suggests that an autonomy-
supportive context can enhance intrinsic motivation
compared to a controlling context, regardless of goal
involvement. Moreover, autonomy and task involve-
ment can help to foster performance on a novel
golf putting task. More work is necessary to build
on the current investigation and address its limita-
tions. For example, measures of need satisfaction
should be included, as needs are viewed as psycho-
logical mediators of the social factors 0/ motivation
relationships within SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985,
2000). In addition, the rationale as well as the
acknowledgement components of the autonomous
condition should be specific to the task at hand rather
than generalized. The choice component may be
operationalized more effectively if participants are
provided with a range of tasks to select rather than
being asked for consent to undertake one activity.
Finally, manipulation checks should include the
perceived controllingness of the locution used in
the communication inductions as well as perceived
choice and responsibility. However, based on the
results reported herein, we invite youth sport leaders
to consider the design and delivery of their sessions
such that they are more likely to be perceived as
facilitators of autonomy and task involvement.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to note their appreciation to the
staff and students of the participating schools for
their time and effort in allowing the experimental
trials to be conducted.
References
Ames, C. (1992a). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and
motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in
sport and exercise (pp. 161/176). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Ames, C. (1992b). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student
motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261/271.
Biddle, S. (1994). Motivation and participation in exercise and
sport. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, & V. Pataco (Eds.), International
perspectives on sport and exercise psychology (pp. 103/126).
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Biddle, S. (1997). Current trends in sport and exercise psychology
research. The Psychologist , 10, 63/69.
Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). Motivation and perceptions of control:
Tracing its development and plotting its future in exercise and
sport psychology. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21,
1/23.
Biddle, S., Soos, I., & Chatzisarantis, N. (1999). Predicting
physical activity intentions using goal perspectives and self-
determination theory approaches. European Psychologist , 4,
83/89.
Brustad, R. J. (1993). Youth in sport: psychological considera-
tions. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.),
Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 695/717). New
York: Macmillan.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Biddle, S. J. H., & Meek, G. A. (1997).
A self-determination theory approach to the study of intentions
and the intention-behaviour relationship in childrens physical
activity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 343/360.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994).
Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory per-
spective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119/142.
Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do:
Understanding self-motivation. New York: Penguin.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior . New York: Plenum Press.
50 C. M. Spray et al.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

B
y
:

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
]

A
t
:

2
3
:
2
3

1
5

J
a
n
u
a
r
y

2
0
0
8

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and
the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 1024/1037.
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.
Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing
the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G.
C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise
(pp. 129/182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport:
Recent extensions and future directions. In R. N. Singer, H. A.
Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (pp. 417/443). New York: Wiley.
Goudas, M., Biddle, S., & Fox, K. (1994). Perceived locus of
causality, goal orientations, and perceived competence in
school physical education classes. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 64, 453/463.
Goudas, M., Biddle, S., Fox, K., & Underwood, M. (1995). It
aint what you do, its the way that you do it! Teaching style
affects childrens motivation in track and eld lessons. The Sport
Psychologist , 9, 254/264.
Harwood, C., Hardy, L., & Swain, A. (2000). Achievement goals
in sport: A critique of conceptual and measurement issues.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 235/255.
Harwood, C. G., & Swain, A. B. J. (1998). Antecedents of pre-
competition achievement goals in elite junior tennis players.
Journal of Sports Sciences , 16, 357/371.
Heartbeat Wales. (1987). Exercise for health: Health-related
tness in Wales. Heartbeat Report 23. Cardiff: Heartbeat
Wales.
Mason, V. (1995). Young people and sport in England, 1994.
London: Sports Council.
Morris, T. (1999). The message of methods: Developing research
methodology in sport psychology. Journal of Wuhan Institute of
Physical Education, 33, 20/27.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic
education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). A review of motiva-
tional climate in physical activity. Journal of Sports Sciences , 17,
643/665.
Roberts, G. C. (1992). Motivation in sport and exercise: Con-
ceptual constraints and convergence. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.),
Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 3/29). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Roberts, G. C. (2001). Understanding the dynamics of motivation
in physical activity: The inuence of achievement goals on
motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in
motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 1/50). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Balague, G. (1998). Achieve-
ment goals in sport: The development and validation of the
perception of success questionnaire. Journal of Sports Sciences ,
16, 337/347.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations: Classic denitions and new directions. Contempor-
ary Educational Psychology, 25, 54/67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory
and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being. American Psychologist , 55, 68/78.
Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, J. J., & Taylor, W. C. (2000). A review of
correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents.
Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise , 32, 963/975.
Spray, C. M., Wang, C. K. J., Biddle, S. J. H., Chatzisarantis, N.
L. D., & Warburton, V. E. (in press). An experimental test of
self-theories of ability in youth sport. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise .
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 29 (pp. 271/360). New
York: Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. C. Roberts
(Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 263/
319). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Vallerand, R. J., & Rousseau, F. L. (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in sport and exercise: A review using the hierarchical
model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In R. N. Singer, H.
A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (pp. 389/416). New York: Wiley.
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Whitehead, J. R. (1995). A study of childrens physical self-
perceptions using an adapted physical self-perception prole
questionnaire. Pediatric Exercise Science , 7, 132/151.
Motivation in sport 51