Biddle (2003) conducted a study examining the relationship between motivation and self perception. In his study he looked at a number of motivational theories and how these theories have been used to in relation to motivation in sporting and physical activity setting. These theories include Self determination theory (Deci, 1985), the Social Cognitive theory (Bandura,1977), the Competence Motivation theory and Achievement Goal theory (Tsang, 2007). Achievement Goal Theory:
There is a lot of literature on the achievement goal theory and can be applying this literature can be helpful. Lochbaum et al (2008) found that it has been very helpful in understanding effect, cognitions and behaviours as related to achievement motivation in both a sporting and exercise setting. The Achievement theory assisted in giving an insight into why people participate and stay involved in sport and exercise. Morris (2009) argues that the main part of this theory is that people participate in the achievement context to achieve competence. Morris also felt this that competence can be achieved in two ways improvement and capacity. Lochbaum et al describes that individuals are different in the way in which they describe success and evaluate competence. Lee (2003) agrees with Morris that these different ways are divided into two forms: 1. Task-orientation or Mastery Involvement: This is when an effort-based interpretation of the ability is used. The athlete focuses on mastering a task and judge success by self referenced criteria such as understanding, completing or overcoming a challenge.
2. Ego-Orientation or Competitive Involvement: This occurs when adequacy of ability in relation to others is dominant. They focus on demonstrating ability and judge success by normative criteria such as establishing superiority over others and gaining success more easily.
Lee (2003) explains that although people can alter between these criteria’s task and ego orientation, socialisation and experience can cause people to develop a dispositional direction towards one criteria or the other. Biddle (2003) believes that the principle of sport is to develop mastery and that task orientation is linked to higher morale functioning and sportsmanship. He also describes ego-orientation as being connected to endorsement of aggression, poor sportsmanship, the belief that ability and cheating cause success and the point of sport is to gain a social status.
Social Cognitive Theory:
Bandura (1977) described the social cognitive theory as the psychosocial dynamics that influence helath behaviour and the methods of promoting behaviour change. One of the major concepts of the social cognitive theory refers to the individuals interaction with their environment, the situation or an individual character and their personality. He felt that if one of these components were to change the other components were likely to change. In 1998 Bandura believed that the Social Cognitive Theory is based around two main concepts: 1) Outcome Expectations: Netz (2004) states that outcome expectations are based on the belief that carrying out a certain behaviour will lead to a desired outcome.
2) Self-Efficacy: According to Feltz (2008)self efficiency is the belief in ones capabilities to organise and accomplish the course of action required to perform given skills. Feltz also states that efficacy beliefs are formed as a result of self appraisal and self persuasion through processing of information such as past performance, verbal persuasion and psychological state.
Feltz (2008) felt that motivation is the engine that allows people to keep performing in relation to the social cognitive approach. A central piece of the theory is self-efficacy, as they choose the knowledge, skills and the accomplishment, of goals by helping athletes to have better self-control both environmentally and inside in relation to their performance. Competence Motivation Theory:
Chatoupis states that a central part of competence motivation theory is perceived competence. Wiess and Frazier will gather feedback from variety of sources and many others when the individual has taken part in a mastery attempt. Biddle (2003) stated that achievement domains, feedback, reinforcement, self esteem/perceived competence, control and motivation orientations can lead a higher insight of competence. Having a high perception in a specific area will improve intrinsic motivation to take part and lead in that specific area. However on the other hand negative self perception will likely reduce intrinsic motivation, withdrawing been the end result. Self Determination Theory:
When reading many articles Deci and Ryan (1985) are names that are quite familiar with motivation. The seld determination theory came from them. Fortier et al describe this theory as a humanistic motivation theory. They claim there are two main types of motivation, autonomous and controlled. Fortier et al (2009) describe autonomous behaviours as performed out of choice and regulated by the self, or as behaviours that are ingaged in for pleasure and/or satisfaction. On the other hand Fortier et al (2009) states that behiours for which motivation is controlled are not performed out of coice but are regulated by internal and/or external pressures. Ingledew (1998) found that controlled motives have been associated with initial adoption of physical activity (such things as parents, peer pressure, need to get fit). Autonomous motives have been associated with stage progression and continued activity over time. Murcia Coll and Perez (2009) explain that self determination theory divides motivation into three sub categories. 1. Intrinsic Motivation
2. Extrinsic Motivation
They also stated that these motivational types can be located along a continuum with amotivation at one end and intrinsic motivation at opposite ends. Movement along this continuum is partyly governed by internalising motives for participating, so that formally extrinsic factors become intrinsic. The following section will give detail of the three sub categories.
According to Mathew (2002) this idea intrinsic motivation generated from the work of White who referred to effectance motivation. Mathew (2002) described effectance motivation as to reach competency over their environment which resulted in the feeling of self efficiency, which came from individuals who were inherently motivated. Deci and Ryan (1985) put forward the concept of intrinsic motivation. They also described intrinsic motivation as people who took part in activities was purely for the satisfaction that went with participating in these activities. Roberts (2001) summed up intrinsic motivation when he said that athletes who participate for the pleasure are intrinsically motivated. Delgi Antoni (2009) illustrates very well the relationship and how important intrinsic motivation to Rugby. He suggests that intrinsic motivation plays a huge part in organizations to differentiate by personal relations and high participation indecisions. Peltier et al (1995) identified three divisons of intrinsic motivation: 1. Motivation to know: This takes place when a individual participates in an activity for the pleasure experienced while learning to understand and explaore new things. 2. Motivation to accomplishment: Refers to participating for the pleasure and experience while attempting to accomplish something. 3. Motivation to experience stimulation: Participate to experience situations (playing in Thomand Park, roar of the crowd, feeling of victory. Martens (2002) explains the importance of intrinsic motivation in sport. He states that high intrinsic motivation levels are associated with increased enjoyment of the activity, a desire to face challenges, better sportsmanship and also decrease the dropout rate from sport.
Deci and Ryan define extrinsic motivation as taking part in an activity in order to obtain a separate outcome. While Roberts (2001) describe it as people who are participating in order to gain material processions (medals, trophies) or for money (sponsorship) are extrinsically motivated. Extrinsic Motivation have levels that differ in terms of control (personal autonomy). At the lower end of the scale is external regulations, this is people who participate who are motivated for compliance, reward or punishment purposes (playing to please coaches or parents). At the other end of the scale are the build up of recognized and integrated rules. This is motivation that involves feelings of personal importance or synthesis with themselves (playing for fame or status). In some sports the top players have a very high social status. Peltierre et al (1995) suggests that extrinsic motivation contains four forums: 1.Extrinsic regulation: This is where behaviour/participation is regulated by external means such as rewards (medals/trophies) 2. Introjected regulation: Refers to when an athlete internalises the reasons for their actions (feeling of guilt) 3.Identified regulation: This is when people highly value an activity and engage because its important (Rugby in Leinster or footballers in Kerry). 4. Integrated Regulation: Peltierre et al (1995) describe this as an activity by choice out of coherence with other aspects of the person. An athlete will participate in a sport because they see it as important all though they might not find it pleasurable.
Biddle, S.W (2003) Motivation for physical activity in young people: entity and incremental beliefs about athletic ability. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21 (12), 973-989. Lochbaum, M.A (2008) Achievement goal profiles for self report Physical Activity Participation: Differences in Personality. Journal of Sports Behaviour, 30 (4), 470- 490. Morris, R.L (2009) The role of approach avoidance verses task and ego goals in enjoyment and cognitive anxiety in youth sport. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 7 (2), 185-203. Lee, M.A. (2008) Relationships Among values, Achievment Orientation, and attitudes in youth sport, 30 (5) 588-611.