Introduction
Dedicated participation in sport is one of the most common displays of enjoyment, interest, and activity. Athletes from childhood into adulthood highlight intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as main drivers of continued participation. Intrinsically motivated behaviors are defined as those that individuals find interesting and would do in the absence of operationally separable consequences (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Further, they fuel people’s psychological needs to feel competent and self-determined. Extrinsic motivation can either be self-determined or non-self-determined. Self-determined extrinsic reasons for engaging in an activity occur when the person fully endorses the values underlying his or her sport and volitionally participates (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). On the other hand, non-self-determined extrinsic motivation occurs when the person feels pressured and obligated to engage in the activity by either external (e.g., one’s coach) or internal (e.g., one’s feeling of guilt) forces (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). Existing literature has shown that intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation are key determinants in performance and sport persistence.
One vital relationship in encouraging positive intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is that between the coach and athlete. An effective coach-athlete relationship flourishes when the psychological needs of both parties are met. Mageau and Vallerand (2003) constructed a framework for the coach-athlete relationship by integrating features of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation (HMIEM). This framework emphasizes the importance of autonomy-supportive behaviors from coaches to enhance athletes’ motivation that drive feelings of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Mageau and Vallerand (2003) categorized seven autonomy-supportive behaviors for coaches: 1) provide as much choice as possible within specific limits and rules; 2) provide a rationale for tasks, limits, and rules; 3) inquire about and acknowledge others’ feelings; 4) allow opportunities to take initiatives and do independent work; 5) provide non-controlling competence feedback; 6) avoid overt control, guilt-inducing criticisms, controlling statements and tangible rewards; and 7) prevent ego-involvement from taking place. Operating within this framework encourages positive and productive coach-athlete relationships.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the autonomy-supportive behaviors outlined in Mageau and Vallerand’s (2003) model and to explain how coaches can implement them with their athletes. First, I will review SDT and the HMIEM to provide the background knowledge on which this model was formed. Then, each of the seven behaviors will be explained in further detail along with one example of empirical support. Finally, I will discuss the practical implications of the model.
Self-determination theory (SDT)
SDT is an approach to human motivation and personality that attempts to address the ‘how’ and why’ of human behavior (Occhino et al., 2014). It is underpinned by the hypothesis that humans seek to satisfy three psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Autonomy represents the desire to express choice and not to feel controlled or compelled to do something. Competence reflects a belief in one’s abilities and capacities to control outcomes. Relatedness concerns the need to feel connected, involved, supported, and consequently experience satisfying interpersonal relationships (Chow et al., 2016). When the psychological needs of the learner are met, intrinsic and self-determined extrinsic motivational qualities can grow and develop. For coaches, understanding how autonomy, competence, and relatedness influence athlete motivation is crucial in creating effective environments.
Hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (HMIEM)
Over the years, research has shown that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation occur on three levels of generality: situational, contextual, and global. These levels, along with social and mediating factors, lead to three types of consequences: affective, cognitive, and behavioral. The HMIEM consists of five postulates and five corollaries to explain the motivational determinants and consequences at three levels of generality as well as the interactions among motivation at the three levels of generality, while taking into account the complexity of human motivation (Vallerand, 2007). Table 1, taken from Vallerand (1997) “Toward a Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation” summarizes the postulates and corollaries of the hierarchical model.
Motivation at the global level can be viewed as a personality trait an athlete displays when interacting with the environment. These motivations and subsequent actions help make up one’s identity. Although research on the global level is limited, it is posited that parental relationships play a key role in global motivation (Vallerand, 2007). Additionally, long-term coach-athlete relationships may also contribute to this global level, as behaviors from both parties can shape and alter the way in which the athlete embodies their persistence and enjoyment in sport.
Motivation at the contextual level is the typical motivational orientation toward a specific context or a set of specific and related activities (Vallerand, 2007). Research on this level centers around work (or sport), interpersonal relationships (e.g., the coach), and leisure. The seven categories of autonomy-supportive behaviors coaches can exhibit (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003) greatly influence the motivation of the athlete. These autonomy-supportive behaviors are designed to drive perceptions autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Taking a slightly different approach, Ingledew, Markland, and Sheppard (2003) evaluated personality traits and their relationship to contextual motivation. They found that contextual intrinsic regulation was predicted by extraversion and conscientiousness; identified regulation by extraversion; introjected relation by neuroticism; and external regulation by less conscientiousness and less openness to experience*. These findings suggest that personality qualities may also influence motivation at the contextual level along with global motivation.
Finally, motivation at the situational level refers to the motivation individuals experience when engaging in a specific activity at a given moment in time. Situation motivation refers to a motivational state (Vallerand, 2007). Research has found that rewards and awards, competition, feedback, and choice impact situational motivation and perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
*The concepts of intrinsic, integrated, identified, introjected, and external regulation introduced by Deci and Ryan (2000) are outside the scope of this paper, yet are relevant to understand several topics throughout. Intrinsic regulation is the prototype of self-determined activity. Integrated regulation is the most complete form of internalization of extrinsic motivation. The individual identifies with the importance of the behaviors and integrates those with their sense of self. (The line between intrinsic and integrated regulation exists to emphasize that fully internalized extrinsic motivation does not typically become intrinsic motivation.) Identification regulation occurs when one recognizes and accepts a behavior as their own. Introjection regulation is partially internalized but has not really become part of the integrated set of motivations, cognitions, and after that constitute the self. External regulation is when individuals behave in a certain way to earn tangible rewards or avoid punishment. This behavior shows poor maintenance and transfer once contingencies are withdrawn.
The coach-athlete relationship model
Through the findings of SDT and the HMIEM, Mageau and Vallerand (2003) developed a motivational model that describes how coaches may influence their athletes’ intrinsic motivation and self-determined types of extrinsic motivation. The model outlined takes into account the coaching context, the coach’s behavior, the athletes’ perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, and finally the athletes’ intrinsic and self-determined extrinsic motivation. This model expands on ideas presented in an earlier review of coaches’ behavior and its impact on athletes (Vallerand and Pelletier, 1985). The following sections will review each of the seven autonomy-supportive behaviors presented in the model.
Providing choice within specific rules and limits
When designing practice, providing choice within specific rules and limits has shown to increase athletes’ intrinsic motivation. Simply put, presenting the option to choose between two or more conditions increases the desire to participate in the chosen activity.
Goudas et. al (1995) examined the effects of direct (practice) or a differentiated (inclusion) teaching style on 24 girls (mean: 13 ± 0.6 years) participating in track and field during physical education class. In the direct teaching style, most decisions were made by the teacher. The type and length of practice was set by the teacher, all students practiced at the same difficulty level, and instruction was done in a whole class setting. In the differentiated condition, student could choose the following: pace of practice, activities they wanted to practice, whether to be assessed or measured, methods of practice, and difficulty of practice.
The authors found that differentiated lessons produced higher intrinsic motivation and task involvement scores than direct lessons. Interviews conducted with students after the lessons reinforced the quantitative results found in the survey responses. Although the sample was small, the results suggest that a teaching style that provides choice can influence perceptions of autonomy and control.
Providing a rationale for tasks and limits
When activities are deemed uninteresting, it is common to introduce an external contingency, such as a deadline, reward, or goal (Reeve et al., 2003). However, such non-self-determined actions can be seen as controlling. Controlling actions that are imposed by others (e.g., coaches, teachers) negatively impact the self-determined motivation internalization process, thus leading to decreased performance and persistence in the activity (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). However, when instructors provide a rationale for executing a task, the task meaningfulness is more easily integrated into the learner’s feelings of motivation.
Reeve et al. (2003) applied features of SDT to measure motivation of students during a “boring” task under different conditions. 140 college students (102 females, 38 males) in sections of an introductory educational psychology class participated in the study. Participants were tasked with learning conversational Chinese via a two-part, 18-minute videotaped lesson. Participants were randomly split into four groups: control group, external regulation group, introjected regulation group, and identified regulation group. In the control group, a reason to try was not given. In the external regulation group, participants were told there would be an upcoming test on the material presented. In the introjected regulation group, participants were told learning Chinese is what good teachers ought to do. Finally, in the identified regulation group, participants were encouraged to try hard was because it was an opportunity to cultivate a useful skill. Also, the experimenter acknowledged the participants negative affect by empathizing that the material may be difficult and frustrating.
Experimenters measured perceived importance, perceived self-determination, and effort. The results showed that the presence of an identified reason significantly enhanced scores of perceived importance and perceived self-determination and showed a marginally significant effect on effort. Participants in the control, external regulation, and introjected regulation groups did not significantly differ on any of the measures.
Experimenters followed up with a second experiment. In the first experiment, the identified regulation group received both a reason to try and an acknowledgement of feelings. For the second experiment, the researchers only provided a reason to try (same reason as experiment 1). In the second experiment, researchers found that an identified reason to try significantly enhanced scores on perceived importance and perceived self-determination but not effort compared to the control group. This shows that providing an identified rationale about the task is enough to influence perceived importance and self-determination.
Although this study was not executed in a sport setting, the findings are relevant. By providing a rationale for a task that one might find boring, practitioners can increase feelings of importance and self-determination. Over time, these extrinsic rationales can align with a person’s sense of self, thus becoming self-determined.
Acknowledging the other person’s feelings and perspective
Another quality of autonomy-supportive coaches is that they ask about and acknowledge athletes’ feelings about tasks and rules. This act requires perspective taking on the coach’s part and shows that athletes are perceived by their coach as individuals with specific needs and feelings, and not as pawns that should be directed (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). Through the acts of listening to an athlete’s thoughts, a coach can improve feelings of autonomy and relatedness.
Koestner et al., (1984) conducted an experiment with 44 first and second-grade children (24 boys, 20 girls) engaging in an intrinsically interesting painting activity. The children were split into three experimental groups: a no-limits group, an informational-limits group, and a controlling-limits group. All participants received painting materials and guidelines about what to paint. In the no-limits group, participants received no limit-setting instructions. In the informational-limits group, participants received instruction in an autonomy-supportive way on how to respect the painting materials and the experimenter empathized with the children’s possible resentment toward the instructions. In the controlling-limits group, participants were given explicit rules on how to treat the materials and were told things they ‘must’ do. After 10 minutes, experimenters asked the subjects to finish. However, upon finishing, participants were left in the room for another 8 minutes with new papers, access to the paint materials, and were given the choice to continue painting or play with a puzzle. The number of seconds of free-choice time spent painting was the behavioral measure of intrinsic motivation.
The authors found that participants in the no-limits and informational-limits conditions spent significantly more free-choice time painting compared to the controlling-limits group. Also, there was no difference on intrinsic motivation between the no-limits and informational-limits groups. Thus, the authors concluded that when limits are set in an informational, autonomy-supportive manner, those limits did not impede on intrinsic motivation.
Although the study did not involve a back-and-forth conversation about feelings of the limits in place, the acknowledgment alone showed to be effective in supporting intrinsic motivation. Further research is needed in the sport setting, but the findings suggest that coaches who discuss reasoning behind certain activities with their athletes will promote intrinsic and self-determined extrinsic motivation.
Providing athletes with opportunities for initiative taking and independent work
It is common practice for coaches to provide a level of structure within practice environments. However, coaches who provide too much structure and support when it is not needed can be perceived as controlling. This controlling behavior will jeopardize athletes’ motivation by restricting their opportunities to take initiatives and to be creative (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). Thus, it is imperative that coaches who seek to be autonomy-supportive instead provide their athletes chances to decide what to do and how to do it.
Hollembeak and Amorose (2007) measured the relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and athletes’ intrinsic motivation. 280 collegiate athletes (146 males, 134 females) from a variety of sports completed questionnaires assessing perceived coaching behaviors, their own intrinsic motivation, and their perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
The authors found that perceived autonomy-supportive behavior in coaches positively impacted autonomy, and thus intrinsic motivation, whereas controlling behavior had the opposite effect. Controlling behavior also had a significant negative relationship with feelings of relatedness. The authors posited that controlling coaches may present themselves as dictators, thus emotionally distancing themselves from their players. Another finding was that coaches’ decision-making styles have the strongest relationship with intrinsic motivation. As a result, coaches should implement a more autonomy-supportive style where athletes’ choices and suggestions are heard so that the athletes become more intrinsically motivated.
Although this study utilized questionnaires rather than an intervention, the findings support the relationship framework that encourages coaches to allow athletes the ability to dictate their actions. By doing so, athletes will experience greater self-determined extrinsic and intrinsic motivation.
Providing non-controlling competence feedback
While the broad topic of feedback is extensive (see Wulf and Lewthwaite, 2016), Mageau and Vallerand (2003) focused specifically on positive feedback’s influence on intrinsic motivation. They outlined that positive feedback has two functional aspects: an informational aspect and a controlling aspect. The informational aspect provides the athlete with information about his or her competence, and the controlling aspect incites the person to reemit the behavior. When the informational aspect is more salient compared to the controlling aspect, positive feedback enhances competence. However, when the controlling aspect is more salient than the informational aspect, positive feedback will undermine intrinsic motivation.
Kast and Connor (1988) conducted an experiment in which they manipulated positive feedback to 240 third, fifth, and eighth-grade children (120 males, 120 females; 40 per gender per grade). The children completed four word-search puzzles and were instructed to identify as many words as possible. Children were split into four groups: no-feedback, informational feedback, controlling feedback, and mixed feedback. There were two experimental sessions in this study. In the first session, groups of children were given a booklet containing the four puzzles to complete. In the second session, the booklets were returned with the appropriate feedback message inscribed. After reading the feedback, the children were given interest and manipulation check questionnaires.
Interest scores in the controlling condition were significantly lower compared to the no-feedback and informational feedback conditions. Interest scores in the mixed condition were significantly lower for females than the informational and no-feedback conditions. On the other hand, interest scores in the mixed condition for males were significantly higher than the controlling condition. Informational feedback did not increase interest relative to no feedback amongst grades and gender.
The findings of this study highlight the importance in how feedback is provided to students (or athletes). Interestingly, there appears to be a difference in how males and females interpret feedback, implying that practitioners should be aware of these differences when working with these populations. In order for positive feedback to be beneficial, it must: 1) promote perceptions of autonomy and competence; 2) target behaviors that are under the athletes’ control; and 3) convey high but realistic expectations (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003).
Avoiding controlling behaviors
Controlling behaviors comprise of taking overt control, using controlling statements or guilt-inducing criticisms, and providing tangible rewards (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). These behaviors require the athlete to act in a certain way and the subsequent pressure can threaten the coach-athlete relationship or the athlete’s self-esteem. For coaching seeking to use autonomy-supportive strategies, it is imperative to be aware of these behaviors so that they can be avoided as much as possible.
One characteristic of overt control is parental pressure that youth athletes may face when participating in sport. Brustad (1988) studied 207 children (107 boys, 100 girls) between the ages of 9 and 13 years participating in a youth basketball league. Participants completed surveys to measure affect, intrapersonal perceptions, socialization influences, sources of worry, and team and individual ability factors.
The findings revealed that for both boys and girls, low perceived parental pressure was associated with higher season-long enjoyment. However, high perceived parental pressure was not predictive of high anxiety for these children, although it did approach significance for boys. These findings partially support the detrimental impact of overt pressure on intrinsic motivation.
Another study (Scanlan and Lewthwaite, 1986) examined predictors of sport enjoyment experienced by 76 male wrestlers, ages 9 to 14 years. The wrestlers were assessed through two questionnaires, one administered two weeks before an upcoming tournament and a second the morning of the tournament.
The authors found that wrestlers experienced greater intrinsic motivation when they perceived less pressure and fewer negative performance interactions with their parents and when they felt their parents and coaches were more satisfied with their overall performance. The first finding is particularly relevant to the coach-athlete relationship model in that parents and coaches are often in position to display psychological control through controlling statements or guilt-inducing criticism. Because the wrestlers were more intrinsically motivated when fewer controlling actions were displayed, this supports that psychological control should be avoided.
Unlike behaviors of overt control, controlling statements, and guilt-inducing criticisms, there is debate about the effect of tangible rewards on intrinsic motivation. Rewards were once highly recommended as a means of motivation. However, research has shown that they do not necessarily have a positive impact on intrinsic motivation (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003).
Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) tested the influence of rewards on intrinsic motivation in preschool children. 55 children (22 boys and 33 girls) were identified as being intrinsically motivated to engage in a drawing activity. Then, they were separated into three groups: an expected-reward condition, an unexpected-reward condition, and a no-reward control group. Each group member proceeded to independently draw pictures for the experimenter and receive (or not receive) a reward.
After the intervention, the children were observed in the following days to see how much time they allotted to drawing. The authors found that the children in the no-reward and unexpected-reward conditions spent significantly more time drawing compared to the expected-reward group. The authors argued that offering rewards for task engagement sends the message that the task is not interesting in itself and thus focuses people on extrinsic reasons for activity engagement.
When these findings are applied to sport, it calls into question the common practice of youth participants receiving a trophy at the conclusion of every season. If the reward serves as motivation for participation, it will drive non-self-determined extrinsic motivation. This level of motivation, as discussed above, does not promote the internalization of the behavior (e.g., participation in sport).
Overall, controlling behaviors such as taking overt control, using controlling statements, and using guilt-inducing criticisms should certainly be avoided. While there is some nuance to providing tangible rewards, the practice has shown to be detrimental to fostering intrinsic and self-determine extrinsic motivation. Practitioners can actively avoid these controlling behaviors in most contexts. When circumstances such as receiving rewards are apparent, coaches could remind athletes of the times where their intrinsic motivation drove their choice to participate in practice and training.
Preventing ego-involvement
Ego-involvement has been defined as athletes’ tendency to evaluate their performance by comparing themselves with others as opposed to self-referenced standards (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). In ego-oriented environments, behavioral outcomes consume the individual to the point where he or she no longer feels empowered to choose a different goal. Thus, feelings of self-determined extrinsic motivation suffer.
Beauchamp et al. (1996) conducted a 14-week study with 65 novice golfers (48 male, 17 female) to evaluate the effects of ego-involvement on motivation. The golfers were split into three groups: a cognitive behavioral group, a physical skills group, and a control group. The cognitive behavioral group was instructed through four phases: 1) a sport analysis phase; 2) an individual assessment phase; 3) a motivation phase; and 4) an integration phase. The physical skills group was taught the mechanics of putting. The control group was not provided instruction but were told that putting was a highly individualized skill and were encouraged to find their own style.
The novice golfers in the cognitive behavioral group reported greater intrinsic motivation, less use of introjection, and greater performance compared to the physical skills group and the control group. These findings indicate that coaches should become aware of and implement the skills that support improved performance and increased persistence within the sport.
The role of ego-involvement is another behavior that should be avoided in autonomy-supportive environments. The act of comparing oneself to others has shown to be detrimental to self-determined extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. This is important for coaches to realize so that they emphasize individual improvements in athlete performance rather than comparing that performance to others.
Summary of the coach-athlete model
The coach-athlete model outlined by Mageau and Vallerand (2003) requires an integration and understanding of complex behaviors that influence self-determined extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Because these motivations are paramount in driving long-term enjoyment and persistence within sport, coaches should aim to embody these behaviors with their athletes. More specifically, coaches should provide choice along with rationale for tasks while taking into account athletes feelings and perspective. Also, opportunities for athletes to direct their behavior and engage in independent work should be regularly provided. Feedback should be offered when it is positive and beneficial for the athlete. Behaviors such as overt physical control, psychological control, tangible rewards, and ego-involvement should be avoided. When practiced consistently, these principles will foster positive coach-athlete relationships which lead to greater feelings of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Perceptions surrounding autonomy-supportive coaching
The evidence reviewed shows the effect coaches can have when employing autonomy-supportive behaviors. Despite research being convincing toward these practices, teachers and coaches continue to display controlling behaviors toward their pupils. In education, teachers use more controlling motivational strategies than autonomy-supportive ones. They find autonomy-supportive strategies to be largely new and unfamiliar. Teachers, parents, and students believe incentives and rewards are optimal motivational strategies, and adults believe that the larger the reward, the more efficient it will be as a motivational strategy (Mageau and Vallerand, 2003). It is evident that there is a substantial gap between practitioners and researchers that must be shrunk in order for autonomy-supportive practices to become more commonplace.
There is some evidence that helps explain why this gap exists. Boggiano et al. (1993) conducted a study where students were placed in controlling or autonomy-supportive environments and tasked with solving analytical reasoning problems. The authors found that students in the controlling condition exhibited lower feelings of self-determination than students in the autonomy-supportive condition. In a follow-up experiment, students in the controlling condition performed significantly worse than students in the autonomy-supportive condition. However, despite the worse performance, compared to students in the autonomy-supportive condition, students in the controlling condition rated their teacher higher in three categories of perception: 1) how much they thought the teacher facilitated their learning to solve the problems; 2) how helpful they found the teacher’s hints and strategies; and 3) how effective they found the teacher. These results show that despite the absence of learning, the perception of teaching is present when teachers employ controlling behaviors.
This study along with others indicate one clear problem: control is perceived as a positive trait. Despite a preponderance of evidence to suggest otherwise, commonly held perceptions are difficult to uproot. Because control is viewed as a sign of enthusiasm and competence, practitioners are incentivized to act in a controlling manner. As a result, the application and acceptance of autonomy-supportive coaching continues to be met with resistance and ignorance. Until perceptions around control are shifted, controlling practices will proliferate the coaching industry. In this environment, it is athletes, not coaches, who suffer the most. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that coaches, athletes, and parents learn the positive effects of autonomy-supportive environments.
Practical implications
For coaches wishing to implement autonomy-supportive practice, what steps need to be taken? First, coaches must understand their own behavior and systems in which they operate. Coaches are often pressured to win at all costs—if the team does not perform, the coach may lose his or her job. Pressure to perform, however, encourages controlling behavior. Thus, it is crucial that the coach is able to separate the pressure to perform from the psychological needs of the athletes. Second, coaches must educate their players (and, if applicable, parents) about autonomy-supportive environments. Given that control is viewed positively, the only way to change that perception is to inform the people you interact with. Knowledge is the underpinning of change. Third, implement the seven autonomy-supportive behaviors outlined by Mageau and Vallerand (2003). To do that, reflect on the current way practices are executed. Do athletes have a choice in what occurs? Does the coach explain why certain things are done, and does he or she allow athletes to express frustration or dissent? Are athletes permitted to act on their own volition? What kind of feedback does the coach provide; does it encourage or undermine athletes’ motivation? What controlling behaviors does the coach display? Is playing time used as an incentive? Is the most talented athlete on the team the model for everyone else? Attempting to answer these questions and implement these steps shows a willingness to evolve as a coach. That’s the first step in better serving the athletes.
Conclusion
Mageau and Vallerand (2003) constructed a coach-athlete relationship model by interleaving concepts from SDT and the HMIEM. That model seeks to promote intrinsic and self-determined extrinsic motivation in athletes. Those motivations support the psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In order for coaches to endorse that behavior, seven conditions should be met. They include providing choice and rationale for tasks and limits, acknowledging one’s feelings and perspective, and allowing independent discovery to take place. Also, coaches should provide non-controlling competence feedback and avoid controlling behaviors such as physical control, psychological control, tangible reward, and ego-involvement. Although research has shown these methods to be effective, existing perceptions about control stand in the way of widespread adoption. Despite that obstacle, it is possible for coaches to implement autonomy-supportive behavior to improve athlete outcomes. Through education and application, the coach-athlete relationship model should thrive along with athletes’ needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
References
Beauchamp, P. H., Halliwell, W. R., Fournier, J. F., & Koestner, R. (1996). Effects of cognitive-behavioral psychological skills training on the motivation, preparation, and putting performance of novice golfers. The Sport Psychologist, 10(2), 157-170. doi:10.1123/tsp.10.2.157
Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M. (1993). Use of techniques promoting students' self-determination: Effects on students' analytic problem-solving skills. Motivation and Emotion, 17(4), 319-336. doi:10.1007/bf00992323
Brustad, R. J. (1988). Affective outcomes in competitive youth sport: The influence of intrapersonal and socialization factors. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10(3), 307-321. doi:10.1123/jsep.10.3.307
Chow, J. Y., Davids, K., Button, C., & Renshaw, I. (2016). Nonlinear pedagogy in skill acquisition: An introduction. London: Routledge.
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(4), 227-268. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
Goudas, M., Biddle, S., Fox, K., & Underwood, M. (1995). It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it! teaching style affects children’s motivation in track and field lessons. The Sport Psychologist, 9(3), 254-264. doi:10.1123/tsp.9.3.254
Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviors and college ATHLETES' intrinsic Motivation: A test of Self-Determination Theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17(1), 20-36. doi:10.1080/10413200590907540
Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Sheppard, K. E. (2004). Personality and self-determination of exercise behaviour. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(8), 1921-1932. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.021
Kast, A., & Connor, K. (1988). Sex and age differences in response to informational and controlling feedback. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(3), 514-523. doi:10.1177/0146167288143010
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233-248. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1984.tb00879.x
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129-137. doi:10.1037/h0035519
Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach–athlete relationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21(11), 883-904. doi:10.1080/0264041031000140374
Occhino, J. L., Mallett, C. J., Rynne, S. B., & Carlisle, K. N. (2014). Autonomy-Supportive pedagogical approach to Sports Coaching: Research, challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(2), 401-415. doi:10.1260/1747-9541.9.2.401
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a Rationale in an Autonomy-Supportive Way as a Strategy to Motivate Others During an Uninteresting Activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 183-207.
Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1986). Social psychological aspects of competition for male youth sport participants: Iv. predictors of enjoyment. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8(1), 25-35. doi:10.1123/jsp.8.1.25
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 271-360. doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60019-2
Vallerand, R. J. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: A review and a look at the future. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 59-83. doi:10.1002/9781118270011.ch3
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The optimal theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382-1414. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9
Comments
Post a Comment