The Florida State University

DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations

The Graduate School

11-12-2012

Motivation In High School Sport Athletes: A

Structural Equation Model
Kristin L. Zomermaand
The Florida State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd

Recommended Citation
Zomermaand, Kristin L., "Motivation In High School Sport Athletes: A Structural Equation Model" (2012). Electronic Theses, Treatises
and Dissertations. Paper 5466.

This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact
lib-ir@fsu.edu.

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

MOTIVATION IN HIGH SCHOOL SPORT ATHLETES:

A STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODEL

By
KRISTIN L. ZOMERMAAND

A dissertation submitted to the

Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems
College of Education
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2012

Kristin L. Zomermaand defended this dissertation on October 10, 2012.

The members of the supervisory committee were:

Robert Eklund
Professor Directing Dissertation

Lynn Panton
University Representative

Gershon Tenenbaum
Committee Member

Jeannine Turner
Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

ii

To Corey, I could not have done this without you.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people deserve acknowledgements for their help in this lengthy process. Thanks to Dr.
Robert Eklund for your guidance through this process. Thanks to Dr. Yanyun Yang for all your
knowledge and help during data analysis. Thanks to the faculty and staff at Louisiana College for
all your support over the last two years. Thanks especially to the assistance of my students at
Louisiana College; I appreciated your efforts and enthusiasm. Thanks to my family and friends
for your support. A special thanks to Corey Webster for his ideas and positive attitude.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ix
1.

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2

2.

CHAPTER 2 ..........................................................................................................................28
2.1

3.

Method .........................................................................................................................28
2.1.1 Participants .......................................................................................................28
2.1.2 Measures ..........................................................................................................29
2.1.3 Procedures ........................................................................................................31
2.1.4 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................32

CHAPTER 3 ..........................................................................................................................35
3.1

4.

Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
Literature Review...........................................................................................................2
1.2.1 Youth Sport Participation and Attrition .............................................................2
1.2.2 Self-Determination Theory (SDT) .......................................................................
1.2.3 Empirical Support for SDT ................................................................................7
1.2.4 Achievement Goal Theory ...............................................................................11
1.2.5 Motivational Climate .......................................................................................12
1.2.6 Empirical Links between SDT and Motivational Climate...............................17
1.2.7 Psychological and Behavioral Consequences of Motivation ...........................20
1.2.8 Multi-Level Modeling ......................................................................................21
1.2.9 Purpose and Hypotheses ..................................................................................21

Results ..........................................................................................................................35
3.1.1 Descriptive Statistics and Data Parceling ........................................................35
3.1.2 The Multi-Level Model....................................................................................41
3.1.3 Hypothesized and Modified Models ................................................................44
3.1.4 Indirect Effects .................................................................................................47

CHAPTER 4 ..........................................................................................................................51
4.1

Discussion ....................................................................................................................51
4.1.1 Discussion of Hypotheses ................................................................................51
4.1.2 Discussion of Indirect Effects ..........................................................................56
4.1.3 Limitations .......................................................................................................58
4.1.4 Future Research ...............................................................................................59
4.1.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................59

APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................61
A.

MEASURES .........................................................................................................................61

B.

CONSENT AND ASSENT FORMS ...................................................................................68

v

C.

IRB APPROVAL LETTERS ...............................................................................................70

D.

RECRUITMENT E-MAIL ....................................................................................................74

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................75
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................86

vi

List of Tables

Demographic Information ..................................................................................................28

Participant Sport Experience..............................................................................................29

Descriptive Statistics of the Manifest Variables ................................................................37

Correlation Matrix for the Manifest Variables .................................................................38

Standardized Loadings for Individual CFAs ....................................................................39

Reliability Statistics for Each of the Subscales..................................................................41

ICC and Design Effect Values for the Parceled Observed Variables ................................43

Model Fit Indices ...............................................................................................................44

Indirect Effects for Modified Model 2 ...............................................................................48

vii

List of Figures

Predicted relationships at the individual level ...................................................................24

Predicted relationships at the team level. ...........................................................................25

Predicted positive relationships at the individual level......................................................26

Predicted negative relationships at the individual level .....................................................26

Predicted positive relationships at the team level ..............................................................27

Predicted negative relationships at the team level .............................................................27

Standardized loadings and residuals for the hypothesized model. ...................................45

Standardized loadings and residuals for Modified Model 1 ..............................................46

Standardized loadings and residuals for Modified Model 2 ..............................................50

viii

Abstract
There is a movement in our culture today to keep young people physically active. Sport is one
avenue for physical activity, but teenagers involved in competitive sport often quit and never
return to any sort of physical activity (Vanreusal et al., 1997). In light of this, motivational
aspects of what keeps high school athletes involved in sport are important to consider. In the
current study, athletes on 31 high school sport teams were surveyed to assess their perceptions of
motivational climate, motivational needs, motivational regulations, and psychological outcomes.
In line with self-determination theory, results for the study showed that a perceived task climate
supported the athletes motivational needs. While relatedness and competence satisfaction were
integral parts of the model as anticipated, autonomy satisfaction did not have significant
associations with any other variable. Autonomous and controlled motivations were observed to
have significant relationships with the outcome variables of athletes perceived performance,
sport satisfaction, and intention to continue sport participation. Furthermore, a number of
variables were observed to act as potential mediators in the model. In sum, facets of sport
motivation including motivational climate and personal motivation regulations had an impact on
how satisfied high school athletes were in their sports, their perceptions of their performance,
and their intention to continue to participate in sport in the future.

ix

Chapter 1
Introduction
A poster on the wall of a high school gymnasium featuring a smiling teenager playing
basketball says: I used to play for my parents and my coach, but now I play for me. This poster
exemplifies the net message of most of the theories of motivation that sport psychology
researchers have been working with and developing in recent decades. How does one move
from playing for others to playing for oneself? In the following pages, topics concerning youth
sport participation are discussed. These topics include youth sport participation, motivational
theories, and constructs, psychological and behavioral consequences of motivation, and
hierarchical modeling. In this dissertation study, athletes motivation in high school sport was
assessed to predict their intention to continue participation in sport, sport satisfaction, and sport
performance.
The first topic examined in the present study is the intention of youth to continue in sport.
Youth sport participation patterns are discussed and factors associated with continuing in sport
are examined. One cannot discuss teenage participation without acknowledging that there are
several other activity options available, but the concern for this study is an athlete wishing to
continue in sport and being satisfied in the sport.
The primary factor in youth sport participation for the current study is youth athlete
motivation. Two theories of motivation dominate the sport psychology literature: selfdetermination theory and achievement goal theory. Self-determination and achievement goal
theorists speak of motivation from two different perspectives, but each describe fundamental
aspects of motivation in youth sport. Motivational climate is a construct related closely to
dispositional achievement goal theory, but instead of focusing on the nature of the individual,
motivational climate researchers focus on the environment surrounding the individual. The
coach is part of that environment and spends a great amount of time with the athlete. Coaches
have an immense impact on what happens in practice and on the playing field. The coach can
also be implicated in needs satisfaction support which is important in self-determination theory.
Therefore, the coachs role is valuable to discuss and evaluate.
In the current study, structural equation modeling and multi-level modeling are discussed
in relation to nested data. Athletes on teams have been considered to be nested data and the
relationships of the motivational variables within these teams are discussed. Issues within
1

structural equation modeling and multi-level modeling like intraclass correlations and data
parceling are also mentioned.
Several high school sports teams participated in this study. The athletes self-reports of
their perceptions of their coaches, motivational needs and regulations, and well-being in sport
were assessed using structural equation modeling. Results of the structural equation model were
evaluated and discussed including direct effects within the model and indirect effects to
determine if mediation was occurring. Finally, conclusions about how motivation affects the
outcomes of performance, sport satisfaction, and intention to continue participation are
addressed.
Literature Review
Youth Sport Participation and Attrition
Youth participation in sport has continually increased over the years (Ewing & Seefeldt,
2002), especially with the growth of agency-sponsored sport programs across the country
(Seefeldt & Ewing, 1997). However, as increasing numbers of younger athletes participate,
more and more teenagers are becoming inactive (Corbin, Pangrazi, & Le Masurier, 2004), which
some researchers believe is one of the causes of the highest youth obesity rates in history (Lee,
Wechsler, & Balling, 2006). Vanreusel et al. (1997) conducted one of the few longitudinal
studies on youth sport participation and adherence to sport. Their findings indicated three
categories of sport participation. The first category consisted of those that never participated in a
sport. If a child never participated in sport, they were not going to participate in sport in the
future. The second and third categories were recreational sport athletes and competitive sport
athletes. Those who competed recreationally as youth were more likely to continue to participate
in recreational sport, but that those who participated in competitive environments as youth were
most likely to leave sport as teenagers and never participate in sport again. Vanreusal et al.
(1997) did not offer psychological reasons for this participation-dropout pattern. However, the
differences in reasons for sport participation must be studied in relation to and the environment
within which sport activity takes place. Knowing the reasons and motivations young people
participate in sport can help directing the management of sport programs as to how to promote
those facets deemed important for their programs.
Attrition from sport can be attributed to psychological, physical, and social reasons
(Fraser-Thomas, Cote, & Deakin, 2008; Weiss, Kimmel, & Smith, 2001; Weiss & Smith, 2002).
2

Several factors distinguished adolescent swimmers who dropped out and those who persisted in
swimming (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008)). Adolescent sport drop-outs were more likely to have
specialized early, have fewer activities outside of swimming, and spend less time in free play
swims than those who persisted in their sport. Those who dropped out of swimming were also
less likely to experience any significant degree of one-on-one coaching. Drop-outs tended to
exhibit talent by winning races early in their swimming careers and, hence, were exposed to
more advanced training at very early ages. Drop-outs were also more likely to have fewer
friendships on their swim teams and to have parents who had been successful athletes themselves
(Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008). In additional studies, friendship and enjoyment within the sport are
important predictors of attrition and persistence, especially among young athletes (Weiss et al.,
2001; Weiss & Smith, 2002). In sum, a variety of factors have been highlighted as influential in
the choice to drop-out. These factors may play a role in the absence of or decline in participation
motivation (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008).
While Fraser-Thomas et al. (2008) indicated that drop-outs experienced a relative
absence of one-on-one coaching, they did not describe the type of coaching that these dropouts
had experiencedand this coaching may have also contributed to swimmer attrition. One such
study of how the coach may affect attrition was conducted by Barnett et al. (1992). These
researchers evaluated the impact of a coaching intervention on the attrition of the athletes.
Coaches were taught behaviors that would promote a positive environment for the athletes. The
desirable behaviors included reinforcement of effort and good performance, corrective
instruction, mistake contingent encouragement, and technical instruction. The coaches were also
instructed to focus on effort and enjoyment, and were told to keep a self-reflection journal. The
intervention discouraged certain behaviors as well, including non-reinforcement of positive
behavior, punishment, punitive instruction, and blame. They found that those athletes whose
coaches had received the intervention were more likely to continue their sport involvement and
were less likely to leave their sport because of a negative coach-related experience.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT)
Self-determination was first described as an individuals perception of the amount of
control that he or she feels over the environment and what happens to him or her (Deci, 1980).
As the theory has evolved, the theorists have broadened the theory to include more than the

singular issue of control. However, the idea that feeling self-determined promotes intrinsic
motivation and responsibility in individuals persists (Deci, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Deci and Ryan (1985) assert that there are three general types of motivation: intrinsic,
extrinsic and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation is the innate, natural propensity to engage ones
interests and exercise ones capacities (Deci & Ryan, 1985, p. 43). In other words, intrinsic
motivation is an individuals natural desire to accomplish a task. Extrinsic motivation, in its
least self-determined form, involves the desire to complete an assignment or task to earn a
reward or avoid a punishment (Deci, 1980). However, rewards or punishments do not need to be
present for motivation to be extrinsic. Extrinsic motivation is also characterized by reasoning
that originates externally from the individual, such as a young boy cleaning his room because his
parent has taught him that good children clean their rooms. The boy does not clean the room
because he finds enjoyment or intrinsic satisfaction from the task, but instead because of an
external value placed on the behavior that the child has internalized to some degree. Thus, the
motivation is extrinsic in nature. Finally, amotivation, which is motivation that does not have an
aim like intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, is evident by the complete lack of desire to complete a
task. All three forms of motivation are influenced by individual differences and the environment
(Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) is a sub-theory of
SDT. CET is based on the premise that each individual has basic needs and that the fulfillment
of those needs represents the basis for motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The three basic needs
essential in CET are autonomy, competence, and relatedness. These separate needs can work
together to produce self-determined motivation. Competence is the belief that one can complete
the task. When children choose to play a game that is too difficult for them, they will quickly
lose interest and move on to a task that is more within their skill set. Also, rewards and feedback
(or reinforcement), affect perceived competence which, in turn, produces intrinsic motivation if a
sense of autonomy is also present (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Autonomy is the feeling that the person
is in control of his/her actions and not being controlled by others. Activities that have selfdetermining properties produce a desire to do the activity for its own sake and not for the sake of
anything else. Allowing a state of free choice promotes an autonomous environment (Deci &
Ryan, 1985). The third need of CET is relatedness. Ryan and Deci (2000) state that relatedness
is a complex need that varies in intensity depending on the task. A person is able to have
4

intrinsic motivation on a solitary activity without feeling connected to another person, but on
another task may need to feel related to teammates or a teacher in order be intrinsically
motivated. They also state that relatedness would be essential for overall well-being because
humans are social beings.
Organismic Integration Theory. As previously stated, motivation is a
multidimensional construct. It is fluid and represents a continuum from amotivation to intrinsic
motivation. Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) is another sub-theory of SDT that is focused
upon the fluid process of internalization of motivation. Internalization is the process by which
one takes external motivators and makes these his or her own (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The
continuum begins with amotivation, and then moves through the four regulations of extrinsic
motivation represented in OIT. The first stage is called external regulation. External regulation
is characterized by one acting in order to gain rewards or avoid the consequences of the action.
This is the least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). An
illustration of this stage is a young boy participating in his sport only because his parents are
giving him money to do so. The second stage, introjected regulation, is ego-involved. The
athlete needs the approval of others to perform the task. Introjected regulation represents the
first step towards internalizing the values that are present in the situation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
The athlete now is participating in his sport not solely for the monetary reward, but also because
he knows that he would gain his parents approval. In the third stage, identified regulation, the
individual starts to acknowledge the purposes behind the task and identifies those values as his
own. Identified regulation is the beginning of a more self-determined form of motivation. At
this stage, the athlete starts to value participation for reasons like his own fondness for physical
fitness or existing sport friendships. Integrated regulation, the fourth stage, occurs when the
values that were once imposed extrinsically are not only owned by that individual, but he is also
able to fully integrate those values with other viewpoints on the matter and come to conclusions
on his own (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Finally, intrinsic motivation is the culmination of the theory
and represents the ideal motivational state (Ryan & Deci, 2000). External regulation and
introjected regulation are also known as the least self-determined or controlled motivation
regulations and, while still external in nature, identified and integrated regulations, along with
intrinsic motivation, are known as self-determined or autonomous motivation regulations
(Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose, 2009).
5

In OIT, the process of internalization is postulated to depend on several situational and

individual factors. Three factors are especially important given the basic needs of autonomy,
competence, and relatedness. These factors are competence, control, and conflict. When a
person feels competent, the process of moving from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation becomes
simpler (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For instance, the athlete who is only playing a sport because he
knows it will get him a reward from his parents may start to appreciate the sport for its own sake
if he feels competent in the sport. Assessment of control is also important in the internalization
process. If the individual feels out of control or feels undue pressure coming from external
sources, the internalization process may be hindered. On the other hand, if the athlete feels in
control of the situation, the internalization process will proceed smoothly to intrinsic motivation.
Finally, a sense of internal conflict will also hinder the process. For instance, if a girls one
desire is to play the piano, but her parents force her to play a sport instead, this will result in a
conflict of values. The sport involvement will only be extrinsically motivated because the true
intrinsic motivation is directed elsewhere (Deci & Ryan, 1985). If her parents support her piano
playing, she will not have a conflict of values, will be intrinsically motivated to perform, and,
ultimately, enjoy the experience more.
Competition or the experience of winning and losing is an essential part of sport. The
concept of competition implies that two individuals or teams will vie to overcome each other.
Competition as a motivator has been a source of contention in the literature because it is extrinsic
in nature to want to win and extrinsic motivation has negative connotations. Deci and Ryan
(1985) address the issue of competition as an extrinsic motivator. They acknowledge that
competition is extrinsic in that it is an external consequence for an activity. However, the degree
to which winning motivates participation varies. As the internalization process continues,
competition may become identified with the individual and integrated with the individuals
values. This would indicate a more self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. Yet, if the
pressure to win creates a need to win in order to increase self-esteem, this may undermine
intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
In summary, SDT is a multidimensional theory of motivation. The motivation continuum
ranges from amotivation to extrinsic regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation,
integrated regulation, and fully intrinsic motivation. The theory also maintains that an
individuals basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are necessary
6

for one to move along the continuum to intrinsic motivation. An athlete who feels in control, has
no conflict of values, and believes he is competent in his sport, and has positive personal
relationships will be intrinsically motivated to participate.
Empirical Support for SDT
Several researchers have attempted to empirically ascertain the legitimacy of SDT in
many different populations and situations (Deci, Eghari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Grolnick &
Ryan, 1989; Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007; Wilson & Rodgers, 2004). These populations and
situations range from youth to adult, classrooms to the playing field, and coaches to teachers.
Motivational strategies are important to study in each of these areas (Motl, 2007).
Satisfaction of needs. CET theorists state that there are three psychological needs that
are necessary to satisfy in order to produce intrinsic motivation: autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. McDonough and Crocker (2007) evaluated the degree to which these needs are
predictors of self-determined motivation. They especially looked at the significance of
relatedness, which they claimed was previously ignored in research. They found among adult
Canadian dragon-boaters, who row a canoe in teams of 18 to 20 people, that competence and
relatedness were the best predictors of self-determined motivation. Autonomy was not found to
be as strong of a predictor. Because being unified and following orders is imperative for dragonboating success, relatedness and competence established self-determined motivation. This may
clarify why relatedness rather than autonomy was more important in this particular study
(McDonough & Crocker, 2007).
The presence of any controlling or authoritative figure can have a negative impact on the
autonomy of the athletes (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Plant & Ryan, 1985) and being publicly selfconscious can also be detrimental to perceptions of autonomy (Plant & Ryan, 1985). In an
investigation of elementary school children revealed, however, that parents who supported
autonomy were shown to increase autonomy in their children and, in turn, intrinsic motivation
(Grolnick & Ryan, 1989). These children also had higher academic perceived competence and
performed better in school. In addition, Grolnick, Ryan, and Deci (1991) found that perceived
competence was a better predictor of academic performance than autonomy.
Need satisfaction has been studied in educational situations as well as sport (Black &
Deci, 2000). Children, and especially young adolescents, need to be engaged, stimulated, and
have a feeling of independence in activities in order for intrinsic motivation to be present
7

(Shernoff & Vandell, 2007). Teachers and coaches, therefore, need to promote autonomy and
challenge for their students or athletes. However, one study found that teachers provided
autonomy support if they perceived that their students were already intrinsically motivated
(Taylor & Ntoumanis, 2007). In contrast, the same researchers also found that the teachers who
had high levels of self-determined motivation to teach provided more autonomy and emotional
support to their students, which increases levels of intrinsic motivation in their students (Taylor
& Ntoumanis, 2007). Ferrar-Caja and Weiss (2002) found that students in elective courses felt
more autonomous and had more self-determined motivation than students in required courses.
They also found that students in elective courses had higher levels of perceived competence than
those in required classes.
Internal perceived locus of causality, the degree to which one perceives that he/she is the
primary cause of what happens in life, is closely related to SDT because autonomy is an essential
aspect of both concepts (Turban, Tan, Brown, & Sheldon, 2007). Turban et al. (2007) studied
perceived locus of causality in educational settings and related it to SDT. They found that
students who had an internal rather than external perceived locus of causality used more effective
study strategies and exerted more effort in their classes. In other words, the students believed
that they were in control of their studies and were more intrinsically motivated to work hard and
perform well in their classes.
In a closely related study of perceived control and motivation, researchers divided
motivation in terms of the level of control perceived by the students (Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand,
Larose & Senecal, 2007). The levels of control utilized by the researchers were high
autonomous/ high controlled, moderate autonomous/ moderate controlled, and high controlled/
amotivation. The high autonomous/high controlled group showed the most persistence and
intention to persist in school (Ratelle et al., 2007). Perceived control is related to higher levels of
intrinsic motivation and persistence in academic settings.
Ferrar-Caja and Weiss (2000) found that self-determined motivation was beneficial in
physical education classes. Students who perceived their class environment as promoting of
learning and participation felt more self-determined. The children also reported this type of
setting as more enjoyable and fun. Other researchers have reported that young people not only
experience more enjoyment when feeling autonomous and self-determined, they also report more
intentions to continue in the task in which they are participating (Chatzisarantis, Biddle, & Meek,
8

1997).
Standage, Duda, and Ntoumanis (2003a) also assessed the value of the psychological
needs posited by SDT. These researchers found that while competence was the largest predictor
of self-determined motivation, all of the psychological needs (competence, relatedness, and
autonomy) were essential to the presence of intrinsic motivation. Unlike some other studies
(Deci et al., 1994; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003), however, Standage et
al. (2003a) found that autonomy was not as strong of a predictor of intrinsic motivation as
competence or relatedness needs. This study also showed a connection between self-determined
motivation and intention to continue in physical activity. Wilson and Rodgers (2004) conducted
a similar study appraising needs satisfaction and intention to exercise; self-determined
motivation was again found to an important predictor of intention to continue to exercise.
Additionally, researchers trained exercise class instructors in an intervention featuring
key aspects of SDT (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2007). The researchers created two groups:
an SDT-trained instruction group and a control group. The SDT-trained instructors provided
autonomy support and positive feedback for the members of the exercise class. The leaders of
the control classes provided very little feedback and encouragement. The researchers found that
SDT class participants increased their levels of competence, perceived autonomy, and perceived
relatedness over time. The control group only increased in perceptions of competence. Those in
the SDT group attended class on a more regular basis, and had higher levels of affect than those
in the control group. Also, autonomy support and interpersonal involvement were found to be
predictors of intention to participate in exercise, supporting SDT. However, even though
participation in the SDT intervention classes was supposed to produce higher levels of selfdetermined motivation, increased introjected regulation was also observed. The authors
explained this by the apparent social comparison that is inevitable in a class situation (Edmunds
et al., 2007).
The relationship between intention to continue participation in physical activity and
autonomy support was also researched by Goudas and Biddle (1995). They found that where
there was an autonomy supportive environment, intrinsic motivation was higher. This led in turn
to higher intentions to exercise. However, competence was found to be mediated by
performance in its prediction of intrinsic motivation. The outcome of the task affected the level
of the competence which the participant felt and lowered or raised intrinsic motivation. Guay,
9

Boggiano, and Vallerand (2001) subsequently investigated the effects of perceived competence
and autonomy on intrinsic motivation and found that intrinsic motivation appears to manifest
itself only when both are experienced in some degree.
Coaches, teachers, and parents have considerable influence in producing a needs
supportive atmosphere in sport, physical education, and exercise settings (Papaiounnou,
Ampatzoglou, Kalogiannis, & Sagovits, 2008). If a coach promotes autonomy and uses praise
instead of punitive techniques, the athletes will acquire higher needs satisfaction and selfdetermined motivation, which includes intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and integrated
regulation (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2007). Also, coaches who utilize negative-focused coaching
strategies have a negative effect on the situational motivation of athletes (Conroy, Kaye, &
Coatsworth, 2006).
Coatsworth and Conroy (2006) found that coaches who were trained to support the
psychological needs of the athletes produced athletes with higher levels of self-esteem,
especially for those athletes who had low self-esteem before the coach training took place.
Likewise, Gagne, Ryan, and Bargmann (2003) found that gymnasts reported the highest levels of
well-being when they felt that their psychological needs were being satisfied. If the coach was
perceived to be personally involved, the gymnasts had higher levels of self-esteem, and if the
coaches and parents were autonomy supporting, the gymnasts were more likely to have a selfdetermined form of motivation. Interestingly, however, children of over-involved parents had a
more controlled form of motivation. Additionally, girls who had low self-esteem at the
beginning of the season seemed to benefit more from having a need supportive environment than
any other group (Gagne et al., 2003).
Furthermore, ones experience of the integration of motivation regulations affects not
only in-the-moment motivation, but also the persistence of intrinsic motivation over time
(Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Breire, 2001). Pelletier et al. (2001) conducted a prospective
study of adolescent athletes, assessing motivational aspects and persistence in sport at three
different time points. They found that athletes with self-determined motivation had the highest
rate of persistence across all three time points while athletes assessed as being externally
regulated were less likely to persist throughout the entire study. Amotivated athletes were the
most likely to drop out. Wilson and Rodgers (2004) also found that those who had higher levels
of self-determined motivation had higher levels of intent to continue physical activity than those
10

with less self-determined motivations.

Situational and personal factors. Even if the teacher and/or coach are autonomy
supporting, there are other factors that could undermine intrinsic motivation. One such factor is
event outcome (i.e., winning, losing) because of potential associated perceptions of success or
failure (Reeve & Deci, 1996). Game outcome was found to affect intrinsic motivation only
when the athletes felt pressure to win. Participants self-worth seemed dependent on an extrinsic
event and the pressure to preserve their self-worth may have undermined their intrinsic
motivation. When the athlete did not feel pressure to achieve a victory, intrinsic motivation was
not affected (Reeve & Deci, 1996).
Gender is one personal factor that may be observed to act as moderating variable of need
satisfaction in SDT. Ntoumanis (2001a) found that females in physical education classes need to
feel more relatedness than males do. He also found that perceived competence seemed to be the
most important factor for building intrinsic motivation regardless of gender. Overall, Ntoumanis
(2001a) found that the satisfaction of all three psychological needs were necessary for fully selfdetermined motivation.
Achievement Goal Theory
Some athletes seem to prefer competition while the sole purpose for others appears to
relate to self-improvement. Achievement motivation theoretical perspectives have been evident
in psychology for decades. deCharms (1968), for example, described achievement motivation as
the disposition to strive for satisfaction derived from success in competition with some standard
of excellence, (p. 181). This definition implies that motivation is a disposition or characteristic
of a person to focus on a goal and be motivated to achieve that goal. Proponents of achievement
goal theory (AGT) utilize this trait perspective as well (Nicholls, 1984).
Defining goal orientations is complex. Two facets of AGT are commonly discussed.
The first is the aforementioned dispositional achievement goal orientations (Nicholls, 1984).
The second is goal involvement varies from moment to moment, and is more situationally
dependent (Ames. 1992). A person can have a mastery goal for a task in one situation, and
another goal, as in wanting to perform better in the competition, in a different situation. Both of
these viewpoints are discussed throughout the coming sections.
Task and ego orientation. Athletes achievement goals can be divided into two main
goal orientation categories: ego and task orientation (Duda, 1989; Nicholls, 1984). Having an
11

ego (or performance) orientation means that a person is predisposed to view success in terms of
winning or in comparison to others. Having a task (or mastery) orientation indicates a will to
improve oneself in the task that one is undertaking (Duda, 1989; Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, &
Catley, 1995; Duda & White, 1992; Grieve, Whelan, Kottke, & Meyers, 1994; Nicholls, 1984;
Williams & Gill, 1995). It must be noted that these are not ends of a continuum, but instead a
multidimensional approach can be utilized in which an athlete can be both high in task
orientation and ego orientation (Wang & Biddle, 2001).
An athlete who is high in task orientation tends to take an internal perspective to judge
him or herself (Nicholls, 1984). Also, a task-oriented athlete tends to focus on factors that are in
his or her control, such as effort. Those who are task-oriented relate increased effort with
increased ability, and take greater pride when mastering a skill (Nicholls, 1984). For instance, a
swimmer who is high in task orientation will increase effort to improve her personal times rather
than focusing on winning a race in most cases. If the swimmer was low in task orientation,
personal improvement would not be the primary motivator in increasing effort.
In contrast, having high levels of ego orientation indicates a tendency for the athlete to
strive to win competitions and compares personal performance with an opponents or even a
teammates performance (Duda, 1989; Duda & White, 1992; Duda et al., 1995; Grieve et al.,
1994; Nicholls, 1984; Williams & Gill, 1995). Ego-oriented athletes tend to take an external
perspective and focus on these factors and their effects on performance (Nicholls, 1984; Vealey,
Hayashi, Garner-Holman, & Giacobbi, 1998). Those individuals who are ego-oriented are also
less likely to relate effort to success, but instead attribute successes to their ability (Duda & Hall,
2001). For example, an ego-oriented athlete may fail to exert high levels of effort when
confronted with failing to win a competition (Martin & Gill, 1991).
Motivational Climate
Although deCharms (1968) described achievement motivation as dispositional, he
claimed that motivation can be changed given an ego-involving or task-involving situation. The
idea that many factors affect an athletes goal orientation has been persistent in the literature.
Many situational and environmental factors are influential on the goal orientation of an athlete.
Motivational climate is the perceived environmental influence on the athletes. The athletes
perceptions and interpretations of the situational influences are the central factors (Ames, 1992).
Perception is the assigning of others behaviors to certain categories, and, thereby, assigning the
12

individual as to what kind of person s/he is (Barrett, 2006). In the case of motivational climate,
the athletes perceptions of their coaches, teammates, and parents behaviors categorize the
motivational climate into one of two categories. The motivational climate can be perceived as
task-involved (mastery) or ego-involved (performance) as in achievement goal research. A taskinvolved climate is one that is perceived to require a focus on the mastery of tasks and
improvement. An ego-involved climate is one that is perceived to require a focus on winning
competitions or being better than others. Just as in goal orientation research, mastery climate is
also thought to be more beneficial to the athlete than an ego-involved climate (Ames, 1992).
Perceived mastery climate has been shown to have a positive relationship with overall
satisfaction and higher perceived ability than performance climates (i.e. ego) (Boixados, Cruz,
Torregrosa, & Valiente, 2004). Those in a mastery climate were also more likely to have
positive views of fair play, while those in performance oriented climates were more likely to
support cheating as a way to get ahead in sports (Boixados et al., 2004).
In an experiment testing the effects of an ego-involved condition versus a task-involved
condition on the self-esteem and enjoyment of individuals on a novel task, researchers found that
the ego-involved condition led to less free-choice task participation and less enjoyment of the
task (Ryan, Koestner, & Deci, 1991). Ryan et al. (1991) hypothesized that when the
environment is ego-involved ones self-esteem is put at risk because it is contingent upon the
outcome of the situation as in a win or a loss. Seeing the activity through to the outcome, then, is
necessary in order to safeguard ones self-esteem.
Verbal feedback from those around the athlete has been shown to have a substantial
impact on the perceptions of the motivational climate. Merely the presence of any type of
feedback was shown to increase perceptions of both task and ego oriented climates (Viciana,
Cervello, & Ramirez-Lechuga, 2007). In a Smith, Fry, Ethington, and Li (2005) study, high
school female basketball players who perceived the verbal feedback from the coach as positive
and encouraging were more likely to view the climate as mastery oriented. On the other hand, if
the verbal feedback was viewed as negative and punitive, the climate was most likely to be
perceived as performance oriented. This study seems to show the direct connection between
coach behaviors and perception of climate.
Motivational climate and achievement goals are intertwined. However, motivational
climate seems to have been observed to have a greater impact on goal orientations than goal
13

orientations have on motivational climate. Gano-Overway and Ewing (2004), for example,
found that collegiate students participating in physical education classes changed their goal
orientations to match the perceived motivational climate of the class. A student who was high in
ego orientation at the onset of a class that was perceived as having a mastery involved climate
would experience a change in goal orientation to task as the class progressed. The opposite was
also found to exist. If a student who was high in task orientation experienced a performance
involved class, s/he would become more performance oriented over the duration of the class.
Because of these findings, the researchers concluded that teaching or coaching style would have
a significant impact on students or athletes views of how they measured their own improvement.
Authority figures are extremely influential on the climate of the situation (Ames, 1992).
Ames (1992) found that teachers create a positive or negative classroom environment. Others
have found similar results in sport psychology research. Reinboth and Duda (2006) claim that
coaches have a strong influence on the athletes perceptions of the climate and upon the athletes
feelings of competence. It also appears to be the case that athletes perceiving a task-involved
climate tend to have a more positive view of their coaches than those who perceive an egoinvolved climate (Magyar & Feltz, 2003).
Several studies have focused on coach-initiated motivational climate. Coach-initiated
climate focuses on the role of the coach in creating the climate for the athlete. Bengoechea and
Strean (2007) found in a qualitative study that coaches were a large source of motivation for
youth athletes. They found that coaches were a source of perceived pressure, of support, of
control, and of motivational climate. All of these, in turn, affect motivation. In addition,
researchers found that type of coach was the strongest predictor of perceived climate
(Papaioannou, Ampatzoglou, Kalogiannis, Sagovits, 2008). Another study compared coachinitiated climate to general contextual climate (Cervello et al., 2007). The coach-initiated
climate played a much more significant role for the athlete than any other contextual factor.
Athletes who were in a coach-initiated learning-oriented climate were more likely to have higher
levels of focus and flow experiences (Cervello et al., 2007).
Childrens perceptions of climate and their coaches influence on that has been shown to
consistently endorse mastery climate as favorable to performance climates (Cumming, Smoll,
Smith, & Grossbard, 2007). Cumming et al. (2007) found that children who perceived the
climate to be mastery oriented liked their coach more and enjoyed playing for their coach more
14

than if they perceived the climate as performance oriented. Also, those who perceived the
climate as mastery-focused thought more highly of their coach, perceived the coach to be more
sport knowledgeable, and a better teacher of skills. In addition, they were more likely motivated
to play for their coach in the future. This study also showed that winning did not affect the
perception of climate that the children had, but did affect the view of the coach as sport
knowledgeable or not. Winning, overall, was not considered very important to the youth who
ranged in age from 10 to 15.
Because coaches seem to have a substantial impact on motivational climate, interventions
focusing on the development of mastery oriented coaching styles are vital. Several different
coaching interventions have been set in place by recreation departments, leagues, and schools in
order for coaches to have better training (Smith, Smoll, & Cumming, 2007). Because these
organizations recognize the importance of positive coaching styles, it is important for quality
interventions based on theoretical research to be implemented.
Smith et al. (2007) have conducted research implementing a coaching intervention
focused on producing a positive task-involved climate. The intervention used was the Mastery
Approach to Coaching (MAC), which was adapted from an earlier intervention, Coach
Effectiveness Training (CET) (Smith, Smoll, & Curtis, 1979). This intervention is meant to
enhance the coachs ability to support his or her athletes in a mastery supportive way, thus
producing a mastery climate. In the study, the intervention was used in pairing to show if there
was reduced anxiety in athletes whose coaches were exposed to the intervention (Smith et al.,
2007). While the intervention did not significantly produce a different motivational climate
compared to a control group (the control group was high in task-involvement as well), they did
find lower rates of attrition in the intervention group versus the control group (Smith et al.,
2007). Smoll, Smith, and Cumming (2007) found, using the MAC intervention, that teaching the
coaches concrete methods of creating a mastery involved climate also affected the athletes
dispositional goal orientations. Those coaches who received the training were more effective in
creating task-orientations over the length of the season in their athletes than the coaches in the
control group where athletes goal orientations did not change over the course of a season.
Differing coaching styles may produce differing motivational climates. Adult athletes
preferred the positive feedback, training and instruction, and democratic coaching styles over
autocratic and social support styles (Sherman, Fuller, & Speed, 2002). However, this may not be
15

true for youth athletes. Turman (2001) found that the age of the athlete influenced which
coaching style the athlete preferred. Older athletes, in this study, were found to need less social
support than younger athletes. For instance, a senior on a particular team would need less
encouragement from the coach than a freshman on the same team.
Parents and peers can influence perceived climate as well. One study found that the
combined pressures from both parents and coaches resulted in maladaptive psychological and
behavioral outcomes. However, if both parents and coaches promoted a positive mastery
climate, the athletes reported better overall well-being (Ommundson, Roberts, Lemyre, & Miller,
2006). Friendships and peers also affect the climate. If friendships do not exist in sport,
motivation may be hindered (Patrick et al., 1999). In a qualitative analysis, Vazou, Ntoumanis,
and Duda (2005) found that peer-initiated climate takes on most of the same characteristics as
coach-initiated climate with a few exceptions. Peer-initiated climate, unlike coach-initiated
climate, includes issues of intra-team conflict and relatedness to teammates. This finding
supports the previously mentioned assumption of Patrick and colleagues (1999) that friendships
are important for promoting motivation. Teammates needed to feel connected to each other to
encourage a mastery climate. Also intra-team conflict like misunderstanding of roles and
jealousy may negatively affect the perception of climate especially for youth sport teams.
A related study looked at the effect of motivational climate on group cohesion (Hueze,
Sarrazin, Masiero, Raimbault, & Thomas, 2006). Group cohesion was defined in two ways:
group cohesion-task and group cohesion-social. Task cohesion is the ability of the team to work
together to accomplish a specific task. Social cohesion is how well the team gets along on a
personal level. The researchers found that if the team perceived a mastery climate, they were
more likely to have better task and social cohesion. The researchers also found that over time a
mastery climate led to higher levels of collective efficacy in the sport. Yet, an ego involved
climate led to lower levels of both task and social cohesion. The authors speculated that an ego
involved climate may interfere with the natural social growth of a team towards each other
causing lower cohesion (Hueze et al., 2006). An additional study found that performance
oriented climates may cause too much dissonance between players who are constantly being
compared to each other to afford the development of task or social cohesion (Ommundson,
Roberts, Lemyre, & Miller, 2005).
Although motivational climate is influenced by all people in the situation, coaches seem
16

to have the most influence in a sport situation (Smith et al., 2007). However, intervention studies
focused on producing a mastery climate are rare. Smith et al. (2007) suggested the need for
replication and further intervention studies to be conducted to verify the validity of MAC and
other interventions. These interventions come in the form of coach training programs which
provide coaches with a variety of learning opportunities and are considered valuable by the
coaches (Lemyre, Trudel, & Durand-Bush, 2007; Vargas-Tonsing, 2007). Climate seems to
influence how an athlete perceives his or her coach and also can affect the athletes perception of
his or her performance or level of success.
Empirical Links between SDT and Motivational Climate
Many factors affect a persons motivation including cognitive, affective, perceptual, and
situational factors (Papaioannou, Milosis, Kismidou, & Tsigilis, 2007). This is evident in the
theories discussed to this point. Yet, are SDT and goal orientation completely separate from
each other? The factors which affect motivation may link the two theories to each other.
Ntoumanis (2001b) states,
high task orientation can fulfill one or more of these needs (competence, autonomy,
relatedness) and, therefore, can enhance self-determined motivation. In contrast, high
ego orientation, especially coupled with low perceptions of competence, is not conducive
to the satisfaction of these needs. (p. 399).
Hence, factors linking the two theories have been studied. Standage and Treasure (2002) found a
strong relationship between task orientation and self-determined motivation for 12 to 14 year
olds in physical education classes. If an individual was high in task orientation no matter the
level of ego orientation that s/he had, s/he would be more likely to have high levels of selfdetermined motivation. Those who were low in task orientation had higher levels of external
regulation than any other group, and those that had high ego orientation and low task orientation
had the highest levels of amotivation than any other group.
Models have been developed to test the relationships between task and ego orientation
and SDT constructs. One such study with Asian children concluded that task orientation and
perceived competence explained the majority of the variance in intrinsic motivation. In other
words, if an individual was task oriented and perceived that she was competent in her ability to
accomplish the task at hand, she would be intrinsically motivated towards the task. Task and ego

17

orientation was found to be related weakly to each other in this study, but ego orientation was not
related at all to intrinsic motivation (Sproule, Wang, Morgan, McNeill, & McMorris, 2007).
In one study, researchers linked perceived competence, intrinsic motivation, and task
orientation when concerned with physical activity participation (Papaioannou, Bebetsos,
Theodorakis, Christodoulidis, & Kouli, 2006). They found that there was a link between the
needs satisfaction of SDT and goal orientation theory in that those who were task-oriented and
intrinsically motivated were more likely to participate in physical activity. Ntoumanis (2001b)
found that if one was high in task orientation, he or she would be more likely to have high levels
of intrinsic motivation no matter the level of ego orientation of the person. Also, if one was low
in task orientation and high in ego orientation, levels of intrinsic motivation were found to be
lower.
Other researchers have looked at how certain types of goals affect intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation (Vansteenkiste, Matos, Lens, & Soenens, 2007; Vansteenkiste, Timmermans, Lens,
Soenens, & Van den Broek, 2008). These researchers state that there are two types of goals:
intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic goals are about improvement and self-satisfaction while
extrinsic goals focus on power, being better than others, and attractiveness. These are similar to
the goals of task and ego, in which task would be intrinsic and ego would be extrinsic. These
researchers found that having intrinsic and extrinsic goals at the same time would be detrimental
to performance at that moment. They suggest that a person could have both intrinsic and
extrinsic goals, but that when completing a specific task, one type of goal takes precedence in the
moment (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007).
How motivational climate affects self-determined motivation has been observed in
previous research. Cox and Williams (2008) found that mastery climate and teacher support was
positively related to needs satisfaction of autonomy, relatedness, and competence and overall
intrinsic motivation. Perception of a mastery climate and teacher support was especially
important for the need of relatedness, and these variables were the strongest predictors of selfdetermined motivation in youth athletes. Parish and Treasure (2003) found that a mastery
climate was positively related to more self-determined motivation, while a performance climate
was related to less self-determined motivation in middle school physical education classes.
Individual characteristics also seem to influence the perception the motivational climate.
In one study, it was demonstrated that a person is more inclined to perceive the environment as
18

task-involved if that person is also task-oriented. These individuals also had higher levels of
intrinsic motivation than those that were considered ego-oriented (Standage, Duda, &
Ntoumanis, 2003b). Skill level and age of the athlete were also examined as personal
characteristics that may affect perception of the climate for adolescent gymnasts. The results of
the study showed that perception of the climate did not change depending on the skill level of the
athlete. Yet, the older the gymnast was, the more likely she was to have higher levels of ego
orientation (Halliburton & Weiss, 2002).
Athletes perceptions of a positive motivational climate are not solely about the coach
generating a task-focused environment. A positive climate should also enhance enjoyment of the
activity, increase interest in sport, and produce positive future expectations (Newton, Watson,
Kim, & Beacham, 2006). Newton et al. (2006) suggested that in order for these essential
motivators to be realized, the climate must emphasize caring, goal-setting, and individual
responsibility for improvement. The idea that self-responsibility is an important aspect of a
positive motivational climate relates climate to SDT. A positive climate allows the athlete to
have a sense of autonomy and may help to increase intrinsic motivation.
In related research of needs satisfaction to motivational climate, university athletes were
asked about the perceived climate and how their perceived needs satisfaction changed over the
course of a season (Reinboth & Duda, 2006). They found that the needs of autonomy,
relatedness, and competence were positively related to a task-involving climate. An egoinvolving climate was not related to competence and autonomy in either direction, but was
negatively related to relatedness. This seems to indicate that when a coach puts emphasis on
outcomes, coach-athlete and athlete-athlete relationships might be affected (Reinboth & Duda,
2006).
The findings of these studies demonstrate that the theories of motivation most prevalent
in sport literature do not stand alone. Constructs among the theories are interrelated, which adds
to the complexity of explaining motivation. When combining the theories, however, a more
complete and accurate depiction of individual motivational states can be represented. This is not
a new idea. Deci and Ryan (1985), in fact, mention the role of goals and the effects of the
environment on self-determined motivation. Despite the recognition of the need for further
research, it was not until recently that researchers attempted to validate the theoretical links
among the theories.
19

Psychological and Behavioral Consequences of Motivation

Vallerand (1997) postulated that three levels of behavioral consequences exist: cognitive,
affective, and behavioral. Examples of these behavioral effects are mentioned by Vallerand
(1997). The psychological and behavioral consequences vital to persistence in sport are many,
but for the purpose of the present study, performance which is a behavioral consequence,
intention to continue sport participation which is a cognitive consequence, and the affective
consequence of sport satisfaction are assessed.
Performance is not a variable that has been used as an outcome of motivation often in the
literature. However, Vallerand and Losier (1999) suggest that performance is an essential
motivational outcome that should be studied. Gillet, Vallerand, Amora, and Baldes (2010) used
an objective measure of performance, results in a judo tournament, as an outcome. Cumming et
al. (2007) utilized won-loss record as a predictor of athletes perceptions of the coach, but not as
a motivational outcome. Being able to perform well is important to most participants in sport
including athletes, coaches, and parents. However, does being intrinsically motivated or having
a specific motivational climate improve an athletes or teams performance? Coaches may be
less likely to adopt a different coaching style promoting a needs supportive task-involved climate
if their athletes performances do not improve.
In light of the fact that the act of participation in sports is a consequence of the
combination of environmental factors acting on an individuals motivation, assessing the
participants intentions to participate is important. Intention to participate has been used as a
variable to assess the likelihood of future physical activity participation in several studies in
relation to motivation (Bray et al., 2005; Loney, Standage, & Lewis, 2008; Mouratidis,
Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Sideridis, 2008; Standage et al., 2003b). Mouratidis et al. (2008)
proposed that intention to continue participation is an indicator of ones level of engagement in
the activity; while Bray et al. (2005) suggest that intention to participate is also an indicator of
level of enjoyment in the activity. Finally, intention to participate can be used as a predictor of
actual behavior (Hagger et al., 2003), which is the primary focus of the present study.
Intrinsic motivation and a positive task-involved climate have been associated with the
subjective well-being and sport satisfaction of athletes (Boixados et al., 2004; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Satisfaction in sport has also been linked to persistence in sport (Barnett et al., 1996).
The more athletes are satisfied with their experiences in sport, the more likely they are to
20

continue their participation (Barnett et al., 1996). Because satisfaction in sport is a predictor of
sport adherence, it is of value to assess in the present study.
Multi-Level Modeling
The use of multi-level modeling as a statistical procedure is a recent addition to sport
psychology literature. Researchers have realized the importance of using this particular
modeling technique in order to accurately represent nested data. In the past, single-level linear
models have been used to show the relationship between group variables and individual
variables. While this seemed to be the best representation of the data in the past, this method
problematically required researchers to ignore the violation of the assumption of independence of
the data (Hoyle, Georgesen, & Webster, 2001; Papaioannou et al., 2004). Violating this
assumption leads to larger degrees of Type I error and a greater chance of the data being
statistically significant while, in truth, the data may not be significant (Papaioannou et al., 2004).
According to Raudenbush and Byrk (2002), hierarchical modeling is essential to
educational research, as in the case of students in classrooms, which is very comparable to
athletes on sports teams. Students in classrooms have three points of influence: a) individual
growth throughout an academic year, b) the effects of personal characteristics and experiences,
and c) the influence of classroom organization, teacher characteristics, and behaviors. These
variables are nested within each other making a multi-level model. The first level consisted of
the observations over time, which was nested in the individual person with personal
characteristics, which was nested in the classroom environment (Raudenbush & Byrk, 2002).
This sequence is easily transferred to the team sport environment. The individual performance
of an athlete is nested in the athletes with their own personal characteristics, which are nested in
teams and are affected by the behaviors and characteristics of the coach. In other words,
researchers cannot dismiss the nested nature of athletes on teams when assessing personal
characteristics or performance of athletes.
Purpose and Hypotheses
As discussed previously, participation in youth sport declines rapidly in the teenage
years. Motivation plays a role in why youth do not intend to continue in sport, and the coach has
an influence on the motivation of the athlete. Recently, however, the coachs influence on the
team has been assessed using multi-level analyses. The purpose of the current study was to
continue evaluating the coachs influence on youth sport motivation using aspects of SDT and
21

motivational climate in a multi-level model. In the proposed study, the relationship of

motivational climate with the athletes need satisfaction and motivation regulations, and in turn
the relationships with the athletes psychological outcomes such as intention to continue in sport
using a hierarchical model were examined. Controlling for the effects of the team as a group
provided more accurate measures of effects at the individual level.
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the proposed structures at each level. Figure 1 shows the
proposed level 1 structure in a path diagram. Figure 2 is a path model for level 2. All of the
variables from level 1 were also to be assessed at level 2 except for intention to continue in sport,
which was to be a level 1 outcome only. Figures 3 and 5 depict the proposed positive
relationships at level 1 and level 2. Figures 4 and 6 depict the proposed negative relationships at
level 1 and level 2.
Within the first two hypotheses for the current examination, probable associations at each
level are delineated. For the additional hypotheses, specific aspects of the proposed model are
defined. Motivational climate has been assessed as an individual level and team level variable
(Cumming et al., 2007). However, because of team effects, climate should be a stronger
predictor at the team level than at the individual level. Based on pilot study data, coaches said
that relatedness was a very important aspect of motivating athletes (Zomermaand, 2010).
Therefore, in this model, the athletes need of relatedness satisfaction was assessed in
comparison to competence and autonomy. Because the coaches in the pilot study also mentioned
providing success to athletes, competence satisfaction may be just as important as relatedness
satisfaction (Zomermaand, 2010). Hence, this inquiry focused on the difference between
relatedness satisfaction and autonomy satisfaction within the model. Furthermore, prior research
has shown that intrinsic motivation has been related to intention to continue in physical activity
(Papaioannou, 2006), and intrinsic motivation is more closely related to integrated regulation
than identified regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This study investigated this relationship at the
individual and team levels. Finally, prior research indicated that an athletes needs satisfaction
(Gagne et al., 2003) and mastery climates produce improved athlete satisfaction in sport
(Ommundsen et al., 2003). This relationship was examined further in the proposed study.
The hypotheses tested in this investigation included:
1. Task-involved climate, motivational needs satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, integrated
regulation, and identified regulation would be positive predictors of self-perceived
22

performance and sport satisfaction at the individual and team levels, and intention to
continue in sport at the individual level.
2. Ego-involved climate, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation would
inversely predict sport performance and sport satisfaction at the individual and team
levels, and intention to continue in sport at the individual level.
3. Motivational climate would have stronger associations with the psychological outcomes
at level 2 than at level 1.
4. Relatedness satisfaction would be a better predictor of the psychological outcomes within
the model than autonomy satisfaction at level 1 and level 2.
5. Intrinsic motivation and integrated regulation would have stronger associations with
intention to continue in sport than identified regulation.
6. Athlete needs satisfaction (competence, relatedness, and autonomy) and a positive
mastery climate would be better predictors of sport satisfaction than identified regulation,
integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation.

23

Intrinsic
Motivation

Autonomy

Performance

+
+

+
+

Integrated
Regulation

Task

+
+
+

Identified
Regulation

+
+

+
+
+

Relatedness

Satisfaction

Introjected
Regulation

External
Regulation

Ego
+

Competence

Amotivation

Figure 1: Predicted relationships at the individual level.

24

Intention

Figure 2: Predicted relationships at the team level.

25

Figure 3: Predicted positive relationships at the individual level.

Autonomy

Ego

Relatedness

Competence

Introjected
Regulation

Performance

External
Regulation

Satisfaction

Amotivation

Intention

Figure 4: Predicted negative relationships at the individual level.

26

Figure 5: Predicted positive relationships at the team level.

Figure 6: Predicted negative relationships at the team level.

27

Chapter 2
Method
Participants
The participants were 342 high school athletes aged 14 to 18 years from 31 high school
teams in the southern and midwestern United States. There were 208 males and 134 females
participating in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, and softball. Demographic information is
provided in Table 1 and the participants sport experience is provided in Table 2. Because the
athletes were minors, participation in the study required parental informed consent and athlete
informed assent that detailed participant rights (Appendix B). This study was approved by the
institutional review board (Appendix C).

Table 1. Demographic information (N = 342).

Demographic
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
African American
Asian American
Hispanic American
Native American
Caucasian
Mixed Race
Pacific Islander
Sport
Football
Basketball
Baseball
Softball
Soccer
Year in School
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior

28

Frequency

Percentage

208
134

60.8
39.2

31
3
10
2
289
5
1

9.1
0.9
2.9
0.6
84.5
1.5
0.3

124
77
34
60
47

36.3
22.5
9.9
17.5
13.7

104
89
98
50

30.4
26.0
28.7
14.6

Table 2. Participant sport experience.

Mean

Standard
Minimum
Deviation

Maximum

Years in Sport

5.98

3.71

15

Years Playing for Current Coach

1.84

1.14

Sports Played Competitively

2.94

2.05

Measures
Motivational Climate Scale for Youth Sports (MCSYS; Smith et al., 2008). The
MCSYS consisted of 12 total items with two factors: mastery-initiating and ego-initiating. Each
factor had six items (i.e. winning games is the most important thing for the coach and the coach
makes players feel good when they improved a skill) scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Smith et al. (2008) reported the internal consistency of
the mastery-initiating and ego-initiating factor at = .84, and = .75, respectively. The testretest reliability of the MCSYS was found to be .84 for mastery-initiating items and .76 for egoinitiating items. Concurrent validity was supported by positive correlations with similar scales.
The mastery-initiating factor related positively (r = .28, p < .001) to task orientation and the egoinitiating factor related positively (r = .33, p < .001) to ego orientation in the Perception of
Success Questionnaire (POSQ) (Smith et al., 2008). Positive relationships also were found for
mastery-initiating climate and task orientation (r = .43, p < .001) and for ego-initiating climate
and ego orientation (r = .41, p < .001) of the Achievement Goal Scale for Youth Sports (Smith et
al., 2008).
Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale (PNSE; Wilson, Rogers, Rogers, &
Wild, 2006). The PNSE was developed to assess competence, autonomy, and relatedness
satisfaction in exercise participants. The three needs each represented a factor of the scale with
six items per factor. The 18 items were modified to inquire about sport skills and sport
participation rather than exercise. For example, the item I feel confident that I can do even the
most challenging exercises was changed to I feel confident that I can do even the most
challenging skills. Wilson et al. (2006) reported the internal consistencies of the factors as =
.91 for both the competence and autonomy subscales, and = .90 for the relatedness subscale.
29

Validity evidence for the subscales of the PNSE was assessed by comparing it with the
competence and perceived choice subscales of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), and the
relatedness subscale of the Exercise Motivation Inventory (EMI; Wilson et al., 2006). The
correlations indicated strong validity evidence with correlations of r = .82, .78, and .92 for the
perceived competence subscales, the perceived autonomy and perceived choice subscales, and
the relatedness subscales respectively (Wilson et al., 2006).
Behavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (BRSQ; Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose,
2008). The BRSQ had six subscales with four items each, assessing intrinsic motivation in
general. The 24 items starting with the stem I participate in my sport followed by a reason for
sport participation (i.e. because its fun and because the benefits of sport are important to me) are
scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). The internal
consistencies of the subscales were within the acceptable range (amotivation = .83, external
regulation = .79, introjected regulation = .87, identified regulation = .88, integrated regulation =
.90, intrinsic motivation-general = .73) (Lonsdale et al., 2008). Validity evidence was provided
for the BRSQ by Lonsdale et al. (2008) comparing the subscales to flow and burnout scales.
They reported that amotivation, external regulation, and introjected regulation were negatively
related to flow (r = -.31, -.25. -.16) and positively related to burnout (r = .65, .52, .43).
Identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation were positively related to
flow (r = .21, .36, .36), and negatively related to burnout (r = -.11, -.23, -.50) in concordance
with SDT.
Performance. Performance was assessed with three self-report items. Each participant
rated him or herself on a scale ranging from 1 (extremely poor performance) to 10 (extremely
good performance) for each item (i.e. rate how well you are currently performing, rate how well
you have performed overall this season, and rate your improvement since the beginning of the
season).
Intention to participate. Intention to participate was assessed using three items
modified from Chatzisarantis et al. (1997), which assessed the intention of youth to participate in
physical activity in the future. The items (I am determined to play sport at least 3 times a week
after the season is over; I intend to play sport at least 3 times a week during the off-season; I
plan to continue to play sport next season) are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). Chatzisarantis et al. (1997) reported an internal consistency of
30

 = .90 for the scale. Validity evidence for the 3-item intention scale was given by correlations
with motivation regulations according to SDT (Chatzisarantis et al., 1997). They reported that
intention to exercise was positively related to intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and
introjected regulation (r = .41, .43, .21). Amotivation was negatively related to intention to
exercise (r = - .29). External regulation did not show significant relationships with intention to
exercise. Integrated regulation was not assessed in relationship to intention to exercise.
Sport Satisfaction Scale (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). The 5-item satisfaction subscale
(i.e. I usually have fun doing sports) was utilized for this study. Each item was rated on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Duda and Nicholls (1992)
reported a reliability coefficient of = .94 for this subscale. Validity evidence was not provided.
Procedures
The recruitment of teams varied in method depending on several factors including
location of teams, availability, and approval from school administrators and athletic directors.
First, Florida State University Human Subjects Committee approval was attained and high
school administrators were contacted to gain consent for their students to participate. Most of
the participating schools and teams were chosen through the researchers personal connections
with coaches and schools or with the assistance of her Introduction to Psychology students at a
southern liberal arts college. In return for credit in her class, the students provided contact
information and connected the researcher to coaches from their own former high schools, most
of which were in the southern United States. Teams selected were currently in-season, contained
more than 10 members, and were not individual sports. Due to the in-season requirement, data
collection took several months to accommodate differing high school sport seasons.
The selected teams coaches determined an appropriate time to distribute parental
informed consent forms and athlete informed assent forms to be taken home for the parents to
read and sign. Usually, one or two weeks passed before the forms were returned to the
researcher and the teams were either given the internet link for the online survey or were given
the hard copy version of the questionnaire (Appendix A). The first teams that agreed to
participate received the online survey, but because this version of the questionnaire was finished
at the discretion of the athlete, individual completion rates were less than 20% for over 400
original participants, and several teams receiving the online version failed to have even one
member complete the questionnaire. Therefore, it was decided that a monitored paper
31

questionnaire would guarantee higher completion rates. The hard copy version was distributed
by the coaches in a classroom or practice setting depending on the coachs preference. The
survey took approximately 10 minutes for the athletes to complete. The completed online
questionnaires were stored on the researchers computer and were password protected and the
paper surveys were stored at the researchers private residence. All responses were kept
confidential.
Data Analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM; Stapleton, 2006) was used to analyze the data. The
hypotheses focused on multi-level modeling allowing for the determination of models at each
level of involvement. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the effects that were evaluated on both the
individual and team levels. Model fit was to be determined at the individual and team levels.
The model fit index standards used for this study were: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) .9,
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) .9, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) .08, and
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) .05 (Stapleton, 2006). Hu and Bentler
(1999) suggested that these model fit indices should be different: CFI .95, TLI .95, SRMR
.08, and RMSEA .06 in order to lower the rate of committing a Type II Error (the probability
of rejecting a correct alternative hypothesis). Moreover, they advocated that researchers need to
use a combination of the indices in order to assess acceptable model fit. Because the indices
measure different aspects of how well the model fits, utilization of only one index could result in
an incorrect result (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Marsh, Hau, and Wen (2009) stated that using the
model fit index requirements is not sufficient for determining acceptable model fit. For example,
models that were hypothesized to contain negative pathway coefficients that result in a model
with positive pathways may have acceptable model fit, but does not adequately represent the
theoretical basis of the study. Marsh et al. (2009) also noted that a limitation of Hu and Bentler
(1999) was the lack of consideration of nested data; the revised model fit standards may not be
acceptable for nested data. For the current study, multiple indices were used and the models were
assessed as to the direction and significance of the pathways. In addition, the revised model fit
indices may not work for nested data and as the current study utilized nested data, the model fit
standards were kept at the traditional levels.
Data Parceling. Data parceling was considered to simplify the exceedingly complex
model in order to adhere to the principle of parsimony which states that when given the option
32

between a complicated model and a simpler model that demonstrates the same constructs, the
researcher should choose the simpler model (Kline, 2011). In addition, Little, Cunningham,
Shahar, and Widaman (2002) suggested that using data parceling is acceptable when assessing
the latent constructs within an SEM instead of the structure of observed variables. Data
parceling can be done in place of correlating residuals of the observed items. In fact, the items
are simply the mode utilized to measure the latent variables and are inconsequential to
understanding the theory. Also, if the goal of the researcher is to evaluate the latent variable
structure, just-identified latent constructs may be more beneficial because these only have one
solution unlike overidentified latent variables which have multiple solutions allowing for
instability in the model. Parceling allows the researcher to have the ideal just-identified structure
(Little et al., 2002). The observed variable structure was not the primary focus of this study
because the measures used for the current model had established reliability and validity as
previously described. Instead, the focus of the current model was on the relationship between
the latent variables fitting with Little et al.s (2002) assertion.
Critics of data parceling warn against parceling to conceal loading complications with the
original indicators (Little et al., 2002). In addressing this issue, confirmatory factor analyses
(CFA) were conducted for each of the latent variables using the original data in order to
demonstrate that data parceling was done in order to simplify an extremely complex model and
reduce the number of parameters instead of disguising errors in the original data analyses.
The items were parceled so that each latent variable in the proposed model would have
two to four observed indicators. The five motivation regulations measured by the BRSQ
(Lonsdale et al., 2008) were parceled into two constructs: autonomous motivation (intrinsic
motivation, integrated, and identified regulations) and controlled motivation (introjected and
external regulations) (Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose, 2009). Predictors for autonomous motivation
were calculated by multiplying the first item score for intrinsic motivation in the BRSQ by two
and adding the first item score of both integrated and identified regulation. The process was
repeated for each of the remaining three item scores for each construct. Predictors for controlled
motivation were calculated by multiplying the first item score for external and introjected
regulation by two, adding those together, and, once again, repeating that process for the
remaining three item scores for both constructs. This process produced two latent variables with

33

four predictors each (Lonsdale et al., 2009). The variable amotivation was not parceled; instead,
the original four indicators from the BRSQ were used.
The indicators for the remaining latent variables were parceled by adding together two
items at a time. For example, the latent variable task climate was measured using six observed
items (a2, a4, a6, a7, a9, and a11) from the MCSYS (Smith et al., 2008). These were then
parceled together by adding the scores for a2 and a4, a6 and a7, a9 and a11, creating three new
indicators for task (i4, i5, and i6). This method was repeated for each of the latent variables
except performance and intention, which were scored with only three items each in the
questionnaire.
Intraclass Correlations. As stated earlier, multi-level modeling is used when the data
are nested and the assumption of independence is violated, leading to a greater chance of
committing a Type I error (Hoyle et al., 2001; Papaioannou et al., 2004). Nonetheless, in multilevel modeling, sample size and the intraclass correlation (ICC) may influence the validity of the
parameter estimates within the model. The ICC describes the amount of dependence the
clustered scores have on each other (Maas & Hox, 2005). According to Maas and Hox (2005),
design effect or the estimate of how much the standard errors are underestimated is influenced by
the ICC for a variable. The simple formula for design effect is 1 + (average cluster size 1) *
ICC. An ICC and design effect was calculated for each parceled variable to assess the validity of
using multi-level modeling for the current study.

34

Chapter 3
Results
The purpose of this study was to determine how perceived motivational climate affects
needs satisfaction, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation regulations, intention to continue sport
participation, sport satisfaction, and performance using a two-level structural equation model
(SEM) to account for the nesting of individuals in teams.
SEM, unlike other modeling techniques, specifically estimates measurement error. In
SEM, latent and observed variables can be used as outcome variables and the error terms
represent variance that is unexplained by the predictors (Kline, 2011).
Descriptive Statistics and Data Parceling
Descriptive statistics (see Table 3) and correlations among the manifest variables were
calculated (see Table 4). Reliability statistics were determined for the subscales (see Table 6).
Each subscale was found to be reasonably reliable for this sample. In addition, CFA analyses
were calculated for each individual subscale to assess the latent variables using the original nonparceled data in order to validate the use of data parceling in the analyses. Table 5 shows the
loadings for each of the items for the subscales. Most of the loadings for the latent variables
were acceptable. A few item loadings were troublesome for the individual CFAs. Item a4 (see
Table 5) in the Task Climate subscale had a small loading compared to the other items in the
subscale. It was found that a4 had a very small standard deviation (SD = .83) indicating that the
responses to that item did not vary much across the participants. The mean response for item a4
was 4.39 (out of a 5-point scale) indicating a high rate of affirmative responses. Not
surprisingly, high school athletes in general were encouraged to learn new skills by their
coaches. While this is congruent with the theory, the attenuated variation of the responses caused
minor problems with the statistical analysis. In addition, for the ego climate subscale similar
issues regarding small variation were found with the item standard deviations very close to one.
However, because these items have been used consistently in the past (Cumming et al., 2007;
Smith et al., 2008) and have a solid theoretical basis, they were included in the data parceling.
Item b1 for intrinsic motivation resulted in a negative residual which indicates a
statistical impossibility for this item because it suggests that the latent variable accounted for
more than 100% of item variance. After further review of the data, it was ascertained that all of
the standard deviations for the items predicting the latent variable intrinsic motivation (b1, b2,
35

b3, and b4) were all close to one (1.11, 1.06, 1.15, and 1.39) while other subscales from the
BRSQ had larger standard deviations, which provides for improved statistical analysis. For
instance, the standard deviations for the external regulation items (b17, b18, b19, and b20) were
closer to two (2.08, 1.83, 1.86, and 1.86). The small size of variation made the individual CFA
difficult for the Mplus 6.0 software to calculate. It was also noted that the average score for
items for intrinsic motivation were very high on the seven point scale (6.43, 6.40, 6.33, and 5.99)
whereas the means for the items predicting external regulation were in the middle of the scale
(3.13, 2.63, 2.58, and 2.60). The high means and low standard deviations demonstrate the small
size of the variation across the sample which signifies that almost all of the athletes agreed that
they played sports because they enjoyed it, liked their sport, thought their sport was fun, and
found their sport pleasurable. One adjustment of this CFA may have been to correlate the
residuals of certain items (Little et al., 2002) as suggested by the Mplus 6.0 modification indices.
However, data parceling was being considered to reduce the number of parameters and, as
previously mentioned, data parceling may be done in place of correlating residuals (Little et al.,
2002). Additionally, despite these statistical issues, based on SDT the parceled variable
autonomous motivation could not exist without the intrinsic motivation facet as intrinsic
motivation is the culmination of the self-determination continuum. As each item had been shown
to be valid in past studies (Lonsdale et al., 2009), and in order to remain consistent with this
method of data parceling, the data parceling analysis continued to include all of the intrinsic
motivation items. Item b11 was slightly problematic in the individual CFA. However, in order to
remain consistent with others using the BRSQ (Lonsdale et al., 2009), and with SDT, b11 was
included in the data parceling analysis.

36

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the Manifest Variables.

Variable

Mean

Standard
Variance Minimum
Deviation

Maximum

Task Climate

342

4.30

0.63

0.39

2.17

5.00

Ego Climate

340

2.73

0.77

0.60

1.00

5.00

Autonomy

340

5.28

1.11

1.23

2.00

7.00

Relatedness

341

5.34

1.33

1.78

1.00

7.00

Competence

339

5.51

1.09

1.19

1.60

7.00

Autonomous
Motivation

336

5.94

1.02

1.03

3.06

7.00

Controlled
Motivation

340

3.56

1.51

2.27

1.00

7.00

Amotivation

340

2.16

1.49

2.22

1.00

7.00

Performance

334

7.01

1.65

2.72

1.00

10.00

Sport
Satisfaction

341

4.21

0.83

0.69

1.00

5.00

Intention to
Continue

339

5.10

1.62

2.63

1.00

7.00

Note. Task and ego climate were scored from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Autonomy, relatedness, and
competence were scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Autonomous and controlled motivations
and amotivation were scored from 1(not at all true) to 7 (very true). Performance was scored from 1 (extremely poor
performance) to 10 (extremely good performance). Sport Satisfaction was scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Intention to continue was scored from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely).

37

Table 4. Correlation Matrix for the Manifest Variables.

Task
Ego
Autonomy

Task

Ego

Autonomy

Relatedness

Competence

Autonomous
Motivation

Controlled
Motivation

Amotivation

Performance

Satisfaction

Intention

1.00

.25**

-.08

-.07

-.01

.13*

.30**

.06

-.00

-.08

-.04

1.00

.15**

.22**

.25**

.37*

.05

-.15**

.05

.15**

.07

1.00

.39**

.52**

.44**

-.13*

-.28**

.10

.27**

.23**

1.00

.41**

.42**

-.16**

-.27**

.23**

.30**

.32**

1.00

.56**

-.11*

-.32**

.25**

.31**

.30**

1.00

-.05

-.56**

.17**

.34**

.34**

1.00

.34**

.05

-.09

.00

1.00

-.12*

-.22**

.28**

1.00

.09

.15**

1.00

.28**

Relatedness
Competence
Autonomous
Motivation
Controlled
Motivation
Amotivation
Performance
Satisfaction

1.00

Intention

*Significant correlations (p < .05).

**Significant correlations (p < .01)

38

Table 5. Standardized Loadings for Individual CFAs.

Latent Variable
Task Climate

Standardized
Loadings

Indicator
A2: The coach makes players feel good when they improved a skill.
A4: The coach encourages us to learn new skills.
A6: The coach tells players to help each other get better.
A7: The coach tells us that trying our best is the most important thing.
A9: The coach says that teammates should help each other improve their
skills.
A11: The coach says that all of us are important to the teams success.

.533
.109
.181
.537

A1: Winning is the most important thing for the coach

A3: The coach spends less time with players who arent as good.
A5: The coach tells us which players on the team are the best.
A8: The coach pays the most attention to the best players.
A10: Players are taken out the game if they make a mistake.
A12: The coach tells us to try to be better than our teammates.

.368
.519
.057
.095
.422
.608

C6: I feel free to participate in sport in my own way.

C7: I feel free to make my own decisions in my sport.
C8: I feel like I have a say in choosing the skills that I do.
C9: I feel free to choose which sport I participate in.
C10: I feel like I am the one who decides what sports that I do.

.668
.794
.740
.345
.408

C11: I feel attached to my coaches because they accept me for who I am.
C12: I feel like I share a common bond with my coaches when we work
together.
C13: I feel a sense of camaraderie with my coaches because we
participate in sport for the same reasons.
C14: I feel close to my coaches and teammates who appreciate how
difficult sport can be.
C15: I feel connected to my coaches when we work together.
C16: I feel like I get along with my coaches while we work together.

.816

C1: I am able to complete the skills that are personally challenging.

C2: I can do even the most challenging skills.
C3: I feel confident in my ability to perform skills that personally
challenge me.
C4: I feel capable of doing even the most challenging skills.
C5: I feel good about the way I am able to complete challenging skills.

.726
.871

.649
.612

Ego Climate

Autonomy

Relatedness
.850
.830
.763
.852
.840

Competence

Intrinsic
Motivation

.844
.705

I participate in my sport
---a
-.084
.306
.212

B1: because I enjoy it.

B2: because I like it.
B3: because its fun.
B4: because I find it pleasurable.
Integrated
Regulation

.852

I participate in my sport
B5: because its part of who I am.
B6: because its an opportunity to just be who I am.
B7: because what I do in sport is an expression of who I am.
B8: because it allows me to live in a way that is true to my values.

39

.189
.291
.872
.424

Table 5 Continued.
Latent Variable
Identified
Regulation

Standardized
Loadings

Indicator

I participate in my sport
B9: because the benefits of sport are important to me.
B10: because it teaches self-discipline.
B11: because I value the benefits of my sport.
B12: because it is a good way to learn things which could be useful to
me in my life.

Introjected
Regulation

External Regulation

Amotivation

.542
.945
---a
.769

I participate in my sport
B13: because I would feel ashamed if I quit.
B14: because I would feel like a failure if I quit.
B15: because I feel obligated to continue.
B16: because I would feel guilty if I quit.
I participate in my sport
B17: because if I dont other people will not be pleased with me.
B18: because I feel pressure from other people to play.
B19: because people push me to play.

.345
.249
.678
.929
.616
.846
.845

B20: to satisfy people who want me to play.

.828

I participate in my sport
B21: but I wonder whats the point.
B22: but I question why I continue.
B33: but the reasons why are not clear to me anymore.
B24: but I question why I am putting myself through this.

.992
.994
.975
.708

D1: Rate how well you are currently performing.

D2: Rate how well you have performed overall this season.
D3: Rate your improvement since the beginning of the season.

.929
.914
.551

E1: I usually have fun doing my sport.

E2: I usually enjoy playing my sport.
E3: I usually find my sport interesting.
E4: I usually get involved in practices.
E5: In practice, I usually feel that time flies.

.931
.938
.885
.722
.447

Performance

Sport Satisfaction

Intention to
Continue
F1: I am determined to play sport at least 3 times a week after the
season is over.
F2: I intend to play sport at least 3 times a week during the offseason.
F3: I plan to continue to play sport next season.
a
B1 and B11 were removed from the CFA.

40

.794
.881
.609

Table 6. Reliability Statistics for Each of the Subscales.

Latent Variable
Task Climate
Ego Climate
Autonomy
Relatedness
Competence
Intrinsic Motivation
Integrated Regulation
Identified Regulation
Introjected Regulation
External Regulation
Amotivation
Performance
Sport Satisfaction
Intention to Continue

Cronbachs
Alpha
.77
.70
.75
.93
.90
.89
.83
.86
.86
.85
.91
.78
.87
.83

The Multi-Level Model

Model specification. As the structural model was being constructed, it became apparent
that the model was exceedingly complex with a large number of degrees of freedom.
Simplification of the model was necessary in order to attempt multi-level modeling. Data
parceling, as previously mentioned, was conducted and reduced the parameters from 180 free
parameters to 123 free parameters at level 1. However, when the model at level 2 was attempted,
the model was not identified and the Mplus 6.0 software could not calculate the model with the
large number of parameters as the level 2 model was hypothesized to be very similar to the level
1 model. The Mplus 6.0 creators were contacted to assist with the specification of the model. L.
K. Muthn (personal communication, March 3, 2012) stated that having more parameters than
clusters in the model has not been studied previously, and, therefore, no one knows what effect
having more parameters than clusters at level 2 would have on the standard errors in the model.
For this reason, the Mplus 6.0 software does not allow models to be specified that have more
parameters than clusters at level 2. As there were only 31 teams (clusters) and over 100
parameters in the model, the model could not be specified as hypothesized at level 2.

41

Intraclass correlations. In addition to the model non-identification at level 2, ICC

values also produced concern. Table 7 shows the ICC and design effect values, the estimate of
how much the standard errors are underestimated, for the parceled items in the current study. In
general, a design effect greater than two is acceptable (Maas & Hox, 2005); less than half of the
design effects calculated were greater than two. It was concluded that the parameter estimates of
the second level model could not be trusted. Because of the model non-identification and the
uncertainty of the parameter estimates at level 2, it was determined that a multi-level analysis
was not feasible for the data. However, because the data were grouped, the violation of the
assumption of independence needed to be taken into account. To ameliorate this violation, the
Mplus 6.0 syntax was designated to consider the clusters at the single level.

42

Table 7. ICC and Design Effect Values for the Parceled Observed Variables.
Latent Variable
Autonomous Motivation

Controlled Motivation

Task Climate

Ego Climate

Competence

Autonomy

Relatedness

Satisfaction
Performance

Intention to Continue

Parceled
Variable
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
H8
I1
I2
I3
I4
I5
I6
J1
J2
J3
K1
K2
K3
L1
L2
L3
M1
M2
N1
N2
N3
O1
O2
O3

ICC
.250
.426
.461
.245
.057
.096
.084
.080
.174
.179
.150
.167
.219
.195
.191
.190
.115
.044
.072
.118
.067
.099
.059
.070
.065
.076
.104
.126
.061
.052
.050

*Acceptable design effects.

43

Design
Effect
3.25*
4.834*
5.149*
3.205*
1.513
1.864
1.756
1.72
2.566*
2.611*
2.35*
2.503*
2.971*
2.755*
2.719*
2.71*
2.035*
1.396
1.648
2.062*
1.603
1.891
1.531
1.63
1.585
1.684
1.936
2.134*
1.549
1.468
1.45

Hypothesized and Modified Models

Figure 7 shows the standardized loadings and residuals for the hypothesized model
adjusted for the parceled indicators. SEM procedures within MPlus 6.0 with the robust
maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) were utilized to assess model fit (see Table 8). The
hypothesized model did not have good model fit based on the following standards that were
utilized: RMSEA < .05; CFI > .90; TLI > .90; SRMR < .08.
While the model did not fit well, a few observations were made of pathways that may
have had an impact on the model results: (a) while perceived task climate predicted significantly
all of the needs (autonomy, relatedness, and competence), perceived ego climate was not related
significantly to any of the psychological needs; (b) autonomy failed to predict any of the
motivation regulations and amotivation; and (c) controlled motivation and amotivation did not
significantly predict any of the outcome variables. Based on the results of the hypothesized
model, it was determined that there may be direct effects from task and ego climate to the
motivation regulations and amotivation as well as direct effects from autonomy, relatedness, and
competence to performance, satisfaction, and intention to participate.
These pathways were added to Modified Model 1 (Figure 8) and model fit is shown in
Table 8. Model fit for the modified model improved; however, the fit was still not in the
acceptable range. Several new direct effects were shown to be significant; yet, autonomy still
did not significantly predict any other variable.

Table 8. Model Fit Indices.

Chi-Square (df)

RMSEA
(95% CI)

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Hypothesized
Model

1291.549* (533)

.065 (.060-.069)

.887

.873

.099

Modified Model 1

1110.938* (518)

.058 (.053-.063)

.911

.898

.059

Modified Model 2

756.86* (400)

.051 (.045-.057)

.936

.926

.070

*Significant chi-square (p < .001)

44

Figure 7. Standardized loadings and residuals for the hypothesized model.

*Significant pathways (p < .05).

45

Figure 8. Standardized loadings and residuals for Modified Model 1.

*Significant pathways (p < .05).

46

Amotivation did not predict any of the outcome variables and was only negatively
predicted by task climate. Researchers do not agree on how to utilize amotivation in structural
models; some researchers include it as a variable (Ratelle et al., 2007; Standage, Duda, &
Ntoumanis, 2005) and some do not (Fahlman, Martin, McCaughtry, & Shen, 2009; Lonsdale et
al., 2009; Murcia, Lacarcel, & Alvarez, 2010; Wallhead, Haggar, & Smith, 2010). As a
construct, amotivation may not be beneficial in predicting behavior because those who are
amotivated are motivationally directionless and do not act with behavioral intent (Deci & Ryan,
2002). One of the primary objectives of the current study was to understand a young athletes
intention to continue in sport. If those that have amotivation do not act with any intention, it is
reasonable to assume that amotivation would not predict intention to continue sport participation
in the model. For that reason amotivation was not included in Modified Model 2.
Model fit for Modified Model 2 was acceptable (see Table 8) and is shown in Figure 9.
Notable direct effects included the following: (a) relatedness and competence both predicted
significantly performance and intention; (b) autonomous motivation predicted significantly
satisfaction and intention; and (c) autonomy continued to not significantly predict any other
variable.
Indirect Effects
Several of the latent variables (autonomy, relatedness, competence, autonomous
motivation, and controlled motivation) could act as mediators in Modified Model 2. Analyses of
the indirect effects showed a number of significant pathways (see Table 9). It was ascertained
that competence mediated the pathways from task climate to performance, satisfaction, and
intention to participate. Autonomous motivation also was shown to be a significant mediator of
numerous pathways. Together, competence and autonomous motivation combined to mediate
pathways from task climate to intention and task climate to satisfaction. Interestingly, controlled
motivation only mediated the pathway from ego climate to performance.

47

Table 9. Indirect Effects for Modified Model 2.

Model Pathway
Task Climate

Indirect Effect

Competence
Satisfaction

Autonomy
Satisfaction

Relatedness
Satisfaction

Autonomous Motivation
Satisfaction

Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction

Competence
Autonomous Motivation
Satisfaction

Autonomy
Autonomous Motivation
Satisfaction

Relatedness
Autonomous Motivation
Satisfaction

Competence
Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction

Autonomy
Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction

Relatedness
Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction

Competence
Intention

Autonomy
Intention

Relatedness
Intention

Autonomous Motivation
Intention

Controlled Motivation
Intention

Competence
Autonomous Motivation
Intention

Autonomy
Autonomous Motivation
Intention

Relatedness
Autonomous Motivation
Intention

Competence
Controlled Motivation
Intention

Autonomy
Controlled Motivation
Intention

Relatedness
Controlled Motivation
Intention

Competence
Performance

Autonomy
Performance

Relatedness
Performance

Autonomous Motivation
Performance

Controlled Motivation
Performance

Competence
Autonomous Motivation
Performance

Autonomy
Autonomous Motivation
Performance

Relatedness
Autonomous Motivation
Performance

Competence
Controlled Motivation
Performance

Autonomy
Controlled Motivation
Performance

Relatedness
Controlled Motivation
Performance

48

.060
.033
.068
.088*
-.002
.035*
.006
.008
.001
.000
.001
.077
-.017
.115*
.073*
.003
.029*
.005
.007
-.001
.000
-.002
.144*
-.037
.084*
-.030
.005
-.012
-.002
-.003
-.002
.000
-.003

Table 9 Continued.
Model Pathway
Ego Climate

Indirect Effect

Autonomy
Satisfaction

Relatedness
Satisfaction

Autonomous Motivation
Satisfaction

Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction

Autonomy
Autonomous Motivation
Satisfaction

Relatedness
Autonomous Motivation
Satisfaction

Autonomy
Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction

Relatedness
Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction

Autonomy
Intention

Relatedness
Intention

Autonomous Motivation
Intention

Controlled Motivation
Intention

Autonomy
Autonomous Motivation
Intention

Relatedness
Autonomous Motivation
Intention

Autonomy
Controlled Motivation
Intention

Relatedness
Controlled Motivation
Intention

Autonomy
Performance

Relatedness
Performance

Autonomous Motivation
Performance

Controlled Motivation
Performance

Autonomy
Autonomous Motivation
Performance

Relatedness
Autonomous Motivation
Performance

Autonomy
Controlled Motivation
Performance

Relatedness
Controlled Motivation
Satisfaction
*p < .05

49

-.008
-.014
.040*
-.018
-.001
-.002
.000
.000
.004
-.023
.033*
.032
-.001
-.001
.000
.000
.009
-.017
-.014
.052*
.000
.001
.000
.001

Figure 9. Standardized loadings and residuals for Modified Model 2.

*Significant pathways (p < .05).

Chapter 4
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the coachs role on youth sport
motivation using aspects of SDT and motivational climate. Youth sport participation declines
rapidly in the teenage years (Corbin et al., 2004) and understanding the aspects of motivation
that influence high school sport participation was one of the primary interests of the current
study. Motivational antecedents of sport satisfaction and self-reported quality of performance
were also assessed.
Discussion of Hypotheses
There were six hypotheses tested for the current study:
1. Task-involved climate, motivational needs satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, integrated
regulation, and identified regulation would be positive predictors of self-perceived
performance and sport satisfaction at the individual and team levels, and intention to
continue in sport at the individual level.
2. Ego-involved climate, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation would
inversely predict sport performance and sport satisfaction at the individual and team
levels, and intention to continue in sport at the individual level.
3. Motivational climate would have a stronger associations with the psychological outcomes
at level 2 than at level 1.
4. Relatedness satisfaction would be a better predictor of the psychological outcomes within
the model than autonomy satisfaction at level 1 and level 2.
5. Intrinsic motivation and integrated regulation would have stronger associations with
intention to continue in sport than identified regulation.
6. Athlete needs satisfaction (competence, relatedness, and autonomy) and a positive
mastery climate would be better predictors of sport satisfaction than identified regulation,
integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation.
It was hypothesized that the predictors of intention to continue in sport, sport satisfaction,
and perceived performance would be different from level 1 at level 2 because teams are expected
to behave differently from individuals. However, the design effect values were less than two
making the parameter estimates at the second level unreliable. Thus, conducting a multi-level
model was not feasible for the data; however, the nested nature of the data was accounted for

within the model syntax. Hypothesis 3 and the references to level 2 in hypotheses 1, 2, and 4
were not tested. This discussion focuses instead on the implications of the structural model
results at level 1.
Furthermore, because data parceling was used to simplify and clarify the model,
hypothesis 5 was not tested as intrinsic motivation, integrated, and identified regulations were
parceled into the latent variable autonomous motivation. While there is theoretical basis for using
each individual motivational regulation (Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, Smith, & Wang, 2003),
the latent variable structure was already complex and using each motivation regulation would not
have added much new information to the study.
Hypothesis 1. Modified Model 2 partially supported hypothesis 1. Task climate was
positively related to each of the needs satisfaction as hypothesized. This is in agreement with
researchers (Cox & Williams, 2008; Reinboth & Duda, 2006) who also found that mastery
climate satisfied the needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Furthermore, this
supports Ntoumanis (2001b) assertion that having a mastery focus can satisfy these
psychological needs. Moreover, task climate significantly related to autonomous motivation
which is consistent with the findings of Parish and Treasure (2003) indicating that coaches who
emphasize a task climate also help to promote the motivation integration process from extrinsic
motivation to a more intrinsic or autonomous style. A direct effect from task climate to
autonomous motivation indicates that athletes who perceive a task climate not only will have
their motivational needs satisfied, but also will experience support for their autonomous
motivation.
Participants ratings regarding their needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence
each provided some intriguing results. Relatedness satisfaction was not significantly associated
with autonomous or controlled motivations. This is inconsistent with researchers who found that
relatedness need satisfaction positively predicted autonomous motivation in dragon boat racers
(McDonough & Crocker, 2007) and elementary physical education students (Standage et al.,
2003a). This result may be explained by the fact that measurement of the variable relatedness, in
this case, focused on the athletes feelings of relatedness satisfaction toward their coaches. For
these athletes to have an autonomous motivation, the need of relatedness may have been satisfied
by the presence of friends on the team or parental support rather than by their coaches. For
example, previous research has shown that, for young athletes, peers are an important influence
52

on the sporting environment (Vazou et al., 2005). These athletes may have experienced
camaraderie among their teammates which, in turn, supported their autonomous motivation
regulations.
It is noteworthy, however, that relatedness satisfaction was significantly associated with
the outcome variables. In other words, if the athletes felt close to or connected to their coaches,
they were more likely to rate their performances as better, be more satisfied with their sport
experience, and were more likely to want to continue in their sport. Similarly, Edmunds et al.
(2007) also found that interpersonal involvement was related to ratings of intention to participate.
Relatedness satisfaction from the coach may be more essential for athletes to continue in sport
long term than for their own personal autonomous motivation.
Competence satisfaction significantly related to autonomous motivation, whereas neither
relatedness satisfaction nor autonomy satisfaction was associated with autonomous motivation,
controlled motivation, and amotivation. This indicates that competence may be more essential to
the integration process of motivation regulations than autonomy or relatedness satisfaction for
high school athletes. Similarly, Sproule et al. (2007) found that competence was influential in
enhancing intrinsic motivation. It may be for high school athletes that competence is the one
motivational need that is directly associated with intrinsic motivation because finding inherent
value in the activity of sport is more likely when athletes feel as if they are able to complete the
tasks of the activity.
In the current study, competence satisfaction also was shown to have direct effects on
perceived performance and intention to continue in sport. It seems logical that those who felt
they were able to do the task at hand also felt that they were playing well overall for the season.
Those who felt competent also were more likely to want to continue to play their sport even into
the off-season, which is contrary to a study which found that perceived competence did not
predict sport continuance in adolescent soccer players in Spain (Calvo, Cervello, Jimenez,
Iglesias, & Murcia, 2010). However, if teenagers were participating in any activity in high
school, it seems likely that they would be more likely to continue their participation if feeling
that they were able to accomplish the tasks of that activity. For example, a member of the
marching band would be more likely to continue playing in the band if he felt able to play his
instrument well.

53

Arguably, the most intriguing aspect of the model was that the autonomy need
satisfaction latent variable was not significantly associated with any of the other latent variables.
This is inconsistent with prior research on SDT (Deci et al., 1994; Hagger et al., 2003; Hein &
Hagger, 2007; McDonough & Crocker, 2007; Milne et al., 2008; Reinboth & Duda, 2006; Wang
& Biddle, 2001). This result may perhaps be explained by the use of high school team sport
athletes as participants in this study. While high school athletes do have freedom in sport choice,
once they are a part of a team, they may be accustomed to having the coach as the primary
authority in that setting. High school athletes, in essence, surrender their autonomy because they
trust that the coaches decisions are in their best interest. They may not need autonomy
satisfaction to increase their autonomous motivation because they do not hold the expectation of
autonomy within their sport setting. If a coach says, jump, the athlete happily responds, how
high? without the threat of decreased autonomous motivation.
The variable autonomous motivation was significantly associated with sport satisfaction
and intention to continue in sport which supports Hypothesis 1 and previous research (Wilson &
Rodgers, 2004); however, it was not associated with the self-ratings of performance. Controlled
motivation, on the other hand, was only a significant predictor of performance, which is notable.
The athletes with higher levels of autonomous motivation may not have needed to validate their
play with higher ratings of their performance as much as those who had higher levels of
controlled motivation. One can conclude that those with higher levels of autonomous motivation
were playing for fun or because they wanted to play their sport, while those with higher levels of
controlled motivation were playing because of external motivators and may have needed to be
playing well to make their participation worthwhile. For example, a football player may play the
sport because of parental pressure or for the social status awarded to football players in a
southern high school and may need to justify his participation by believing that he is playing well
because he does not have the innate enjoyment of the activity that would be present if he had
higher levels of autonomous motivation.
Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 was not supported by the model as there were no significant
inverse pathways. This result is discordant with previous findings (Pelletier et al, 2001;
Reinboth & Duda, 2006; Rodgers, 2004; Smith et al., 2007). However, the absence of inverse
relationships seems to indicate that ego climate and controlled motivation did not have a
substantial negative association with the participants satisfaction in their sport and their
54

intention to continue playing. While neither ego climate nor controlled motivation was
associated with sport satisfaction or intention to continue in sport, neither was associated with
the athletes not enjoying their sport or not wishing to continue their participation as well. The
observation of non-significant pathways also gives credence to the idea that competition is not a
negative aspect of sports. These athletes are participating in a competitive environment. At this
point in their sporting careers, most are not playing just because it is fun or because of social
benefits, but also because they experience the joys of competing and challenging themselves. In
light of this, it is comforting to know that a competition-focused environment was not associated
with potentially adverse outcomes in these younger athletes.
Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4, on the other hand, was supported by the model. Autonomy
satisfaction was not significantly associated with any of the other latent variables; whereas,
relatedness satisfaction was significantly associated with each of the outcome variables. This
supports a previous finding where high school and youth sport coaches valued relationships with
their athletes over providing autonomy support (Zomermaand, 2010). It may be inferred based
on these results that athletes are in agreement with coaches that the coach-athlete relationship
needs to be positive and supportive to produce sport satisfaction, intention to continue in sport,
and a higher self-assessment of performance. This may be because coaches provide essential
feedback on athletes performances and coaches are sources of several aspects of motivational
information (Begoechea & Streen, 2007). These aspects could impact the participants ratings of
the outcomes of the present study.
Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 6 was not supported as autonomous motivation was
significantly associated with sport satisfaction along with relatedness satisfaction, but autonomy
and competence satisfaction did not have significant relationships with sport satisfaction. For
these high school athletes, higher levels of satisfaction in sport were found to be associated with
the satisfaction of the need of relatedness and/or with higher levels of autonomous motivation.
This result may indicate that satisfaction of the need of competence, while seemingly a facet
required for autonomous motivation, is not sufficient for sport satisfaction. Athletes can feel
competent without being satisfied or can be satisfied in their sport without feeling competent.
Likewise, Biddle, Wang, Chatzisarantis, and Spray (2003) did not find that competence
significantly influenced sport enjoyment, but Scarpa and Nart (2012) did find a positive
relationship between competence and enjoyment. These conflicting results may be due to
55

problems in using multiple measurements of competence (Biddle et al., 2003) or may be due to
differing populations and settings. Nonetheless, it seems that sport satisfaction in high school
sport may be less about how competent athletes feel, but more about the social aspects of sport
such as being among their peers and feeling supported by their coaches.
Discussion of Indirect Effects
The pathways for indirect effects within the model were evaluated. There seems to be
evidence suggesting that competence and autonomous motivation may mediate the pathways
from task climate to sport satisfaction and intention to participate. These constructs within SDT
have also been found to mediate relationships in other models with differing variables (Ambrose
& Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Cox & Williams, 2008; Lonsdale et al., 2009; Silva et al., 2010;
Standage et al., 2003). These results may mean that for a task climate to produce feelings of
sport satisfaction and intention to continue in sport, competence satisfaction and higher levels of
autonomous motivation might need to be present as well. As previously discussed, competence
may not be sufficient for sport satisfaction. However, it perhaps is key mediator in the model
pathways that result in sport satisfaction and intention to participate. For example, if a coach
emphasizes mastery by encouraging skill-focused activities, and athletes feel more competent in
those skills which contributes to building autonomous motivation, athletes might be more likely
to be enjoying the sport in which they are participating and wish to continue playing the sport.
This seems to be in agreement with Standage et al. (2003) who found that self-determined
motivation and needs satisfaction variables mediated the relationships between mastery climate
and intention to participate in physical activity.
Autonomous motivation also was a sole mediator of the pathways from task climate to
satisfaction, task to intention, ego climate to intention, and ego climate to satisfaction. In other
words, having an autonomous style of motivation mediated the relationships from the
motivational climates to the outcome variables which coincides with past research that found that
motivation regulations mediated relationships in a model that included psychological outcomes
such as exhaustion (Lonsdale et al., 2009). These results seem to indicate that motivational
climate does not solely have a direct effect on a high school athletes perception of their
happiness in sport or whether or not they are going to play the sport even when it is not in
season. The coach could be producing a task climate, but if the athlete does not have an
autonomous style of motivation, the athlete may not feel happy in the situation and want to
56

continue participating. Likewise, if the coach is producing an ego climate, athletes may not feel
dissatisfied with their sport experience because their autonomous style of motivation was already
in existence.
Additionally, it was observed that relatedness satisfaction acted as a mediator of the
pathway from task climate to intention to continue and the pathway from task to performance.
This finding supports prior research suggesting that relatedness, competence, and autonomy
satisfaction act as mediators in structural models involving SDT constructs (Standage et al.,
2003). Once again, the presence of a task climate was not sufficient for positive feelings of
performance and the intention to continue playing sport; the athlete may also need to have felt a
sense of relatedness satisfaction with the coach. This seems to point to the necessity of coaches
not only to focus on mastery, but to emphasize a personal relationship with their players to
encourage their sense of confidence in their performance and their desire to continue playing
sport well into the future. Once again, coaches are essential to providing feedback to the athletes
which seems to promote overall well-being in sport.
Furthermore, competence satisfaction was a sole mediator of the pathway from task
climate to self-rated performance. This observation supports the idea that those who believe they
are competent in their abilities also believe that they are performing well (Horn, 1985). However,
it is critical to note that this may only happen if a task climate also is present. Competence was
not a significant mediator from ego climate to perceptions of performance. A task climate
satisfied motivational needs of relatedness and competence which, in turn, produced positive
outcomes of well-being in the athletes. This may show itself in sport situations such as a soccer
player who finds that her coach focuses on skill improvement producing positive feelings in
herself that she can accomplish those skills, and, consequently, she performs well in practice and
in competition.
Finally, it is intriguing to note the pathways with perceived performance as the outcome
variable. The use of self-reported performance as an outcome variable is rare in the literature. If
performance was used as a variable, others have used objective measures of performance like
winning percentages (Cumming et al., 2007) or results of a tournament (Gillet et al., 2010).
Using the objective outcome of performance, Gillet et al. (2010) found that self-determined
motivation was a mediator of the autonomy support to performance pathway which is
inconsistent with the present study in which it was observed that controlled motivation acted as a
57

mediator of the pathway from ego climate to performance. This could indicate that those who are
experiencing an ego climate and have a controlled motivational style validate their participation
by perceiving their performance as high. These athletes may perhaps be participating in their
sport because they are very skilled at what they do. There are anecdotal accounts that suggest
that some accomplished young athletes do not always participate in sport because of their love
for it, but because of external forces and accomplishments that make it difficult or almost
impossible to quit their sport. In his autobiography, the former tennis phenomenon Andre Agassi
admits that he played tennis for many years even though he hated the sport. He played because
everyone around him pushed him to play and because tennis was what he did well (Agassi,
2009). Future research could focus more specifically on the mediating effects of controlled
motivation on the ego climate and performance relationship.
Limitations
Although this study provided interesting findings, there were several limitations. This
study was conducted using cross-sectional data. Cause-effect relationships cannot be determined
from this data and predicting performance in differing situations and over time would be
inadvisable. Additionally, the data were collected through a self-report survey that was
monitored by the athletes coaches. Relying on self-report brings in to question the honesty and
accuracy of the responses. Even though confidentiality was emphasized, the athletes may have
wanted to be perceived as having the socially desirable traits of satisfaction, being intrinsically
motivation, and as a good athlete. In addition, because the coach was present, these athletes may
not have trusted that their coaches were not going to read their responses and, therefore, felt
pressure to rate their perceptions of the coaches as more socially acceptable inadvertently
skewing the results. Furthermore, this study would have benefited from having several more
teams participate. Higher numbers of participants and groups not only would have allowed the
Mplus 6.0 software to calculate the models, but it may have influenced the ICC values to allow
for multi-level modeling to be conducted. It was also noted in data analysis that for some of the
variables there was very little variability across the groups resulting in some difficulty with the
models analyses. A wider demographic and geographic sample may have been needed to
increase the variability. Moreover, more males than females participated in this study which
may have influenced the perceptions of the variables. Males may differ from females in their
views of the coach and of motivation which may have affected the overall data. Lastly, the
58

researcher was not present when the questionnaires were being completed by the participants.
The questionnaires were either administered by the coaches of teams or were self-administered
online not allowing the participants to ask for clarification on the individual items or on each
section which may have altered some of the responses.
Future Research
In future studies, multi-level modeling ought to be used to model these pathways at the
team level. The nested nature of athletes on teams, like students in classrooms, necessitates that
for sport psychology researchers hierarchical modeling might be a better option when working
with team sports. Researchers should also continue to investigate the indirect effect pathways
observed in the present model. Studies may be developed that specifically investigate mediations
that may exist with the latent variables of the present study. For example, task climate satisfied
each of the three motivational needs, but only relatedness and competence served as mediators
within the model. This finding could be examined further. Furthermore, because most of the
participants who partook in this study were from one state in the southern United States and were
all members of teams and not individual sport athletes, similar research should be conducted
with differing populations and settings. Specifically, it would be intriguing to investigate
whether or not these same relationships exist for high school individual sport athletes like
swimmers or tennis players. These athletes are still on teams for their high school, but do not
work together in the same way as team sport athletes. Finally, as this was cross-sectional survey
research, other research methods should be employed using similar variables. Experimental
research could be done that manipulates the coach-initiated motivational climate and then
evaluates its effects on athletes and teams motivational regulations and the outcomes of
performance, sport satisfaction, and intention to continue in sport.
Conclusion
With the renewed emphasis within our culture on keeping young people physically
active, it is paramount for researchers to understand psychological and environmental aspects of
sport participation. The current study evaluated the impact of motivational climate,
psychological needs satisfaction, and motivational regulations on intention to continue
participation in sport, sport satisfaction, and self-rated performance. The results indicated that
task climate, feeling related to the coach, feeling competent, and autonomous motivation are
factors in sport satisfaction and intention to continue in sport for high school athletes.
59

Task climate was found to be associated with the satisfaction of the motivational needs of
autonomy, relatedness, and competence; while an ego climate was not related to any of the
psychological needs. Feelings of competence in sport were found to have a direct effect on an
autonomous motivation making it more likely that high school athletes will have a sense of
satisfaction and will continue to play their sport even when the season is complete.
Perception of performance was included as an outcome variable in the model to provide
a concrete reason for coaches to adopt mastery and needs supported coaching styles, and the
results seem to support that reasoning. It was found that perceived performance was predicted
by the athletes perception that the need of relatedness was satisfied by the coach and the
athletes perception of competence in performing the skills of their sport. A task climate
supports the athletes motivational needs and then, in turn, the athletes want to continue in sport,
are happier playing their sport, and actually perceive their performances as good. However, it
must also be mentioned when discussing perception of performance that the pathway from ego
climate to controlled motivation to performance was also significant indicating that an athlete did
not need to perceive a task climate or have their motivational needs satisfied to see their
performance as positive. In this model, with the outcome measures of athlete well-being, task
climate and the satisfaction of needs seem to be central facets of improved psychological
outcomes in the athletes.
In conclusion, many coaching clinics and certifications are available for those looking to
improve as coaches. As part of these continuing education programs, promoting mastery in
practice and competition environments in order to support athletes motivational needs
satisfaction should be included in the instruction. Coaches also ought to focus on building
relationships with their athletes. These relationships seem to be a key factor in keeping athletes
satisfied in their sports participation, their overall performances, and their intention to continue
their sport participation. The goal of coaches undoubtedly is to have positive competition results
(i.e. win), but the well-being of athletes should also be paramount. Promoting a positive
motivational environment accomplishes that mission.

60

Appendix A
Measures
Motivational Climate Scale for Youth Sports (Smith, Smoll, & Cumming, 2008)
Here are some statements about what your current team is like. Please read each one and mark
the number that is most correct. If there was more than one coach on your team, the questions
are about the coach that you spend most of your time with.
Not at All True Somewhat True
1. Winning games is the most important
thing for the coach.
2. The coach makes players feel good
when they improved a skill.
3. The coach spends less time with the
players who werent as good.

Very True

4. The coach encourages us to learn new

skills.

5. The coach tells us which players on

the team are the best.

6. The coach tells players to help each

other get better.
7. The coach tells us that trying our best
is the most important thing.
8. The coach pays the most attention to
the best players.
9. Coach says that teammates should
help each other improve their skills.
10. Players are taken out of the game if
they make a mistake.
11. The coach says that all of us are
important to the teams success.
12. Coach tells us to try to be better than
our teammates.

61

BRSQBehavioral Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (Lonsdale et al., 2008)

Please indicate to what extent each of the following items is true of yourself.
I participate in my sport
Not at all true
1. Because I enjoy it.
1
2
2. Because I like it.
1
2
3. Because its fun.
1
2
4. Because I find it
1
2
pleasurable.
5. Because its a part of who
1
2
I am.
6. Because its an
opportunity to just be
1
2
who I am.
7. Because what I do in
sport is an expression of
1
2
who I am.
8. Because it allows me to
live in a way that is true
1
2
to my values.
9. Because the benefits of
1
2
sport are important to me.
10. Because it teaches me
1
2
self-discipline.
11. Because I value the
1
2
benefits of my sport.
12. Because it is a good way
to learn things which
1
2
could be useful to me in
my life.
13. Because I would feel
1
2
ashamed if I quit.
14. Because I would feel like
1
2
a failure if I quit.
15. Because I feel obligated
1
2
to continue.
16. Because I would feel
1
2
guilty if I quit.
17. Because if I dont other
people will not be
1
2
pleased with me.
18. Because I feel pressure
1
2
from other people to play.
19. Because people push me
1
2
to play.
62

Somewhat true
3
4
3
4
3
4

5
5
5

Very True
6
7
6
7
6
7

20. To satisfy people who

want me to play.
21. But I wonder whats the
point.
22. But I question why I
continue.
23. But the reasons why are
not clear to me anymore.
24. But I question why I am
putting myself through
this.

63

The Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale (revised for sport) (Wilson, et al., 2006)
Please indicate how strongly agree or disagree with the following statements.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
1. I feel that I am able to
complete skills that are
1
2
3
4
5
personally challenging.
2. I feel confident that I can
do even the most
1
2
3
4
5
challenging skills.
3. I feel confident in my
ability to perform skills
1
2
3
4
5
that personally challenge
me.
4. I feel capable of doing
even the most
1
2
3
4
5
challenging skills.
5. I feel good about the way
I am able to complete
1
2
3
4
5
challenging skills.
6. I feel free to participate in
1
2
3
4
5
sport in my own way.
7. I feel free to make my
own decisions in my
1
2
3
4
5
sport.
8. I feel like I have a say in
choosing the skills that I
1
2
3
4
5
do.
9. I feel free to choose
which sport I participate
1
2
3
4
5
in.
10. I feel like I am the one
who decides what sports
1
2
3
4
5
that I do.
11. I feel attached to my
coaches because they
1
2
3
4
5
accept me for who I am.
12. I feel like I share a
common bond with my
1
2
3
4
5
coaches when we work
together.
13. I feel a sense of
camaraderie with my
1
2
3
4
5
coaches because we
participate in sport for the
64

Strongly
Agree
6

same reasons.
14. I feel close to my coaches
and teammates who
appreciate how difficult
sport can be.
15. I feel connected to my
coaches when we work
together.
16. I feel like I get along with
my coaches while we
work together.

65

Intention to Participate (Chatzisarantis et al., 1997)

Please indicate how likely each item is for you.
Very Unlikely
1. I am determined to play
sport at least 3 times a
1
2
week after the season is
over.
2. I intend to play sport at
least 3 times a week
1
2
during the off-season.
3. I plan to continue to play
1
2
sport next season.

Likely

Very Likely

Sport Satisfaction (Duda & Nicholls, 1992)

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the following items.
Stongly Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Agree
1. I usually have fun doing my sport.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I usually enjoy playing my sport.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I usually find my sport interesting.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I usually get involved in practices.
5. In practice, I usually feel that time
flies.

Performance
On a scale of 1 (extremely poor performance) to 10 (extremely good performance) rate how well
you think you are performing in your sport.
1. Rate how well you are currently performing. ____________
2. Rate how well you have performed overall this season. __________
3. Rate your improvement since the beginning of the season. _________

66

Demographic Assessment
1. ____ Male _____ Female
2. Ethnicity
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Hispanic
d. Native American
e. White/Caucasian
f. Other (please specify)________________________________
3. Sport ________________________
4. Number of years in sport ____________
5. Number of years playing for your current coach _____________
6. Number of sports played competitively _______________
7. Year in School
a. Freshman
b. Sophomore
c. Junior
d. Senior

67

Appendix B
Consent and Assent Forms
Parental Informed Consent Form

This study is being conducted by Kristin Zomermaand, PhD student, Department of

Educational Psychology and Learning Systems (Sport Psychology) at Florida State University.
The purpose of this study is to assess the experiences of athletes in high school team sports.
Please read this form carefully before allowing your child to participate.
If you consent to your child participating in this study, your child will be asked to answer
several questions about your childs sport experience. This one-time survey will last
approximately a half an hour. The information obtained in this study will be used to improve our
knowledge of the high school athlete sport experience.
There is minimal risk associated with taking part in this study. Your child does not have
to provide any information which he/she does not feel comfortable providing. Your child is free
to decline to answer any question he/she so chooses. Participation in this study is voluntary.
Your child may withdraw from this study at any time and his/her answers will not be used.
All information regarding your childs identity will be kept confidential to the extent
afforded by law. All materials including any written materials will be stored securely at the
researchers home. Electronic copies of the materials will be password protected. These
materials will be used only by the researcher.
If you have any questions in regards to this study feel free to contact the researcher,
Kristin Zomermaand, at any time in the course of the study. If you are concerned about the study
or if you feel your child has been put at risk, please contact the Florida State University IRB at
2010 Levy St., Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742, or by phone at
850-644-8633.
Please make a copy of this form for your records.

I have read the above information. I consent to my childs participation in this study.

______________________________
Signature of Parent

____________________________
Date

68

Informed Assent Form

This study is being conducted by Kristin Zomermaand, PhD student, Department of

Educational Psychology and Learning Systems (Sport Psychology) at Florida State University.
This study is about your personal sport experience and the purpose of this study is to become
more familiar with athlete experiences in team sports. Please read this form carefully before
deciding whether or not to participate.
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to provide your e-mail address
at the bottom of this form. The link to the questionnaire website will be sent to this e-mail
address. You will be asked to complete a questionnaire about your sport experience online. This
one-time survey will last approximately a half an hour. The information gained in this study will
be used to improve our knowledge of the high school athlete sport experience.
There is minimal risk associated with taking part in this study. You do not have to give
any information which you do not feel comfortable giving. You do not have to answer any
question if you do not want to. Participation in this study is voluntary. You may withdraw from
this study at any time and your answers will not be used.
All information about your identity will be kept confidential to the extent afforded by
law. No one, including coaches, teachers, and school administrators, will have access to your
answers. These and any other materials, including any written materials, will be stored securely
at the researchers home. Electronic copies of the materials will be password protected. These
materials will be used only by the researcher.
If you have any questions in regards to this study feel free to contact the researcher,
Kristin Zomermaand at any time in the course of the study. If you are concerned about the study
or if you feel you have been put at risk, please contact the Florida State University IRB at 2010
Levy St., Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742, or by phone at 850-6448633.

I have read the above information. I agree to participation in this study.

______________________________
Signature of Participant

____________________________
Date

E-mail: ________________________________________________________________
(The website link for the questionnaire will be sent to this address upon receipt of this form.)

69

Appendix C

IRB Approval Letters

From: Human Subjects (humansubjects@magnet.fsu.edu)
To: Kristin Zomermaand
Date: Mon, November 9, 2009 10:46:08 AM
Cc: Robert Eklund
Subject: Use of Human Subjects in Research - Approval Memorandum
Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 FAX (850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 11/9/2009
To: Kristin Zomermaand
Address: 2750 Old Saint Augustine Rd. #G61 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LEARNING SYSTEMS
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research
Motivation in Youth Sport: A Hierarchical Model
The application that you submitted to this office in regard to the use of human subjects in the
research proposal referenced above has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Committee at its
meeting on 11/04/2009. Your project was approved by the Committee.
The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your proposal for scientific merit, except to
weigh the risk to the human participants and the aspects of the proposal related to potential risk
and benefit. This approval does not replace any departmental or other approvals, which may be
required.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your application, the approved stamped consent
form is attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent form may be
used in recruiting research subjects.
If the project has not been completed by 11/3/2010 you must request a renewal of approval for
continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your

70

expiration date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request
renewal of your approval from the Committee.
You are advised that any change in protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by
the Committee prior to implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol
change/amendment form is required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition,
federal regulations require that the Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any
unanticipated problems or adverse events involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor is
reminded that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving
human subjects in the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that
the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The
Assurance Number is IRB00000446.
Cc: Robert Eklund, Advisor
HSC No. 2009.3274

71

Office of the Vice President For Research

Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 FAX (850) 644-4392
RE-APPROVAL MEMORANDUM
Date: 8/12/2011
To: Kristin Zomermaand
Address: 2750 Old Saint Augustine Rd. #G61 Tallahassee, FL 32301
Dept.: EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LEARNING SYSTEMS
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Re-approval of Use of Human subjects in Research
Motivation in Youth Sport: A Hierarchical Model
Your request to continue the research project listed above involving human subjects has been
approved by the Human Subjects Committee. If your project has not been completed by
8/8/2012, you must request a renewal of approval for continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a
renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it is your responsibility
as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your approval from the committee.
If you submitted a proposed consent form with your renewal request, the approved stamped
consent form is attached to this re-approval notice. Only the stamped version of the consent
form may be used in recruiting of research subjects. You are reminded that any change in
protocol for this project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee prior to
implementation of the proposed change in the protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is
required to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In addition, federal regulations require
that the Principal Investigator promptly report in writing, any unanticipated problems or adverse
events involving risks to research subjects or others.
By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your department and/or your major professor are
reminded of their responsibility for being informed concerning research projects involving
human subjects in their department. They are advised to review the protocols as often as
necessary to insure that the project is being conducted in compliance with our institution and
with DHHS regulations.

72

Cc:
HSC No. 2011.6751

73

Appendix D
Recruitment E-mail

Dear
Hi, my name is Kristin Zomermaand. I am a doctoral candidate at Florida State University. I am
conducting research regarding the athletes experience in team sports. I was wondering if you
would allow your athletic teams to participate in this research. I am looking for teams (varsity,
junior varsity, or freshman) which are in mid-season. The athletes will need approximately 15
minutes to fill out an online survey in which they will be asked questions pertaining to their
experience as a high school athlete. The survey does not ask personal questions and the athletes
identities will be kept confidential. Parental consent forms will be sent out to the parents if you
are willing to allow participation in this study. Participation in this study is completely voluntary.
This research is being conducted as part of my doctoral dissertation. Your schools participation
would be greatly appreciated. The results will be provided to you if you would like.
If you have any questions, please feel free to respond to this e-mail. I would be happy to talk
further about this study with you.

Thanks for your consideration,

Kristin L. Zomermaand, M. A.
Doctoral Candidate
Sport Psychology
Educational Psychology and Learning Systems
College of Education
Florida State University

74

References
Agassi, A. (2009). Open: An autobiography. New York, NY: AKA Publishing, LLC.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching and selfdetermined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determination
theory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 664-670.
Barnett, N. P., Smoll, F. L., & Smith, R. E. (1992). Effects of enhancing coach-athlete
relationships on youth sport attrition. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 111-127.
Barr-Anderson, D. J., Young, D. R., Sallis, J. F., Neumark-Sztainer, D. R., Gittlesohn, J.
Webber, L., Jobe, J. B. (2007). Structured physical activity and psychosocial
correlates in middle-school girls. Preventive Medicine, 44, 404-409.
Barrett, L. F. (2006). Solving the emotion paradox: Categorization and the experience of
emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 20-46.
Bengoechea, E. G. & Strean, W. B. (2007). On the interpersonal context of adolescents sport
motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 195-217.
Biddle, S. J. H., Wang, C. K. J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Spray, C. M. (2003). Motivation for
physical activity in young people: Entity and incremental beliefs about athletic ability.
Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 973-989.
Biddle, S. J. H., Whitehead, S. H., ODonovan, T. M., & Neville, M. E. (2005). Correlates of
participation in physical activity for adolescent girls: A systematic review of recent
literature. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 2, 432-434.
Black, A. E. & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructor's autonomy support and students'
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.
Boixados, M., Cruz, J., Torregrosa, M., & Valiente, L. (2004). Relationships among motivational
climate, satisfaction, perceived ability, and fair play attitudes in young soccer players.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 301-317.
Bray, S. R., Millen, J. A., Eidsness, J., & Leuzinger, C. (2005). The effects of leadership style
and exercise program choreography on enjoyment and intentions to exercise. Pscyhology
of Sport and Exercise, 6, 415-425.

75

Calvo, T. G., Cervello, E., Jimenez, R., Iglesias, D., & Murcia, J. A. M. (2010). Using selfdetermination theory to explain sport persistence and dropout in adolescent athletes. The
Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 677-684.
Cervello, E., Rosa, F. J. S., Calvo, T. G., Jimenez, R., & Iglesias, D. (2007). Young tennis
players competitive task involvement and performance: The role of goal orientations,
contextual motivational climate, and coach-initiated motivational climate. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 304-321.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Biddle, S. J. H., & Meek, G. A. (1997). A self-determination approach
to the study of intentions and the intention-behavior relationship in children's physical
education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 343-360.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., Biddle, S. J. H., Smith, B., & Wang, J. C. K. (2003). A
meta-analysis of perceived locus of causality in exercise, sport, and physical education
contexts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 284-306.
Coatsworth, J. D. & Conroy, D. E. (2006). Enhancing the self-esteem of youth swimmers
through coach training: Gender and age effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7,
173-192.
Conroy, D. E. & Coatsworth, J. E. (2007). Assessing autonomy-supportive coaching strategies in
youth sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 671-684.
Conroy, D. E., Kaye, M. P. & Coatsworth, J. D. (2006). Coaching climates and the destructive
effects of mastery-avoidance achievement goals on situational motivation. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 69-92.
Corbin, C. B., Pangrazi, R. P., & Le Masurier, G. C. (2004). Physical activity for children:
Current patterns and guidelines. Presidents Council on Physical Activity and Sports:
Research Digest, 5(2), 1-9.
Cox, A. & Williams, L. (2008). The roles of perceived teacher support, motivational climate, and
psychological need satisfaction in students' physical education motivation. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 222-239.
Cumming, S. P., Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & Grossbard, J. R. (2007). Is winning everything?
The relative contributions of motivational climate and won-lost percentages in youth
sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19, 322-336.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior.
Academic Press, New York and London.
Deci, E. L. (1980). Psychology of self-determination. Lexington: Lexington Books.

76

Deci, E. L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: G.
P. Putnams Sons.
Deci, E., Eghari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The selfdetermination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
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.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Duda, J. L. (1989). Relationship between task and ego orientation and the perceived purpose of
sport among high school athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 318-335.
Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M. L., Walling, M. D., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego
orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
26, 40-63.
Duda, J. L. & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport. In R. N. Singer, H. A.
Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle, (Eds.) Handbook of Sport Psychology: Second Edition (pp.
417-443). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and
sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.
Duda, J. L. & White, S. A. (1992). Goal orientations and beliefs about the causes of sport success
among elite skiers. The Sport Psychologist, 6, 334-343.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2007). Testing a self-determination theory based
teaching style intervention in the exercise domain. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 38, 375-388.
Ewing, M. & Seefeldt, V. (2002). Patterns of participation in American agency-sponsored youth
sports. In R. Smith and F. Smoll (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A biopsychosocial
perspective (pp. 39-59). Dubuque: Kendall-Hunt.
Falhman, M. J. J., McCaughtry, N., & Shen, B. (2009). Effects of teacher autonomy support and
students autonomous motivation on learning in physical education. Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, 80, 44-53.
Ferrar-Caja, E. & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent
students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 267-279.
77

Ferrer-Caja, E. & Weiss, M. R. (2002). Cross-validation of a model of intrinsic motivation with

students enrolled in high school elective courses. Journal of Experimental Education, 71,
41-65.
Fraser-Thomas, J., Cote, J., & Deakin, J. (2008). Examining adolescent sport dropout and
prolonged engagement from a developmental perspective. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 20, 318-333.
Gagne, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in
motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372390.
Gano-Overway, L. A. & Ewing, M. E. (2004). A longitudinal perspective of the relationship
between perceived motivational climate, goal orientations, and strategy use. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 315-325.
Goudas, M. & Biddle, S. (1995). A prospective study of the relationships between motivational
orientations and perceived competence with intrinsic motivation and achievement in a
teacher education course. Educational Psychology, 15, 89.
Grieve, F. G., Whelan, J. P., Kottke, R., & Meyers, A. W. (1994). Manipulating adults
achievement goals in a sport task: Effects on cognitive, affective, and behavioral
variables. Journal of Sport Behavior, 17, 227-245.
Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with childrens' self-regulation
and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement:
Motivational mediators of children's perceptions of their parents. Journal Educational
Psychology, 83, 508-517.
Guay, F., Boggiano, A. K., & Vallerand, R. J. (2001). Autonomy support, intrinsic motivation,
and perceived competence: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 27, 643-650.
Hagger, M . S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Culverhouse, T., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2003). The
processes by which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure
time physical activity intentions and behavior: A trans-contextual model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95, 784-795.
Halliburton, A. L. & Weiss, M. R. (2002). Sources of competence information and perceived
motivational climate among adolescent female gymnasts varying in skill level. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 396-419.

78

Hein, V. & Hagger, M. S. (2007). Global self-esteem, goal-achievement, and self-determined

behavioural regulations in physical education settings. Journal of Sports Sciences, 25,
149-159.
Horn, T. S. (1985). Coaches feedback and changes in childrens perceptions of their physical
competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 174-186.
Hoyle, R. H., Georgesen, J. C., Webster, J. M. (2001). Analyzing data from individuals in
groups: The past, the present, and the future. Group Dynamics: Theory Research and
Practice, 5, 41-47.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Hueze, J. P., Sarrazin, P., Masiero, M., Raimbault, M., & Thomas, J. P. (2006). The relationships
of perceived motivational climate to cohesion and collective efficacy in elite female
teams. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 201-218.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd edition. New
York, NY: The Guilford Press
Lee, S. M., Wechsler, H., & Balling, A. (2006). The role of schools in preventing childhood
obesity. Research Digest: Presidents Council on physical fitness and sports, 7, 1-8.
Lemyre, F., Trudel, P. & Durand-Bush, N. (2007). How youth-sport coaches learn to coach. The
Sport Psychologist, 21, 191-209.
Levy-Tossman, I. , Kaplon, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal-orientations, multiple goal
profiles, and friendship intimacies in early adolescents. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 32, 231-252.
Li, C-H. & Chi, L. (2007). Prediction of goal orientation and perceived competence on intensity
and direction of precompetitive anxiety among adolescent handball players. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 105, 83-101.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to
parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,
151-173.
Lloyd, K. M., & Little, D. e. (2010). Keeping women active: An examination of the impacts of
self-efficacy intrinsic motivation , and leadership on womens persistence in physical
activity. Women and Health, 50, 652-669.

79

Loney, T., Standage, M., & Lewis, S. (2008). Not just skin deep. Psychological effects of
dermatological-related social anxiety in a sample of acne patients. Journal of Health
Psychology, 13, 47-54.
Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. (2009). Athlete burnout in elite sport: A self-determination
perspective. Journal of Sport Sciences, 27, 785-795.
Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multi-level modeling.
Methodology, 1, 86-92.
Magyar, T. M. & Feltz, D. L. (2003). The influence of dispositional and situational tendencies on
adolescent girls sport confidence sources. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 175-190.
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2009). In search of golden rules: Comment of hypothesis
testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing
Hu and Bentlers (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 11, 320-341.
Martin, J. J. & Gill, D. L. (1991). The relationships among competitive orientation, sport
confidence, self-efficacy, anxiety, and performance. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 13, 149-159.
Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Debus, R. L., & Malmberg, L. (2008). Performance and mastery
orientation of high school and university/college students: A Rasch perspective.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 464-487.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic
Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.
McDonough, M. H. & Crocker, P. R. E. (2007). Testing self-determined motivation as a
mediator of the relationship between psychological needs and affective and behavioral
outcomes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 645-663.
Milne, H. M., Wallman, K. E., Guilfoyle, A., Gordon, S., & Courneya, K. S. (2008). Selfdetermination theory and physical activity among breast cancer survivors. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 23-38.
Morgan, K., Sproule, J., Weigand, D., & Carpenter, P. (2005). A computer-based observational
assessment of the teaching behaviours that influence motivational climate in physical
education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 10, 83-105.
Motl, R. W. (2007). Chapter 2: Theoretical models for understanding physical activity behavior
among children and adolescents: Social cognitive theory and self-determination theory.
Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 26, 350-357.

80

Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of
positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 30, 240-268.
Murcia, J. A. M., Lacarcel, J. A. V., & Alvarez, F. D. V. (2010). Search for autonomy in motor
task learning in physical education university students. European Journal of
Psychological Education, 25, 37-47.
Newton, M., Watson, D. L., Kim, M., & Beachum, A. O. (2006). Understanding motivation of
underserved youth in physical activity settings. Youth and Society, 37, 348-371.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience,
task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001a). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in
physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225-242.
Ntoumanis, N. (2001b). Empirical links between achievement goal theory and self-determination
in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19, 397-409.
Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G. C., Lemyre, P. N., & Miller, B. W. (2005). Peer relationships in
adolescent competitive soccer: Associations to perceived motivational climate,
achievement goals and perfectionism. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 977-989.
Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G. C., Lemyre, P., & Miller, B. W. (2006). Parental and coach support
or pressure on psychosocial outcomes of pediatric athletes in soccer. Clinical Journal of
Sports Medicine, 16, 522-526.
Papaioannou, A. G., Ampatzoglou, G., Kalogiannis, P., & Sagovits, A. (2008). Social agents,
achievement goals, satisfaction and academic achievement in sport settings. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 9, 122-141.
Papaioannou, A., Bebetsos, E., Theodorakis, Y., Christodoulidis, T., & Kouli, O. (2006). Causal
relationships of sport and exercise involvement with goal orientations, perceived
competence and intrinsic motivation in physical education: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Sports Sciences, 24, 367-382.
Papaioannou, A., Marsh, H. W., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). A multilevel approach to
motivational climate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or group
level construct? Journal of Exercise and Sport Psychology, 26, 90-118.
Papaioannou, A. G., Milosis, D., Kismidou, E., & Tsigilis, N. (2007). Motivational climate and
achievement goals at the situational level of generality. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 19, 38-66.

81

Parish, L. E. & Treasure, D. C. (2003). Physical activity and situational motivation in physical
education: Influence of the motivational climate and perceived ability. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74, 173-182.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., Alfred-Liro, C., Fredericks, J. A., Hruda, L. Z., & Eccles, J. S. (1999).
Adolescents' commitment to developing talent: The role of peers for continuing
motivation for sports and the arts. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 28, 741-763.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Breire, N. M. (2001). Associations among
perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective
study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279-306.
Plant, R. W. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness,
self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles.
Journal of Personality, 53, 435-449.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senecal, C. (2007). Autonomous,
controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734-746.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data
Analysis Methods. Second Edition. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks.
Reeve, J. & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic
motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 24-33.
Reinboth, M. & Duda, J. L. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction, and
indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal study. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 7, 269-286.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Ego-involved persistence: When free-choice
behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205.
Scarpa, S. & Nart, A. (2012). Influences of perceived sport competence in physical activity
enjoyment in early adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 40, 203-204.
Seefeldt, V. D. & Ewing, M. E. (1997). Youth sports in America: An overview. Research Digest,
11(2), 1-19.
Shernoff, D. J. & Vandell, D. L. (2007). Engagement in after-school program activities: Quality
of experience from the perspective of participants. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 36,
891-903.

82

Sherman, C. A., Fuller, R., & Speed, H. D. (2002). Gender comparisons of preferred coaching
behaviors in Australian sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 389-406.
Silva, M. N., Marklands, D., Vieira, P. N., Coutinho, S. R., Carraca, E. V., Palmeira, A. L.,
Teixeira, P. J. (2010). Helping overweight women become more active: Need support
and motivational regulations for different forms of physical activity. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 11, 591-601. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.0111
Smith, S. L., Fry, M. D., Ethington, C. A., & Li, Y. (2005). The effect of female athletes'
perceptions of their coaches' behaviors on their perceptions of the motivational climate.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 170-177.
Smith, R. E., Cumming, S. P., & Smoll, F. L. (2008). Development and validation of the
Motivational Climate Scale for Youth Sports. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20,
116-136.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Cumming, S. P. (2007). Effects of a motivational climate
intervention for coaches on youth athletes sport performance anxiety. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 29, 39-59.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Curtis, B. (1979). Coach effectiveness training: A cognitivebehavioral approach to enhancing relationship skills in youth sport coaches. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 1, 59-75.
Smoll, F. L., Smith, R. E., & S. P. Cumming (2007). Effects of a motivational climate
intervention for coaches on changes in young athletes achievement goal orientations.
Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, 1, 23-46.
Sproule, J., Wang, C. K. J., Morgan, K., McNeill, M., & McMorris, T. (2007). Effects of
motivational climate in Singaporean physical education lessons on intrinsic motivation
and physical activity intention. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1037-1049.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003a). Predicting motivational regulations in
physical education: The interplay between dispositional goal orientations, motivational
climate, and perceived competence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, 631-647.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003b). A model of contextual motivation in
physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal
theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
97-110.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school
physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 411-433.

83

Standage, M. & Treasure, D. C. (2002). Relationship among achievement goal orientations and
multidimensional situational motivation in physical education. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72, 87-103.
Stapleton, L. M. (2006). Multi-level SEM with complex sample data. In Hancock, G. R. &
Mueller, R. D. (Eds.), Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course (pp. 345-383).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Taylor, I. M. & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student selfdetermination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747-760.
Turban, D. B., Tan, H. H., Brown, K. G., & Sheldon, K. M. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes
of perceived locus of causality: An application of self-determination theory. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2376-2404.
Turman, P. D. (2001). Situational coaching styles: The impact of success and athlete maturity on
coaches' leadership styles over time. Small Group Research, 32, 576-594.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 29 (pp. 271-360). New
York: Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J., & Fortier, M. S. (1998). Measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport
and physical activity: A review and critique. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in Sport and
Exercise Psychology Measurement (pp. 81-101), Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142-169.
Vanreusel, B., Renson, R., Beunen, G., Claessens, A. L., Lefevre, J., Lysens, R., & Vanden
Eynde, B. (1997). A longitudinal study of youth sport participation and adherence to
sport in adulthood. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 32, 373-387.
Vansteenkiste, M., Matos, L., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2007). Understanding the impact of
intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing on exercise performance: The conflicting role of
task and ego involvement. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 771-794.
Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broeck, A. (2008). Does
extrinsic goal-framing enhance extrinsic goal-oriented individuals' learning and
performance? An experimental test of the match perspective versus self-determination
theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 387-397.
Vargas-Tonsing, T. M. (2007). Coaches preferences for continuing coaching education.
International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2, 25-35.

84

Vazou, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2005). Peer motivational climate in youth sport: A
qualitative inquiry. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 497-416.
Vealey, R. S., Hayashi, S. W., Garner-Holman, M., & Giacobbi, P. (1998). Sources of sportconfidence: Conceptualization and instrument development. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 20, 54-80.
Viciana, J., Cervello, E. M., & Ramirez-Lechuga, A. (2007). Effects of manipulating positive
and negative feedback on goal orientations, perceived motivational climate, satisfaction,
task choice, and attitude towards physical education classes. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
105, 67-82.
Wallhead, T. L., Haggar, M., & Smith, D. T. (2010). Sport education and extracurricular sport
participation: An examination using the trans-contextual model of motivation. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81, 442-455.
Wang, J. & Biddle, S. (2001). Young people's motivational profiles in physical activity: A
cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 1-22.
Weiss, M. R., Kimmel, L. A., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Determinants of sport commitment in
junior tennis players: Enjoyment as a mediating variable. Pediatric Exercise Science, 13,
131-144.
Weiss, M. R. & Smith, A. L. (2002). Friendship quality in youth sport: Relationship to age,
gender, and motivational variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 420437.
Williams, L. & Gill, D. L. (1995). The role of perceived competence in the motivation of
physical activity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 363-378.
Wilson, P.M. & Rodgers, W. M. (2004). The relationship between perceived autonomy support,
exercise regulations, and behavioral intentions in women. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 5, 229-242.
Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. T., Rodgers, W. M., & Wild, T. C. (2006). The psychological need
satisfaction in exercise scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 28, 231-251.
Zomermaand, K. (2010). The views and roles of coaches in the development of youth athlete
motivation: A qualitative approach. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 1(3), 11-23.

85

Biographical Sketch
Kristin Zomermaand
Kristin L. Zomermaand was born in Sioux Center, IA and developed a love for sport and
psychology at a young age. She played soccer and studied psychology at Dordt College where
she was named a two-time Academic All-American before moving to California to study
Applied Sport Psychology at John F. Kennedy University. She received her Master of Arts
Degree in 2003. Kristin continued her education at Florida State University where she pursued a
Doctoral degree in Sport Psychology. In the process of her studies she has worked with many
teams and athletes as a sport psychology consultant. She published her first article in 2010 and
has continued her research into motivation in sport. From 2010-2012, she was full-time faculty
at Louisiana College in Pineville, LA and continues to teach online classes for the Human
Behavior Department there.

86