Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport and Physical ... · Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation...

59

CHAPTER 3

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport andPhysical ActivityA Review and a Look at the Future

ROBERT J. VALLERAND

Motivation has been repeatedly reported as a key element ofathletes’ success in sports (Gould, Dieffenbach, & Moffett,2002) and exercisers’ persistence with an exercise regimen(Wilson & Rodgers, in press). Thus, it is not surprising thatmuch research has been conducted on motivation in sportand physical activity. Intrinsic motivation (doing somethingfor its own sake) and extrinsic motivation (doing somethingas a means to an end and not for its own sake), in particular,have been very popular topics and have allowed researchersto make sense of several phenomena of importance in sportand physical activity (see Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan, 1987;Vallerand & Rousseau, 2001). The purpose of this chapter isto present a review of research on intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation with a keen eye on the most recent research andtrends. I start by defining motivation in general and intrin-sic and extrinsic motivation in particular. I then present abrief overview of the organismic approach, specifically self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000). I presentthe hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation(HMIEM; Vallerand, 1997, 2001, in press; Vallerand &Ratelle, 2002), which serves as the organizing frameworkfor the review. I then focus on recent research that hasappeared since our initial review (Vallerand & Rousseau,2001). Finally, I conclude by highlighting recent researchtrends considered to be important and provide suggestionsfor future research directions that appear promising.

MOTIVATION AND SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

The concept of motivation can be defined as “ the hypo-thetical construct used to describe the internal and/or

external forces that produce the initiation, direction, inten-sity, and persistence of behavior” (Vallerand & Thill,1993, p. 18; translated from French). The emphasis oninternal and external forces fits in very well with the pres-ence of two major types of motivation that have been heav-ily researched, namely, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.Whereas initially research and models focused on the reac-tive or passive role of humans in their action with the envi-ronment, later research showed that people don’t merelyreact to rewards (Weiner, 1972). In fact, a movement gath-ered momentum in the late 1950s and early 1960s positingthat the innate needs of competence (White, 1959), auton-omy (Angyal, 1941; deCharms, 1968), and relatedness(Harlow, 1958) were important in leading the person to beproactive in exploring the environment. This led to thedevelopment of a second position, termed the organismicapproach, where it is proposed that individuals are activelyengaged and proactive in their interaction with the envi-ronment because “people are inherently motivated to feelconnected to others within a social milieu [relatedness], tofunction effectively in that milieu [competence], and to feela sense of personal initiative while doing so [autonomy]”(Deci & Ryan, 1994, p. 7).

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000)has pursued the work of early need theorists. It posits thatcompetence, autonomy, and relatedness are universallyessential for optimal human development, motivation, andintegrity. That is, a need serves the function of promotingpsychological health; conversely, when needs are not met,psychological health is undermined. Research supports thiscrucial hypothesis with students (Reis, Sheldon, Gable,Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000) and athletes (Gagné, Ryan, &

60 Motivation, Emotion, and Psychophysiology

Bargman, 2003) in different cultures (Sheldon, Elliot, Kim,& Kasser, 2001). Thus, clearly needs do matter withrespect to people’s well-being and motivation. However,needs matter for at least two other reasons. First, from amotivational perspective, needs represent the energyunderlying people’s behavior. That is, people engage in cer-tain activities in order to satisfy their needs. To the extentthat their needs are satisfied, people will be motivated toengage in such activities out of their own choosing withoutany prodding (self-determined motivation). A second rea-son needs are important is because they represent the pro-cess through which changes in motivation take place. Thefulfillment of our psychological needs is important becauseit orients us toward certain types of behaviors and activi-ties in the hope that they will fulfill our needs. In such aquest, the social environment is as much an opponent as anally, at times leading us to activities that satisfy our needsand at other times steering us in directions that go counterto the adaptive development of the self and the experienceof positive outcomes.

A HIERARCHICAL MODEL OF INTRINSICAND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Over the years, research conducted on intrinsic and extrin-sic motivation has shown that personality, situational-level-based motivation, and intermediate contextual level(or life domain) motivations are influenced by a host offactors and lead to various outcomes. Various conceptualframeworks in addition to SDT have been advanced toexplain the major findings (see Vallerand, 1997). Buildingon such research and theory and especially SDT, a modelhas been proposed relative to the integration of the differ-ent levels at which motivation research has been conduct-ed. The HMIEM (Vallerand, 1997, 2001, in press;Vallerand & Perreault, 1999; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002)comprises five postulates and five corollaries. Takentogether, these postulates and corollaries explain (a) themotivational determinants and consequences at three lev-els of generality as well as (b) the interactions among moti-vation at the three levels of generality, while taking intoaccount the complexity of human motivation (see Figure3.1). The model is briefly described next.

A Multidimensional Perspective of Motivation

A first postulate of the HMIEM is that the concepts ofintrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation

are needed to make sense of a full range of motivationalprocesses. Intrinsic motivation refers to performing anactivity for itself and the pleasure and satisfaction derivedfrom participation (Deci, 1971). Vallerand and his col-leagues (Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989;Vallerand et al., 1992, 1993) posited the existence of threetypes of intrinsic motivation: intrinsic motivation to know,intrinsic motivation to accomplish things, and intrinsicmotivation to experience stimulation. Intrinsic motivationto know refers to engaging in an activity for the pleasureand satisfaction that one experiences while learning,exploring, or trying to understand something new. Basket-ball players who practice because they enjoy learning newoffensive moves display intrinsic motivation to know.Intrinsic motivation to accomplish things pertains toengaging in a given activity for the pleasure and satisfac-tion experienced while one is attempting to accomplish orcreate something or to surpass oneself. Finally, intrinsicmotivation to experience stimulation is at work when oneengages in an activity to experience pleasant sensationsassociated mainly with one’s senses (e.g., sensory and aes-thetic pleasure). Swimmers who swim because they enjoythe pleasant sensations they experience while their bodiesglide through water display this type of intrinsic motiva-tion. This tripartite distinction highlights the differentfashions in which intrinsic motivation may be experiencedin sport and exercise. Much research (Fairchild, Horst,Finney, & Barron, 2005; Hein, Müür, & Koka, 2004) sup-ports this taxonomy.

Extrinsic motivation refers to engaging in an activityas a means to an end and not for its own sake. There aredifferent types of extrinsic motivation, some of which aremore self-determined in nature (Deci & Ryan, 1985,2000). In other words, individuals may choose to performan activity, even though they do not do it for pleasure.Deci and Ryan (1985) have proposed four types of extrin-sic motivation. External regulation refers to behavior thatis regulated through external means, such as rewards andconstraints. For instance, an athlete might say, “I’m goingto today’s practice because I want the coach to let me playtomorrow.” With introjected regulation, individuals beginto internalize the reasons for their actions. However, thistype of extrinsic motivation is not self-determinedbecause individuals still experience pressure, althoughthis time the pressure is self-imposed (e.g., through guiltand anxiety). An example of introjected regulation is theathlete who goes to a practice because he would feelguilty if he missed it. It is only with identified regulationthat behavior is done out of choice. When they display

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport and Physical Activity 61

identified regulation, athletes freely perform the activityeven if it is not pleasant in itself. An example of identifiedregulation is the soccer player who does not like weightlifting but who nevertheless chooses to do it becauseshe knows that building her strength will allow her tobecome a better player. Integrated regulation also involvesdoing an activity out of choice; however, in this case, thechoice represents a harmonious part of the individual’sself. In other words, one’s choices are made as a functionof their coherence with other aspects of the self. Anexample of integrated regulation is the ice hockey playerwho chooses to postpone a night out with his friends onFriday to be in top shape for the big game on Saturdayafternoon.

Finally, amotivation refers to the lack of intentionalityand thus the relative absence of motivation. When amoti-vated, athletes experience feelings of incompetence andexpectancies of uncontrollability. They are relatively with-

out purpose with respect to the activity and therefore havelittle motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) to perform it.

Motivation at Different Levels of Generality

A second issue underscored by Postulate 2 of the HMIEMis that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivationexist at three levels of generality: global, contextual, andsituational. Motivation at the global level refers to a gener-al motivational orientation to interact with the environmentin an intrinsic, extrinsic, or amotivated way. It is similar toa personality trait where one is predominantly intrinsical-ly or extrinsically motivated, or even amotivated. Motiva-tion at the contextual level is an individual’s usualmotivational orientation toward a specific context or a setof specific and related activities. Research on intrinsic andextrinsic contextual motivation has typically focused onthree contexts: education (or work), interpersonal relation-ships, and leisure (of which sport is an important part; see

Figure 3.1 The hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Note: IM = Intrinsic Motivation; EM = Extrinsic Motivation;AM = Amotivation. Source: “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport and Exercise: A Review Using the Hierarchical Model ofIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation” (p. 391), by R. J. Vallerand and F. L. Rousseau, in Handbook of Sport Psychology, second edition,R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, and C. M. Janelle (Eds.), 2001, New York: Wiley. Reprinted with permission.

Social Factors Mediators Hierarchical Levels of Motivation Consequences

GlobalLevel

Globalfactors

Autonomy

Competence

Relatedness

Global MotivationIM, EM, AM

Affect

Cognition

Behavior

SituationalLevel

Autonomy

Competence

Relatedness

Situational MotivationIM, EM, AM

Affect

Cognition

Behavior

Situationalfactors

Contextual Motivation

ContextualLevel

Autonomy

Competence

Relatedness

Affect

Cognition

Behavior

Contextualfactors

EducationIM, EM, AM

Interpersonalrelations

IM, EM, AM

Sport/exercise

IM, EM, AM


Vallerand, 1997). Finally, motivation at the situationallevel refers to the motivation individuals experience whenengaging in a specific activity at a given moment in time.Situational motivation refers to a motivational state. It isimportant to distinguish among these three levels as such aconceptualization provides a more refined understandingof motivational processes involved in human behavior.

Assessing Motivation

It is important to have a brief look at methodologicaladvances that have taken place to assess the different typesof motivation across the three levels of generality. Thiswill facilitate the understanding of the review presented inthe later sections.

At the situational level, researchers have developed theSituational Motivation Scale (SIMS; Guay, Vallerand, &Blanchard, 2000), which measures intrinsic motivation(without distinguishing the three types), identified andexternal types of extrinsic motivation, and amotivation.The choice to measure only four motivational types wasdictated by the need to keep the scale as brief as possible(16 items, although an introjected regulation scale is alsoavailable) to capture situational motivation in many lab andfield situations without overloading participants with along questionnaire. The results of several studies(Edwards, Portman, & Bethea, 2002; Guay et al., 2000;Lévesque & Pelletier, 2003; Standage & Treasure, 2002;Standage, Treasure, Duda, & Prusak, 2003) have shownthat the scale displays adequate factorial structure andinternal consistency and leads to theory-informed predic-tions. Although several studies typically yielded supportfor the factorial structure of the scale (see Guay et al.,2000), some authors (Standage, Treasure, et al., 2003) sug-gested that the factorial structure of a 14-item version ofthe scale might be more appropriate than the 16-item orig-inal version. Close inspection of the Standage, Treasure,et al. (2003) data supports this. However, the data alsoreveal that overall the factorial structure of the 16-itemscale is still appropriate. Because the use of the scale insport has just begun and support for the full-scale versionhas been obtained in several studies, it is recommendedthat researchers use the full-scale and not the 14-item ver-sion at this point.

Scales assessing motivation at the contextual level havealso been developed. Because we were mainly interested incollege students and because research revealed that collegestudents rated education, leisure, and interpersonal rela-tionships as their three main life contexts (Blais, Vallerand,Gagnon, Brière, & Pelletier, 1990), scales were developed

to measure motivation in these contexts. The AcademicMotivation Scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1989, 1992, 1993)assesses contextual motivation toward education; the Inter-personal Motivation Inventory (Blais, Vallerand, Pelletier,& Brière, 1994) assesses contextual motivation in interper-sonal relationships; and the Leisure Motivation Scale (Pel-letier, Vallerand, Green-Demers, Blais, & Brière, 1996)measures contextual motivation toward leisure activities.Because sport represents an important type of leisure activ-ity for most people and a full-fledged life context for ath-letes, we have also developed a scale to assess sportmotivation, both in French (the Echelle de Motivation dansles Sports; Brière, Vallerand, Blais, & Pelletier, 1995) andin English (Sport Motivation Scale; SMS; Pelletier et al.,1995). The SMS assesses the seven types of motivationalconstructs described earlier, although recently Pelletier andKabush (2005, cited in Pelletier & Sarrazin, in press) addedan integrated regulation subscale to the SMS. The SMS hasbeen translated into several languages and fully validated inFrench, English, Greek, and Finnish and used in a varietyof sports too numerous to mention. Overall, the validity andreliability of the SMS has been repeatedly supported (seePelletier & Sarrazin, in press, for a review). This alsoapplies to measures of the other life contexts.

Scales assessing some of the constructs proposed by SDTand the HMIEM have been developed to measure motiva-tion toward exercise, such as the Behavioral Regulation inExercise Questionnaire (BREQ; Markland & Tobin, 2004;Mullan, Markland, & Ingledew, 1997), the Exercise Moti-vation Scale (Li, 1999), and the Perceived Locus of Causal-ity Scale (Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994). These scales haveshown adequate levels of validity and reliability.

Finally, the Global Motivation Scale (GMS; Guay,Vallerand, Pelletier, & Blais, 1999) has been developedto assess the three different types of intrinsic motivation,and the identified, introjected, and external types ofextrinsic motivation, as well as amotivation toward life ingeneral. More recently, Pelletier and his colleagues (Pel-letier, Dion, & Lévesque, 2004) have added an integra-tion subscale. Results with the GMS indicate that thescale is both reliable and valid and relatively free fromsocial desirability (Guay, Mageau, & Vallerand, 2003;Guay et al., 1999).

Motivation as a Social Phenomenon

A third issue of interest is that motivation is a social phe-nomenon. Corollary 3.1 of the hierarchical model statesthat motivation can result from social factors that can beglobal, contextual, or situational, depending on the level of


generality. Global social factors are so pervasive that theyare present in most aspects of a person’s life. An exampleof a global factor is the role of parents, as their presence isfelt across children’s life and as such should affect theirglobal motivation. On the other hand, contextual social fac-tors are present on a general or recurrent basis in one spe-cific life context but not necessarily in another. Forexample, a controlling coach may influence an adolescent’smotivation toward sport but not toward education. Finally,situational social factors are present at a given point intime (e.g., receiving positive feedback from the coach aftercompleting a great catch in baseball).

Corollary 3.2 is closely related to Corollary 3.1. In linewith the work of several theorists (deCharms, 1968; Deci& Ryan, 2000; White, 1959), it states that the impact ofsocial factors on motivation is mediated by perceptions ofcompetence, autonomy, and relatedness. This means thatmotivation is not influenced by social factors per se, butby the way individuals interpret those factors in terms offacilitating their needs for competence, autonomy, andrelatedness.

Motivation as an Intrapersonal Phenomenon

Motivation is also an intrapersonal phenomenon. Accord-ing to Corollary 3.3, motivation at one level of the hierar-chy also results from top-down effects of motivation atthe proximal level higher up in the hierarchy. For example,if one’s predominant contextual motivation toward agiven sport is intrinsic motivation, then, all other factorsbeing equal, one should have a tendency to display intrin-sic motivation toward an activity related to one’s sport ata specific point in time (at the situational level). More-over, the dynamic nature of the relationship among moti-vations at different levels can result not only in top-downeffects, but also in bottom-up effects. Thus, Postulate 4states that over time, there is a recursive bottom-up rela-tionship between motivation at a given level and motiva-tion at the next higher level in the hierarchy. For example,an athlete repeatedly experiencing situational intrinsicmotivation in a particular sport should eventually developan increase in contextual intrinsic motivation toward thissport. In addition, contextual motivations can have facili-tative or debilitative effects toward one another, depend-ing on their level of self-determined motivation. Themore self-determined one’s motivation toward a givenlife context, the more it will facilitate one’s motivationtoward another life context because it is more fully inte-grated in the self. Finally, global motivation can alsoserve an integrative function regarding the interplay

between two or more life contextual motivations and theexperiences related to them (see Koestner, Bernieri, &Zuckerman, 1992).

Motivational Consequences

Motivation can also lead to important consequences of atleast three types: affective, cognitive, and behavioral (Pos-tulate 5; Vallerand, 1997). Furthermore, according toCorollary 5.1, consequences are hypothesized to bedecreasingly positive from intrinsic motivation to amotiva-tion. Finally, consequences can occur at all three levels ofgenerality depending on the level of motivation that hasproduced them (Corollary 5.2).

In summary, the HMIEM deals with at least two impor-tant elements. First, it identifies the psychological mecha-nisms underlying the determinants and outcomes ofmotivation. In doing so, the model provides a rich frame-work to integrate existing knowledge on intrinsic and extrin-sic motivation. Second, the hierarchical model proposes newdirections for future research. Table 3.1 summarizes the

Table 3.1 Postulates and Corollaries of the Hierarchical Model

Postulate 1 A complete analysis of motivation must includeintrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation.

Postulate 2 Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation exist at three levelsof generality: the global, contextual, and situationallevels.

Postulate 3 Motivation is determined by social factors and top-down effects from motivation at the proximal levelhigher up in the hierarchy.

Corollary 3.1 Motivation can result from social factors that areeither global, contextual, or situational dependingon the level of generality.

Corollary 3.2 The impact of social factors on motivation is medi-ated by perceptions of competence, autonomy, andrelatedness.

Corollary 3.3 Motivation results from top-down effects frommotivation at the proximal level higher up in thehierarchy.

Postulate 4 There is a recursive bottom-up relationship betweenmotivation at a given level and motivation at thenext higher level in the hierarchy.

Postulate 5 Motivation leads to important consequences.

Corollary 5.1 Consequences are decreasingly positive from intrin-sic motivation to amotivation.

Corollary 5.2 Motivational consequences exist at the three levelsof the hierarchy, and the degree of generality of theconsequences depends on the level of the motivationthat has produced them.

Adapted from “Toward a Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and ExtrinsicMotivation” (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360), by R. J. Vallerand, in Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, M. P. Zanna (Ed.), 1997, New York:Academic Press.


postulates and corollaries of the model. This framework isused in this chapter to review the literature on intrinsic andextrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity.

RESEARCH ON MOTIVATION ATTHE SITUATIONAL LEVEL

As discussed previously, situational motivation refers tothe motivation individuals experience while engaging in agiven activity at a specific point in time. An example wouldbe the basketball player who is practicing her jump shot at3:00 P.M. on a Saturday for the sheer pleasure of executingthe movement and feeling the flow of the movement. In thissection, the studies dealing with the determinants and con-sequences of situational motivation in sport and physicalactivity are reviewed.

Determinants

Several motivational determinants have been studied.Below, we focus on rewards and awards, competition, pos-itive and negative feedback, and choice.

Rewards and Awards

The use of rewards, in particular, has attracted a lot ofattention at the situational level over the past 10 years.Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999, 2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 128 laboratory experiments that revealed thatrewards that are provided contingent on engaging in theactivity, completing the activity, or reaching a certain levelof performance all decrease intrinsic motivation. However,rewards that are not expected and that are task-noncontin-gent (not related to the task) do not decrease intrinsic moti-vation. Finally, although all participants (no gender effects)experience negative effects, children are more affectedthan college-age students. Laboratory research involvingtasks associated with sport or exercise has yielded findingssimilar to that of the Deci et al. (1999) meta-analysis. Thus,athletes and participants who engage in a sport-relatedactivity to receive a trophy or a reward display a decrease insituational intrinsic motivation as assessed by self-reportscales (e.g., Thomas & Tennant, 1978) and the free-choicemeasure (Orlick & Mosher, 1978). Additional research isneeded to determine if the negative effects of rewards andawards findings replicate in actual sport settings and toidentify the boundaries of such effects.

Competition

In the context of competitive sport, the focus is often onbeating the opponent. Initial research using a cognitive task

has shown that such a competitive focus undermines theintrinsic motivation of young adults (Deci, Betley, Kahle,Abrams, & Porac, 1981). Results from the Vallerand,Gauvin, and Halliwell (1986b) study showed that this con-clusion also applies to 10- to 12-year-old children whoengaged in a balancing task (i.e., the stabilometer). Win-ning or losing a competition represents another potentsocial determinant of motivation. Research in sport revealsthat winners (e.g., Vallerand, Gauvin, & Halliwell, 1986a;Weinberg & Ragan, 1979) and those who subjectively feelthat they have done well in competition (McAuley & Tam-men, 1989) display higher levels of intrinsic motivationthan losers and those who feel that they have not done well.A recent series of four studies on basketball by Tauer andHarackiewicz (2004) assessed the effects of competition,cooperation, and intergroup competition on children’senjoyment on a basketball free-throw task. Three findingsof interest were found. First, they replicated the findingson success and failure of competition mentioned earlier.Second, cooperation and competition did not differ acrossstudies. And third, intergroup competition consistently ledto the highest levels of enjoyment. The authors posit thatengaging in intergroup competition leads individuals toderive the best of both worlds: They experience the excite-ment of competition as well as the interpersonal enthusi-asm derived from having a teammate.

The fact that the competition and intergroup competi-tion conditions did not lead to lower levels of enjoymentthan the cooperation condition is surprising. These find-ings could be due to measurement and methodologicalissues (a no-feedback, no-competition control group wasnot included, and, though related, enjoyment and intrinsicmotivation are nevertheless different constructs). In addi-tion, because the focus in the Tauer and Harackiewicz(2004) studies was on trying to do well and not necessarilyon beating others at all cost (as in past competitionresearch), the controlling dimension of competition mayhave been downplayed in favor of the informational dimen-sion of competition (see Deci, Betley, et al., 1981), there-by eliminating the negative effects of competition typicallyfound in most studies. Clearly, future research on theeffects of competition on intrinsic motivation is needed.

Positive and Negative Feedback

By providing athletes with feedback about their strengthsand weaknesses, coaches, fitness instructors, and physicaleducation teachers may influence athletes’ situationalintrinsic motivation. Past research has indeed shown thatpositive feedback enhances and negative feedback decreas-es situational intrinsic motivation (Vallerand & Reid,


1984, 1988). For example, Thill and Mouanda (1990)showed that team handball players receiving bogus nega-tive verbal feedback (indicating failure) after shooting attargets report lower levels of situational intrinsic motiva-tion than players receiving bogus positive verbal feedback(indicating success).

However, other dimensions of the feedback in additionto its valence (positive or negative) are important to con-sider. For instance, a review of the literature by Henderlongand Lepper (2002) underscored that praise must be usedwith caution as it can increase, decrease, or have no effectson children’s intrinsic motivation. To the extent that themessage is believed, an increase in intrinsic motivation willfollow. However, if the feedback is not perceived as sin-cere, negative effects can occur. In addition, muchresearch also reveals that the style of feedback delivery isimportant. Specifically, when the message is presented inan autonomy-supportive fashion (e.g., “It is important foryour own good to do this”), athletes feel as if they are incontrol and can make choices within reasonable limits(Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981). On the otherhand, messages are controlling when they force or coerceathletes to behave in a certain way (e.g., “You must do this.You have no choice”). Controlling statements typicallyundermine intrinsic motivation, whereas autonomy-sup-portive statements preserve it or even enhance it (seeMageau & Vallerand, 2003, for a review of such research).

Choice

Research in sport and exercise reveals that choice facili-tates intrinsic motivation with respect to physical activity.For example, Dwyer (1995) showed that having the oppor-tunity to choose the songs they wanted to hear while exer-cising increases feelings of choice and intrinsic motivationrelative to participants in a control condition, even thoughboth groups heard the same songs. Similar findings havealso been reported with respect to physical education class-es (e.g., Goudas, Biddle, Fox, & Underwood, 1995). Thus,it appears that choice represents an important factor to con-sider with respect to situational motivation.

Mediational Evidence

Because individuals need to feel competent, autonomous,and connected to significant others in their interaction withtheir environment, activities that allow them to satisfy theseneeds will be engaged in by choice out of intrinsic motiva-tion or identified regulation when they have the opportunityto do so. Thus, need satisfaction is hypothesized to mediatethe impact of social factors on motivation. Research hasfound support for this hypothesis. For instance, in a study

with master swimmers, Kowal and Fortier (2000) showedthat perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatednessmediate the relationship between social factors (perceivedsuccess and motivational climate) and situational motiva-tion following a meet. In another study, Guay et al. (2000,Study 4) looked at the role of the three psychological medi-ators in the changes in situational motivation over two sub-sequent collegiate basketball games. Results revealed adifferentiated picture for each type of situational motiva-tion. Athletes who experienced perceptions of relatedness,autonomy, and collective competence displayed an increasein intrinsic motivation from game 1 to game 2. Increases inidentified regulation were predicted by perceptions ofautonomy and relatedness, whereas increases in amotivationwere negatively predicted only by perceptions of related-ness. Finally, changes in external regulation were not signif-icantly predicted by any of the predictors. These findingsare interesting in that they reveal that with respect to teamsports, collective competence represents an important medi-ator that needs to be looked at more closely in futureresearch. More generally, these findings underscore the factthat the hypothesized psychological mediators need to betaken into account to better understand changes that occur atthe situational level over time.

Corollary 3.3 posits that there is a top-down effect frommotivation at the contextual level on motivation at the sit-uational level. For instance, an athlete who usually playsher favorite sport, tennis, because of high contextual intrin-sic motivation should be predisposed to display high levelsof intrinsic motivation at a given moment (high level of sit-uational intrinsic motivation) while playing tennis.Research supports the top-down effect. For instance,Gagné et al. (2003) measured gymnasts’ contextual moti-vation toward gymnastics at Time 1 and their situationalmotivation at the beginning of practice each day for 15days. In line with the top-down effect posited by theHMIEM, correlations between contextual motivation andsituational motivation were always positive and variedfrom .22 to .50. These findings also suggest that althoughthe top-down effect was present each day for 15 consecu-tive days, its impact varied daily, presumably due to thepresence of situational factors that differed in importanceon a given day.

Other studies have tested the validity of the top-downeffect in physical education settings. For instance, Ntouma-nis and Blaymires (2003) had participants complete thecontextual measures of motivation toward physical activity(the Perceived Locus of Causality [PLOC] Scale of Goudaset al., 1994) and toward education (the AMS; Vallerandet al., 1992, 1993). One month later, students engaged in a


typical science class in the classroom and a typical physi-cal education class in the gymnasium, and situational moti-vation toward each was assessed with the SIMS.Ntoumanis and Blaymires found that students’ situationalmotivation during the science class was positively predict-ed by their contextual motivation toward education, andtheir situational motivation toward physical activity in thegymnasium was predicted by their contextual motivationtoward physical activity. These findings provide support forthe HMIEM’s position that it is not simply any motivationat the contextual level that will influence situational moti-vation, but rather the contextual motivation that is perti-nent to the activity being performed.

The HMIEM posits that life contexts can be seen asschemas that serve to store contextual cues in addition tothe relevant contextual motivation. If this is so, then pre-senting relevant contextual cues should be sufficient totrigger the appropriate contextual motivation stored withthe cues, thereby setting in motion the top-down effect onsituational motivation. Furthermore, such a triggering cantake place outside of awareness (see Bargh, 2005). Recentresearch by Ratelle, Baldwin, and Vallerand (2005) hassupported this hypothesis. In two studies, Ratelle et al.showed that simply hearing a sound (in the backgroundand out of awareness) initially paired with a controllingmessage on a first task was sufficient to produce adecrease in situational motivation on a second task. Why?Because according to the HMIEM, working on a new typeof task (the first one) creates a new context in which cuesinherent to that new context such as the sound paired withthe task were stored with the contextual motivation relat-ed to such types of task. So, when a task relevant to thatcontext is later available (the second task), the mere soundtriggers the relevant contextual motivation stored in theschema along with the cue, and the top-down effect takesplace. These findings provide support for the top-downeffect and show that such an effect can be triggered non-consciously.

A final note on the top-down effect is in order. In astudy on leisure, Iwasaki and Mannell (1999) obtained aninteraction between the relevant contextual motivationand the actual situational factor that was manipulated(choice versus being controlled). More specifically, it wasfound that the top-down effect took place only in thechoice condition where participants experienced someautonomy. It is thus possible that some situational condi-tions are more conducive to the top-down effect thanothers. Research on this issue in sport would appear to bein order.

Summary

In summary, the studies reviewed show that social factorssuch as rewards, competition, verbal feedback, andchoice can influence individuals’ situational motivation.Moreover, perceived competence, autonomy, and related-ness have been shown to mediate the impact of social fac-tors on situational motivation. Finally, support forCorollary 3.3 on the top-down effect has been found tosupport the impact of contextual motivation on situation-al motivation.

Consequences

According to the hierarchical model, situational motivationleads to situational consequences (outcomes that are expe-rienced at one specific point in time and with respect to aspecific activity) that can be affective, cognitive, andbehavioral in nature (Vallerand, 1997). In addition, themost positive consequences should be produced by themost self-determined forms of motivation (i.e., intrinsicmotivation and identified regulation), and the least self-determined forms of motivation (i.e., external regulationand especially amotivation) should lead to the most nega-tive consequences (Corollary 5.1). Introjection should leadto intermediate effects.

Affective Outcomes

In line with the hierarchical model and SDT, several stud-ies in sport and exercise have shown that intrinsic motiva-tion predicts the occurrence of positive affect in sports(e.g., McAuley & Tammen, 1989; Scanlan & Lewthwaite,1986). Other research by Kowal and Fortier (1999) showedthat swimming for intrinsic reasons was associated with thehighest levels of flow during practice, followed decreasing-ly by identified regulation, external regulation, and amoti-vation (the last two scales yielded mostly negativecorrelations). Similar findings were obtained with gym-nasts (Gagné et al., 2003), with a number of affective vari-ables (positive and negative affect , vitality, andself-esteem) experienced before practice over a period of15 consecutive days.

Experimental conditions known to induce intrinsicmotivation and identified regulation have also been foundto lead to positive affective outcomes. For instance, in anexercise setting, Parfitt and Gledhill (2004) showed thatlow-active individuals who engaged in a 20-minute exercisebout under a choice condition (deciding which types ofexercise to do) reported less fatigue, psychological distress,and perceived exertion than those in a no-choice condition


even though the total output as measured by heart rate wassimilar. Furthermore, these benefits seemed to increaseover time. In another study, it was found that college stu-dents who engaged in a basketball dribbling task as part ofa physical education course under conditions of personalrelevance and instrumentality (the task is personally bene-ficial and will be directly useful in the course) experiencedhigher levels of intrinsic motivation and enjoyment thanstudents who saw no relevance or instrumentality in thatparticular task (Simons, Dewitte, & Lens, 2003). In linewith Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone (1994), it appearsthat choice and personal relevance may represent importantmotivational catalysts for tasks that may not be initiallyinteresting.

Cognitive Outcomes

In the Kowal and Fortier (1999) study with master swim-mers described earlier, higher levels of self-determinedmotivation predicted better concentration on the task athand. These results may be explained by the fact that whenintrinsically motivated, individuals focus more on the taskand may become more impervious to external distractions(e.g., behaviors from the coach, teammates, or the crowd),and thus can devote all their attention and concentration tothe task. These hypothesized mediating processes never-theless remain to be empirically tested in future research.

Behavioral Outcomes

Finally, the HMIEM also posits that higher levels of self-determined situational motivation should result in positivebehavioral consequences at a specific moment in time.Research is supportive of the hypothesis. For instance, intheir study with gymnasts, Gagné et al. (2003) found thatintrinsic motivation predicted attendance at practice eachday over a 15-day period. In addition, the results from theSimons et al. (2003) study revealed that physical educationstudents who saw a basketball dribbling task as personallyrelevant and instrumental were more intrinsically motivat-ed, expended more effort and time on the task, and alsodisplayed higher levels of objective performance than thosein less self-determined conditions.

Summary

Research shows that situational motivation leads to sev-eral affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes. Fur-thermore, higher levels of self-determined motivationresult in more positive situational outcomes, whereaslower levels of self-determined motivation result in less

positive situational outcomes (Corollary 5.1). Althoughadditional research is needed, especially with respect tocognitive outcomes, extant findings on consequences atthe situational level provide support for the HMIEM aswell as SDT.

RESEARCH ON MOTIVATION ATTHE CONTEXTUAL LEVEL

Contextual motivation refers to one’s generalized motiva-tion toward a specific life context. In the present section,studies on the determinants and consequences of contextu-al intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physicalactivity are reviewed.

Determinants

Several contextual factors have been found to influenceathletes’ contextual motivation toward sport, including thecoach, the motivational climate, scholarships, and the sportstructures. This research is reviewed next.

The Coach

The coach represents one of the most important sources ofinfluence on athletes’ motivation and quality of involve-ment in sport (Pensgaard & Roberts, 2002). Mageau andVallerand (2003) have proposed a model that posits thatcoaches’ influence on their athletes’ motivation takesplace mainly through the coaches’ interactional behaviorwith them. Such behavior can convey varying degrees ofautonomy-support, structure, and involvement and caringtoward the athletes, which are hypothesized to influenceathletes’ perceptions of autonomy, competence, and relat-edness. In turn, these perceptions facilitate athletes’ self-determined motivation. Of particular interest is the factthat Mageau and Vallerand have identified some of thedeterminants of coaches’ behavior toward athletes. Theseinclude their personal orientations toward coaching (i.e.,a natural tendency to be controlling or autonomy-support-ive), the context within which coaches work (e.g., a pres-sure cooker), and the perception coaches may have oftheir athletes’ behavior and motivation. This model is pre-sented in Figure 3.2.

With respect to the effects of autonomy-supportivebehavior on motivation, much research has shown that ath-letes who feel that their coaches are controlling tend toreport lower levels of contextual intrinsic motivation andidentified regulation and higher levels of amotivation andexternal regulation than those who feel that their coachesand instructors are autonomy-supportive (e.g., Amorose &


Figure 3.2 The coach-athlete model of motivation. Source: “The Coach-Athlete Relationship: A Motivational Model,” by G. A.Mageau and R. J. Vallerand, 2003, Journal of Sports Sciences, 21, pp. 883–904. Reprinted with permission.

Athletes’perceptions ofrelatedness

Athletes’intrinsic and

self-determinedextrinsic motivation

Coach’sinvolvement

Coach’sautonomy supportive

behaviors

Structureinstilled

by the coachCoach’ spersonal

orientation

Coaching context

Perceptions ofathletes’ behavior

and motivation

Athletes’perceptions ofcompetence

Athletes’perceptions of

autonomy

Horn, 2000, 2001; Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005; Pelleti-er, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001; Pelletier et al., 1995;Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004). Similar findingshave been obtained in physical activity settings where acontrolling teacher contributes to amotivation toward phys-ical activity (Ntoumanis, Pensgaard, Martin, & Pipe,2004), whereas autonomy support from important people inone’s life facilitates self-determined motivation towardexercise (Wilson & Rodgers, 2004).

To the best of my knowledge, only one study has lookedat the role of the coach in athletes’ changes in motivation atthe contextual level (Amorose & Horn, 2001). In this study,it was found that increases in Division 1 athletes’ intrinsicmotivation over the season was predicted by their percep-tions that their coaches provided high-level training andinstruction behavior and low frequencies of autocratic (orcontrolling) behavior. These findings thus underscore thefact that controlling behavior from the coach will under-mine athletes’ intrinsic motivation, whereas providing timeand instruction is likely to facilitate its development.

Very little research has looked at the determinants of thecoach’s autonomy-supportive versus controlling behavior insport and physical activity. However, some research hasstarted to assess some of these relationships in the field of

education (see Mageau & Vallerand, 2003, for a more com-plete review). For instance, research by Pelletier, Séguin-Lévesque, and Legault (2002) has shown that teachers whoexperience a lot of pressure from the administration toteach in a specific way or to have their students perform ata high level (pressure from above) and who have unrulyand/or amotivated students (pressure from below) end upusing controlling behavior toward their students (see alsoPelletier & Vallerand, 1996, on this issue). Furthermore,research reveals that teachers who have a personal disposi-tion to be controlling rather than autonomy-supportive asassessed by the Problem in School Questionnaire displaymore controlling behavior toward their students, who inturn display lower levels of intrinsic motivation (see Deci,Schwartz, et al., 1981). In light of the importance of coach-es’ behavior for their athletes’ motivation, it is important toconduct future research on the determinants and conse-quences of such behavior. The Mageau and Vallerandmodel represents an appropriate point of departure for suchresearch.

Motivational Climate

Coaches may also inf luence their athletes indirectlythrough the type of motivational climate they help to cre-


ate. The motivational climate refers to the general ambi-ence that exists in a team or club and the message it conveysto athletes. There are two main types of motivational cli-mate: task-involved (or mastery) and ego-involved (or per-formance; see Duda & Hall, 2001). A task-oriented climateencourages participants to perform an activity in order toimprove their skills; an ego-involved climate leads athletesto believe that they must outperform other athletes, includ-ing their teammates. Research reveals that a task climate ismore conducive to the growth of self-determined forms ofmotivation (intrinsic motivation and identified regulation),whereas the opposite takes place with an ego-involved cli-mate with respect to a variety of sports (Kavussanu &Roberts, 1996; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, &Curry, 2002) and physical activity (Brunel, 1999; Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000; Kowal & Fortier, 2000; Ntoumanis,2001a; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003).

Scholarships and Sport Structures

Scholarships qualify as a contextual factor because theyrepresent a type of reward that will remain present for theduration of the athlete’s collegiate career. The purpose ofscholarships is typically to provide athletes with more timefor training and studying. Unfortunately, scholarship recip-ients may come to feel that they play more to justify thescholarship they have received than for the pleasure of thegame. As a result, they may feel controlled (feel that theymust perform) and become less intrinsically motivated.Early research provided support for this hypothesis (E. D.Ryan, 1977; Wagner, Lounsbury, & Fitzgerald, 1989),although E. D. Ryan (1980) subsequently found that thenegative effects were only true for football players and notfor male wrestlers and female athletes from a variety ofsports. More recently, using the Intrinsic Motivation Inven-tory (IMI; McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989), Amoroseand Horn (2000) found that scholarship athletes felt morecompetent and less pressured than nonscholarship athletes(which is not surprising, as they’re supposed to be better!),although in a subsequent study (Amorose & Horn, 2001),they didn’t find any differences. Because the IMI displayssome conceptual problems (see Vallerand & Fortier, 1998),future research using other scales such as the SMS is need-ed to more clearly determine the motivational effect ofscholarships.

Another contextual factor of interest pertains to thesport structures. These refer to the organizational patternthat is inherent in athletic leagues. For instance, certainleagues may foster competitive structures, whereas othersmay instill a more relaxed climate where self-improvement

is the goal. Sport structures are important because theyconvey an implicit message that may affect athletes’ moti-vational processes. If the message conveyed to athletes isthat winning is the only thing, then athletes will probablyexperience lower levels of intrinsic motivation and haveless fun. However, if structures lead athletes to predomi-nantly focus on self-improvement, they are likely to expe-rience higher levels of intrinsic and identified regulation,and consequently more enjoyment. Research supports thishypothesis (Fortier, Vallerand, Brière, & Provencher,1995; Frederick, Morrison, & Manning, 1996).

Mediational Evidence

Several studies have now provided support for mediationaleffects at the contextual level (Hollembeak & Amorose,2005; Ntoumanis, 2001a, in press; Reinboth et al., 2004;Sarrazin et al., 2002), both in sports and in physical activ-ity settings. Perhaps one of the most impressive studies isthat of Ntoumanis (2001b), who attempted to link specificsocial factors (cooperative learning, emphasis on improve-ment, and perceived choice) prevalent in British physicaleducation classes to physical education students’ percep-tions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and inturn to their contextual motivation toward exercise. Resultsfrom a path analysis revealed that a classroom in whichemphasis was on improvement led to perceptions of com-petence, whereas cooperative learning and perceivedchoice led, respectively, to perceptions of relatedness andautonomy. In addition, although all three mediators wererelated as hypothesized to the different types of motiva-tion, the most important predictor was perceived compe-tence. This is in line with past research in sports (seeChatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, Smith, & Wang, 2003;Vallerand & Reid, 1984) but not in education, where per-ceived autonomy has been found to have the most importantmediating effects (e.g., Vallerand, Fortier, et al., 1997).Future research is needed on the relative mediating impactof the three needs as a function of life contexts.

A final type of motivational determinant comes from thetop-down effect (Corollary 3.3), where an individual whohas a predisposition to do things out of intrinsic motivation(e.g., a high level of global intrinsic motivation) should dis-play high levels of intrinsic motivation toward, for instance,basketball in general (e.g., a high level of contextual intrin-sic motivation). Research using longitudinal and prospec-tive designs has found support for the top-down effect withrespect to the contexts of education (Guay et al., 2003) andphysical activity (Vallerand, Guay, Mageau, Blanchard, &


Cadorette, 2005, Study 3) over extended periods of time upto 5 years, and with a variety of participants, includingsome from the general population.

Noteworthy is that researchers have started to look at therole of personality variables, other than global motivation,and how these predict contextual motivation. For instance,Ingledew, Markland, and Sheppard (2003) related the per-sonality dimensions of the Big 5 (Costa & McRae, 1992) tocontextual motivation toward exercise using the BREQ. Itwas found that contextual intrinsic motivation was predict-ed by extraversion and conscientiousness; identified regula-tion by extraversion; introjected regulation by neuroticism;and external regulation by less conscientiousness and lessopenness to experience (amotivation was not assessed).Other researchers (Miquelon, Vallerand, Grouzet, & Cardi-nal, 2005) have shown that adaptive forms of perfectionism(Hewitt & Flett, 2002) are conducive to self-determinedforms of motivation toward education, whereas maladap-tive perfectionism leads to non-self-determined motivation.Overall, these two sets of findings are important becausethey suggest that motivation at the contextual level may beinfluenced to some extent by personality variables otherthan global motivation. Future research is needed to pursuethese initial efforts.

Summary

Studies reviewed in this section indicate that contextualself-determined motivation toward sport is influenced byseveral social factors: such as coaches’ behavior, sportstructures, scholarships, and the team’s climate (or fitnesscenter ambience). Furthermore, the relationships betweenthose social factors and contextual self-determined motiva-tion toward sport or exercise are mediated by individuals’general sense of competence, autonomy, and relatednesstoward sport or exercise. Finally, global motivation andother personality variables have been found to predict con-textual motivation.

Consequences

Several types of motivational outcomes have been studiedat the contextual level. Next, we review empirical researchon the affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes.

Affective Outcomes

Much research in sport has been designed to examine thepositive relationship between contextual intrinsic motiva-tion and affective consequences such as satisfaction, inter-est, and enjoyment (e.g., Brière et al., 1995; Pelletier et al.,

1995) and the negative relationship with burnout (Raedeke,1997). More recent research (Cresswell & Eklund, 2005)has extended such work by showing, in line with Corollary5.1, the presence of the hypothesized continuum whereintrinsic motivation (especially intrinsic motivation towardstimulation and intrinsic motivation toward accomplish-ment) was negatively associated with burnout and amotiva-tion was strongly and positively associated with it. Alongthe same lines, Lemyre, Treasure, and Roberts (in press),showed that decreases in the self-determined motivation oftop Division 1 swimmers over the course of the season pre-dicted increases in burnout at season’s end.

Similar findings have been obtained in physical activitysettings with other types of affective outcomes. Forinstance, a study by Ntoumanis (2001a) has shown thatboredom in physical education classes was negatively pre-dicted by intrinsic motivation but positively by amotivationand external regulation. Using the BREQ, Karageorghis andVlachopoulos (2002) have also shown that contextual intro-jected regulation toward exercise predicted exercise depend-ence. Finally, Wilson and Rodgers (2002) found thatidentified regulation and intrinsic motivation contributed tophysical self-esteem but that external and introjected regu-lation did not.

Cognitive Outcomes

Optimal concentration may represent one of the mostimportant predictors of performance. In line with Corol-lary 5.1 of the hierarchical model, research with athletesfrom a variety of sports (Brière et al., 1995; Pelletier et al.,1995) as well as with physical education students (Ntouma-nis, 2001a) and adult exercisers (Vallerand et al., 2005,Study 3) has shown that the highest levels of concentrationresult from the self-determined forms of motivation. Wil-son, Rodgers, Hall, and Gammage (2003) have also shownthat not only the level of concentration but also its qualityis affected by motivation. Specifically, adults who mainlyexercise out of non-self-determined motivation display animagery style much more oriented toward the image theyproject to others than those who engage in exercise out ofself-determined motivation. Such an imagery style is farfrom ideal when performing a demanding task.

In sum, the proposed link between the various forms ofmotivation and cognitive outcomes has been obtained withvarious populations in both sport and physical activity set-tings. However, there is a need to look at other types ofcognitive outcomes ( learning, memory, recall of brokenplays, etc.) to more fully probe the relationship betweenmotivation and cognitive outcomes. For instance, higher


levels of contextual self-determined motivation should leadtop-level athletes to be more proactive and secure (Hodgins& Knee, 2002), thereby leading them to recall more errorsthey may have committed in game situations, and eventual-ly to work on these mistakes and thus improve.

Behavioral Outcomes

Increased attention has been given to the role of contextu-al motivation in behavioral types of outcomes such asintentions to pursue engagement in sport or physical activ-ity. Such research provides support for the adaptive role ofself-determined motivation in both sports (Chatzisarantiset al., 2003; Sarrazin et al., 2002), and exercise (Ingledew,Markland, & Medley, 1998; Ntoumanis, 2001a; Thøgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, in press; Wilson & Rodgers, 2004;Wilson, Rodgers, Fraser, & Murray, 2004). Of particularinterest is the research of Ferrer-Caja and Weiss (2000)showing that intrinsic motivation positively predicts effortand persistence as assessed by the physical educationteacher. It thus appears that more objective forms of out-comes assessment (such as teacher reports) yield findingssimilar to those obtained with participants’ own reports(Fortier & Grenier, 1999; Li, 1999), thereby providing fur-ther validity to research in this area.

Results from this research reveal that, typically, themore self-determined the motivation, the more one intendsto continue engagement in the activity. However, a majordifference seems to emerge between the exercise and thesport studies. Specifically, although all studies reveal thepresence of the hypothesized continuum, there is a differ-ence with the main positive predictor of intentions. Theresults of a meta-analysis conducted mainly with sportstudies (Chatzisarantis et al., 2003) reveal that intrinsicmotivation is the main predictor. On the other hand, inexercise studies, identified regulation appears to be themain predictor (see Wilson & Rodgers, in press). One pos-sible explanation for this discrepancy proposed byVallerand (1997) deals with the nature of the activity.When the task is perceived as interesting, as in most sports,intrinsic motivation should lead to the most positive out-comes, as intrinsic motivation is then the optimal type ofmotivation. However, when the task is uninteresting, as isoften the case with exercise, at least in the initial stages,then identified regulation may become a more importantdeterminant of positive consequences than intrinsic moti-vation. Indeed, if a task is relatively dull and unappealing,intrinsic motivation may be insufficient to engage in it.Rather, what is needed is a motivational force leading theperson to choose to engage in the activity despite the fact

that it is not interesting. Identified regulation can providesuch a force. This hypothesis makes sense and is in linewith data from various studies, but additional research isneeded to empirically test this hypothesis using a con-trolled design within the confines of the same study.

Research has also looked at the role of contextual moti-vation in persisting in sport. In a longitudinal study of over22 months with Canadian teen swimmers, Pelletier et al.(2001) found support for the presence of a continuum, withthe most important positive predictor of persistence beingintrinsic motivation and the most important negative predic-tor being amotivation. Similar findings have been obtainedin a study with French handball players over 21 months (Sar-razin et al., 2002) and with adult exercisers (Fortier & Gre-nier, 1999; Ryan, Frederick, Lepes, Rubio, & Sheldon,1997). Of additional interest is the fact that Pelletier et al.found that the relationships between motivation at Time 1and persistence changed over time. Specifically, althoughthe link to external regulation was not significant at 10months, it became significant and negative at 22 months.Conversely, the link between introjection and behavior,which was slightly positive initially, became null at 22months. These findings suggest that the negative effects ofexternal and introjected regulation may take place furtherdown the road, perhaps when it is clear that the extrinsicpayoffs (e.g., awards, fame) are no longer forthcoming.Future research on this issue appears important.

More recently, researchers have started to focus on spe-cific types of motivations to better understand the intrica-cies of continued behavioral engagement in exercise. Forinstance, Hein et al. (2004) looked at the predictive role ofthe three types of intrinsic motivation with respect toBritish teenagers’ intentions to engage in sport and exerciseafter high school. The results revealed that intrinsic moti-vation to experience stimulation was the best predictor, fol-lowed by intrinsic motivation to accomplish things. Thecontribution of intrinsic motivation to know was not signif-icant. The two predictors accounted for a total of 65% of thevariance in intentions to exercise. These findings are in linewith those of Jackson, Kimiecik, Ford, and Marsh (1998),who found that the best predictor of flow was intrinsicmotivation to experience stimulation. It is thus possible thatthe pleasant experience of stimulation is what people seekfrom their exercise participation, and not necessarily thepleasure to learn or accomplish something. These resultswould seem to have some applied importance.

Other research (Vallerand & Losier, 1994) has shownthat, over the course of a hockey season, a self-determinedmotivational profile led to an increase in the tendency to


show respect and concern for others (a positive sportsper-sonship orientation; see Vallerand, Brière, et al., 1997;Vallerand, Deshaies, Cuerrier, Brière, & Pelletier, 1996).Athletes who are self-determined toward their sport focuson the activity itself and not the end result. Winning is nota matter of life or death for them. Rather, respect and con-cern for the rules and participants is more importantbecause it ensures the creation of a pleasant environmentfor all participants. The Vallerand and Losier findingshave been replicated with physical education students overa 1-year period (Chantal & Bernache-Assollant, 2003).Subsequent research by Chantal, Robin, Vernat, andBernache-Assollant (2005) extended these findings by dis-tinguishing between reactive (wanting to hurt someone)and instrumental (displaying energy toward the game andnot the opponent) aggression and showing that self-determined motivation toward sport facilitates sportsper-sonship orientations, which in turn leads to instrumentalbut not reactive aggression.

A final motivational outcome of interest is performance.Because self-determined forms of contextual motivationhave been found to facilitate persistence at a specific activ-ity, given equal ability and coaching, additional practiceshould lead to increased performance. There is a lot of evi-dence to support the role of self-determined motivation inperformance on nonsport tasks (see Vallerand, 1997, for areview). Limited evidence exists for this hypothesis insport and physical activity, where it has been found thatinducing intrinsic motivation was conducive to better per-formance in putting (Beauchamp, Halliwell, Fournier, &Koestner, 1996) as well as swimming (Pelletier, Vallerand,Brière, & Blais, 2006). However, because neither studycontained a true experimental design, alternative hypothe-ses exist.

Summary

The studies reviewed in this section provide strong supportfor the hierarchical model, with respect to the determi-nants and outcomes associated with contextual self-determined forms of motivation. However, future researchusing prospective, longitudinal, and experimental designsis necessary to more fully document the role of motivationin long-term outcomes, especially performance.

RESEARCH ON MOTIVATION ATTHE GLOBAL LEVEL

Very little research has focused on motivation and determi-nants and consequences at the global level. However, as we

see below, the available research underscores the impor-tance of such research.

Determinants

No research appears to have examined how global socialfactors may affect global motivation. However, researchby Vallerand and O’Connor (1991) with elderly individu-als has revealed that the type of residence they live inseems to impact their global motivation. Elderly peopleliving in residences that provided autonomy support (asassessed by observers) reported higher levels of contextu-al self-determined motivation toward most aspects oftheir lives (across six life contexts) compared to those liv-ing in controlling residences. Thus, although Vallerandand O’Connor did not measure global motivation per se, itdoes appear that spending most of one’s life in a control-ling or autonomy-supportive residence may represent aglobal social factor likely to influence global motivation.Similar research could be conducted on the impact onglobal motivation of living in sports boarding schools (seeRiordan, 1977).

Another global factor that would appear relevant forchildren is parents. Indeed, parents are a constant pres-ence in all aspects of their children’s life. They are thus ina prime position to influence the development of their per-sonality (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002), including globalmotivation. Assor, Roth, and Deci (2004) have conductedvery informative research that partly addresses this issue.In two studies, these authors found that children who per-ceived their parents to be providing conditional regard (aform of control where love is provided conditionally tochildren upon certain behaviors on their part) displayhigh levels of introjection uniformly across four life con-texts (e.g., prosocial behavior, sports). The picture waspartly supportive with identif ied regulation, whereparental conditional regard was negatively correlated withidentified regulation in some contexts (i.e., emotionalcontrol and academic domains) but not in the other two. Itis hypothesized that if parental behavior can affect indi-vidual functioning and motivation in four life contextslargely in the same direction, global motivation is likelyto be affected as well. Future research is needed to testthis hypothesis.

Consequences

There are at least three ways through which global moti-vation can affect outcomes. A first influence comes fromthe influence of global motivation on global psychologicaladjustment. Because global self-determined motivation


reflects a proactive way of interacting with one’s environ-ment, it would be predicted that having such a motivationshould lead to better adaptive functioning and psycholog-ical adjustment. Empirical support exists for this hypoth-esis. For instance, Ratelle, Vallerand, Chantal, andProvencher (2004) showed that global self-determinedmotivation positively predicted increases in psychologicaladjustment that took place over a 1-year period withadults from the general population. Because experiencingpositive psychological adjustment at the global level mayprovide additional strength to face demanding situationsand failure experiences in sport, this first function ofglobal motivation deserves attention in sport and physicalactivity.

A second way through which global motivation hasbeen found to affect functioning is the protective functionit may serve. A recent study by Pelletier et al. (2004)has shown that global motivation plays a protective func-tion, leading women to perceive less pressure fromsociety to have a thin body and to internalize to a lesserdegree society’s stereotypes regarding thinness. Globalself-determined motivation also had a direct negativeeffect on bulimic symptomatology. Because bulimicsymptomatology does take place in sports, research on theprotective function of global motivation with athletes isimportant.

Finally, global motivation can also serve an integrativefunction among life contexts. For instance, Koestner et al.(1992) have shown that adults with a predominant autono-my-causality orientation (the equivalent of a self-determined global motivation) display behavior that ismore in line with their attitudes and inner values than indi-viduals with a control (or non-self-determined) orientation.Similar f indings have been obtained with children(Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes, & Houlfort, 2004). Thus, ath-letes with global self-determined motivation would beexpected to have a sport-contextual motivation better inte-grated with other contextual motivations in their life. Theywould therefore be expected to experience fewer conflictsamong life contexts and in turn to display a more focusedinvolvement in sport and other life activities.

Summary

Very little research has been done at the global level withathletes or individuals engaged in physical activity. Futureresearch with athletes could examine the role of parentsand coaches in the development of global motivation and,in turn, how global motivation leads to different outcomesthrough the various functions it serves.

RESEARCH ON INTEGRATIVE STUDIES

Certain studies have looked at motivation and outcomes ina more integrated fashion either within the confines of anintegrated sequence or by looking at how various motiva-tions at two and three levels of generality are connected.Such research is reviewed in this section.

A Social Factors → Psychological Mediators →Motivation → Consequences Sequence

One of the key hypotheses of the HMIEM is that the impactof the environment on individuals takes place through acausal chain of processes which can be presented as fol-lows: Social Factors → Psychological Mediators → Moti-vation → Consequences (see Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand &Losier, 1999). This sequence can take place at all three lev-els of the hierarchy. Following the lead of research on highschool dropout (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992; Vallerand,Fortier, et al., 1997), some studies have provided supportfor this causal sequence with respect to sport dropouts atthe contextual level (Pelletier et al., 2001; Sarrazin et al.,2002). For instance, in the Sarrazin et al. study, task- andego-involving climates were found, respectively, to posi-tively and negatively predict perceptions of competence,autonomy, and relatedness, which positively predicted self-determined motivation. In turn, self-determined motiva-tion predicted intention to persist in handball, which led toactual persistence 21 months later. Pelletier et al. obtainedsimilar results showing that coaches’ autonomy-supportivebehavior influenced self-determined motivation, whichprevented dropout in swimming over 22 months.

Research on the integrated causal sequence at the con-textual level has also been tested in exercise settings.Such research reveals that different learning structures(Ntoumanis, 2001a), motivational climates (Ferrer-Caja &Weiss, 2000; Standage, Duda, et al., 2003), autonomy sup-port from friends (Wilson & Rodgers, 2004), and the phys-ical education teacher (Ntoumanis, in press) positivelyinfluence self-determined motivation through their impacton perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.Finally, self-determined motivation positively predicts avariety of contextual cognitive, affective, and behavioraloutcomes, including teacher-rated assessment of behavior(Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000; Ntoumanis, in press).

It appears that only one study has provided support forthe proposed sequence at the situational level in sport. Inthis study with master swimmers (Kowal & Fortier, 2000),it was shown that motivational climates predicted percep-tions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which in


turn led to self-determined situational motivation, whichfinally led to the experience of flow. Clearly, additionalresearch is needed to test the validity of the integratedsequence in sports and physical activity settings at the sit-uational level.

The results of these studies provide strong support forthe proposed sequence in a variety of settings and activi-ties. Future research is needed, however, with prospectiveor longitudinal designs at the contextual level, and experi-mental designs at the situational level, to provide more clar-ity regarding the direction of causality among the variousvariables of the causal sequence (see Grouzet, Vallerand,Thill, & Provencher, 2004, for such a test using an experi-mental design at the situational level with a cognitive task).There is also a need to look at other types of consequences,such as creativity and learning, as well as interpersonaloutcomes such as quality of relationships and friendships.

Motivation at Two or Three Levels of Generality

A key aspect of the HMIEM is that motivation at a givenlevel of generality reflects the relative influence of indi-vidual differences through the top-down effect and that ofsocial factors. Brunel and Vallerand (2005) tested the rela-tive influence of the top-down effect from contextual moti-vation and the impact of situational factors on situationalmotivation over time. These authors reasoned that whenput in a new situation (practicing their sport on universitypremises with new coaches), athletes who usually practicein civic clubs should see their contextual motivation pro-vide the main influence on their situational motivationtoward practice because participants are not used to thesocial factors conveyed in such new settings. However,months later, when the meaning conveyed by situationalfactors is clearer, the latter should have a more potentinfluence on situational motivation than contextual moti-vation. Results of a study (Brunel & Vallerand, 2005) withFrench athletes provided support for the hypothesis.

Research has also started to look at how contextual moti-vation sets things in motion at the situational level so thataffective outcomes can be experienced at that level. Forinstance, Amiot, Gaudreau, and Blanchard (2004) showedthat self-determined contextual motivation toward sport ledto the use of situational adaptive cognitive skills, which, inturn, facilitated reaching goals during a game. Finally, reach-ing one’s goals led to an increase of positive affect after thegame. The opposite picture emerged for athletes with a non-self-determined motivation, as it led to the use of poor cop-ing skills and failing to reach one’s goals and to experienceless positive effect. Future research is needed to determine if

the impact of contextual motivation on situational-level cop-ing skills takes place through the top-down effect from con-textual to situational motivation.

Another dimension of the HMIEM that has attractedattention is the bottom-up effect (Postulate 4). Morespecifically, motivation experienced at a lower level (e.g.,the situational level) can produce over time a recursiveeffect on motivation at the next higher level (e.g., contex-tual motivation toward sport). Blanchard, Amiot, Saint-Laurent, Vallerand, and Provencher (2005) conducted astudy to test this interplay between the contextual and sit-uational levels leading to changes in contextual motivationtoward basketball over time. Measures of contextual moti-vation toward basketball were obtained before the first andsecond games of the tournament and 10 days after the tour-nament. Moreover, measures of situational motivation(using the SIMS) were obtained immediately after the twogames of a tournament. Finally, players’ assessment of per-sonal and team performance as well as objective results ofthe games were collected to test the role of situational fac-tors in the prediction of situational motivation. Resultsfrom a path analysis showed that contextual motivation forbasketball predicted situational motivation during each ofthe two basketball games during the tournament (the top-down effect). Moreover, situational motivation for bothbasketball games was also predicted by team and personalperformance (the situational factors). In turn, situationalmotivation influenced contextual motivation subsequent toeach game, as well as 10 days after the tournament (therecursive bottom-up effect). In sum, Blanchard et al.tracked down the flow of psychological processes throughwhich changes in motivation at the contextual level takeplace over time while providing support for several of thecorollaries proposed by the HMIEM. Future research onPostulate 4, especially over the course of a whole season,would be fruitful.

Other studies have looked at the interplay between themotivations stemming from two life contexts and the out-comes that may be derived from such an interface. Forinstance, research has shown that conflicts between twolife contexts, such as work and family for working adults(Senécal, Vallerand, & Guay, 2001) or education andleisure for students (Ratelle, Senécal, Vallerand, &Provencher, in press), lead to poor psychological adjust-ment. In exercise settings, Hagger and Chatzisarantis andtheir colleagues (e.g., Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Barkoukis,Wang, & Baranowski, in press; Hagger, Chatzisarantis,Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003) have shown that having aself-determined motivation toward physical activity at


school facilitates self-determined motivation toward phys-ical activity during one’s leisure time. Future research isneeded to pursue this line of scientific inquiry to determinewhen facilitative and conflicting motivational effects willbe obtained between two life contexts and determine thetypes of outcomes that will be experienced by elite athletesand adult exercisers as a result.

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, only one study hasintegrated motivation at the three levels of the hierarchy inthe context of sport and physical activity. In this study,Vallerand et al. (2005, Study 3) tested the interplay amongmotivations at the three levels of the hierarchy with partic-ipants in a fitness program. Results from a path analysisrevealed that global motivation at the beginning of the fit-ness program influenced contextual motivation towardexercise 4 weeks later. In turn, contextual motivationtoward exercise influenced situational motivation, whichdetermined situational consequences of concentration andenjoyment while exercising.

Summary

Research in this section highlights the dynamic relation-ships that can take place between motivation at differentlevels of generality, as well as among different life con-texts. Future research along those lines in sport and physi-cal activity could provide not only a deeper understandingof the motivational processes at play, but also a better pre-diction of different outcomes experienced by athletes andphysical activity participants.

INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

At least two major types of intervention have been conduct-ed within the intrinsic/extrinsic motivation paradigm. Oneseeks to increase the autonomy-supportive behavior dis-played by coaches toward the athletes. Based on the findingsthat an autonomy-supportive style is teachable (Reeve,1998), Pelletier and his colleagues (2006) developed anintervention program to help swim coaches become moreautonomy-supportive and consequently facilitate their ath-letes’ motivation. Results from this 18-month interventionprogram revealed that the program was highly effective inleading athletes to perceive their coach as less controllingand more autonomy-supportive and to experience higherlevels of perceived competence and intrinsic motivation. Ofmajor interest is the fact that attendance at practiceincreased markedly and dropout was reduced significantly.A recent intervention study with adult exercisers has shownsimilar results with respect to the important role of autono-

my support from the fitness leader in exercisers’ motivation(see Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, in press).

A second line of intervention studies takes into consid-eration the fact that some activities may not be inherentlyinteresting and focuses on providing individuals with arationale to engage in a specific behavior. However, howthe rationale is presented is crucial. To be effective, therationale must be presented in a noncontrolling way, whileproviding some form of choice and acknowledging the per-son’s feelings (Deci et al., 1994; Koestner et al., 1984). Forinstance, the fitness instructor may say something like“The reason we’re focusing on these exercises is becausethey’re the ones that will lead you to gain the most fromyour training (rationale). I know that it may feel uncom-fortable at first (acknowledgment of the person’s feelings).However, it is entirely up to you if you want to do some orall of them today (choice).” Such instructions lead the per-son to “wanting to do what should be done” (Berg, Janoff-Bulman, & Cotter, 2001, p. .982). Research by Simonset al. (2003) in physical education settings has shown thatsimilar instructions regarding rationale on a basketball taskled to higher levels of intrinsic motivation, enjoyment,effort, time on task, and performance than conditionswhere students are told that they have to engage in the tasksimply because they will be tested on it.

In sum, advances have taken place recently with respectto interventions oriented at improving intrinsic motivationand self-determined motivation and creating positive con-sequences in athletes and exercisers. Future research isneeded to determine if such interventions are applicable toa variety of tasks and situations, some interesting (e.g.,playing games) and some less so (e.g., running suicide drillsin practice; to this end, see Green-Demers, Pelletier, Stew-art, & Gushue, 1998; Reeve, Jang, Hardre, & Omura, 2002).

CURRENT TRENDS ANDFUTURE DIRECTIONS

Several trends have started to emerge in the literature. Onepertains to the testing of different postulates and proposi-tions of the HMIEM. Of these, the one that has received themost attention is the Social Factors → Psychological Medi-ators → Motivation → Consequences causal sequence. Aspresented earlier, much support has been garnered for thissequence, especially at the contextual level. Much researchremains to be done with respect to a number of other aspectsof the HMIEM, including the interplay of motivation at dif-ferent levels of generality, the conflict versus facilitativeeffects of different contextual motivations on situational


motivation and outcomes, and the different functions ofglobal motivation in athletes’ and exercisers’ contextual andsituational motivations and ensuing outcomes. Futureresearch on these issues would appear promising.

A second area where much action has taken place is theintegration of different theories in leading to a betterunderstanding of motivational processes. For instance, fol-lowing the lead of Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, and Catley(1995) and Brunel (1999), researchers have started toexplore the relationships between elements of achievementgoal theory (Nicholls, 1984) and those from SDT (Deci &Ryan, 2000; see also Ntoumanis, 2001b). Typically,researchers have looked at the motivational impact of dif-ferent learning structures (Ntoumanis, 2001a) and motiva-tional climates (Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000; Kowal &Fortier, 2000; Standage, Duda, et al., 2003) and haveshown that mastery (or learning, or task) climates andstructures facilitate the satisfaction of participants’ needsfor competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which in turnlead to self-determined motivation and adaptive outcomes.On the other hand, performance (or ego) climates havebeen found to trigger a maladaptive motivational sequence.

Another integrative attempt has been conducted by Hag-ger et al. (in press), who have integrated SDT, the theory ofplanned behavior, and the HMIEM to better understandhow the constructs and processes of each model can betterpredict the generalization of physical activity from formalto informal settings (for a review, see Hagger & Chatzis-arantis, in press). Basically, the transcontextual modelposits that autonomy support from the physical educationteacher facilitates self-determined motivation toward phys-ical activity at school. Such motivation (especially intrinsicmotivation and identified regulation) generalizes to leisurecontextual motivation, which in turn influences attitudeand perceived behavioral control toward exercise. Finally,attitude and control lead to the intention to exercise duringleisure time, which leads to actual exercise behavior.

These two integrative efforts are important from boththeoretical and applied standpoints. Clearly, such researchmust continue, as it can lead to theoretical advances withrespect to a better understanding of the contribution andlimits of each theory as well as a better prediction of out-comes promoted in sport and physical activity settings.

Another area of active interest has been the use of clusteranalyses to look at how the different types of motivation canbe best integrated in both sport and physical activity settings(Matsumoto & Takenaka, 2004; Ntoumanis, 2002; Vla-chopoulos, Karageorghis, & Terry, 2000; Wang & Biddle,2001; Wang, Chatzisarantis, Spray, & Biddle, 2002; Weiss &

Amorose, 2005). Research so far reveals the presence of dif-ferent numbers of clusters in different studies, presumablybecause of methodological differences. However, a constantacross the various studies is the presence of a high-selfdetermined motivation cluster and the positive outcomesassociated with it. Future research is needed to systemati-cally compare clusters within sports and physical activitysettings and determine which ones are predictive of positiveoutcomes in each type of setting.

Two other issues deserve mention, as they representimportant research agendas for the future. The first is therole of unconscious (or implicit) motivational processes.Much research in social cognition has now shown thatbehavior can be influenced by factors outside of our aware-ness (see Bargh, 2005). Along these lines, Lévesque andPelletier (2003) showed that presenting primes dealing withintrinsic or extrinsic motivation out of awareness is suffi-cient to induce the situational motivation implied by theprimes. In an even more provocative study, Hodgins, Yacko,and Gottlieb (2005, Study 3) showed that priming membersof a university rowing team with self-determined words(e.g., “choose,” “freedom”) led to faster times on a rowingmachine than priming members with non-self-determined(e.g., “must,” “should”) and amotivational (e.g., “passive,”“uncontrollable”) words. In other words, priming self-determined motivation outside of awareness increases per-formance! Finally, as described earlier in the Ratelle et al.(2005) study, it may not be necessary to use primes relatedto motivation to induce the actual motivation. Priming cer-tain environmental cues associated with aspects of theactivity (e.g., sounds) can trigger by their mere unnoticedpresence certain types of contextual motivation, which, inturn, will subsequently influence situational motivation.For obvious theoretical and practical reasons, it is believedthat sport psychologists would do well to start exploring therole of such unconscious motivational processes.

A final issue pertains to the effect of culture on motiva-tional processes. The role of culture in human behavior hasattracted a lot of attention lately (see Kitayama, Markus, &Kurokawa, 2000; Nisbett, 2003). Among other perspectives,it has been hypothesized that cultures that are more individ-ualistic (e.g., Western society) promote the development ofan independent self, whereas collectivistic cultures (e.g.,East Asia) facilitate an interdependent self. This has led tosome interesting motivation research by Iyengar and Lepper(1999), who have shown in two studies that Asian Americanchildren (with an interdependent self ) displayed higher lev-els of situational intrinsic motivation on tasks that were cho-sen by their mother than on those chosen by themselves,


whereas the opposite took place for Anglo-American chil-dren. These results are puzzling because much research hasshown that variables related to autonomy and choice positedby SDT do operate in various cultures, including collec-tivistic ones (e.g., Chirkov, Ryan, Kim, & Kaplan, 2003).Because sport and physical activity are engaged in most, ifnot all, cultures, it is imperative to determine if cultureaffects motivation in sport and physical activity settings.And if so, what are the processes through which such effectstake place? Sport psychology has typically neglected cultur-al issues (Duda & Hayashi, 1998). The time has come tomove forward and to correct this important oversight.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter was to review the extant litera-ture on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and phys-ical activity using the HMIEM as an organizing framework.The present review has shown that such research is vibrant,as it deals with a variety of issues at different levels of gen-erality. A number of future research directions have alsobeen proposed. To this end, it is important to reiterate thatthe hierarchical model proposes that it is desirable to prog-ress from the mere study of athletes (or exercise partici-pants) to that of whole individuals who, in addition to beingathletes (or exercise participants), are also students (orworkers) and part of a social matrix (see Vallerand, 1997;Vallerand & Grouzet, 2001). Specifically, this means that ifwe are to better understand an individual’s motivationtoward sport or exercise and ensuing outcomes, we need toknow more about his or her motivations in other life con-texts as well as his or her motivational orientation at theglobal level. Furthermore, we need to pay attention to fac-tors that may operate out of the person’s level of awarenessand those that may affect motivation differently as a func-tion of culture. It is believed that future research framed inline with the HMIEM should lead to a more comprehensiveunderstanding of the psychological processes underlyingmotivational phenomena taking place in sport and physicalactivity settings, eventually contributing to the developmentof a more adaptive environment for all participants.

REFERENCES

Amiot, C. E., Gaudreau, P., & Blanchard, C. M. (2004). Self-determination, coping, and goal attainment in sport. Journalof Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 396–411.

Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Rela-tionships with collegiate athletes’ gender, scholarship status,

and perceptions of their coaches’ behavior. Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 22, 63–84.

Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2001). Pre- to post-seasonchanges in the intrinsic motivation of first year college ath-letes: Relationships with coaching behavior and scholarshipstatus. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 355–373.

Angyal, A. (1941). Foundation for a science of personality. NewYork: Commonwealth Fund.

Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costsof parents’ conditional regard: A self-determination theoryanalysis. Journal of Personality, 72, 47–88.

Bargh, J. A. (2005). Bypassing the will: Toward demystifying thenonconscious control of social behavior. In R. R. Hassin, J. S.Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The new unconscious(pp. 37–58). New York: Oxford University Press.

Beauchamp, P. H., Halliwell, W. R., Fournier, J. F., & Koestner,R. (1996). Effects of cognitive-behavioral psychologicalskills training on the motivation, preparation, and puttingperformance of novice golfers. Sport Psychologist, 10,157–170.

Berg, M. B., Janoff-Bulman, R., & Cotter, J. (2001). Perceivingvalue in obligations and goals: Wanting to do what should bedone. Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 982–995.

Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Gagnon, A., Brière, N. M., & Pel-letier, L. G. (1990). Significance, structure, and gender dif-ferences in life domains of college students. Sex Roles, 22,199–212.

Blais, M. R., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Brière, N. M.(1994). Construction et validation de l’Inventaire des Motiva-tions Interpersonnelles [Construction and validation of theInterpersonal Motivations Inventory]. Unpublished manu-script, Université du Québec, Montréal.

Blanchard, C., Amiot, C., Saint-Laurent, E., Vallerand, R. J., &Provencher, P. (2005). An analysis of the bi-directional ef fectsbetween contextual and situational motivation in a naturalsetting. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Brière, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G.(1995). Développement et validation d’une mesure de moti-vation intrinsèque, extrinsèque et d’amotivation en contextesportif: L’échelle de Motivation dans les Sports (ÉMS) [Onthe development and validation of the French form of the SportMotivation Scale]. International Journal of Sport Psychology,26, 465–489.

Brunel, P. C. (1999). Relationship between achievement goal ori-entations and perceived motivational climate on intrinsicmotivation. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science inSports, 9, 365–374.

Brunel, P., & Vallerand, R. J. (2005). On the relative ef fects ofcontextual motivation and situational factors on situationalmotivation as a function of time. Manuscript submitted forpublication.


Chantal, Y., & Bernache-Assollant, I. (2003). A prospective analy-sis of self-determined sport motivation and sportspersonshiporientations. Athletic Insight: The Online Journal of SportPsychology. Retrieved March 23, 2006, from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol5Iss4/Sportspersonship.htm.

Chantal, Y., Robin, P., Vernat, J.-P., & Bernache-Assollant, I.(2005). Motivation, sportspersonship, and athletic aggres-sion: A mediational analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exer-cise, 6, 233–249.

Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., Biddle, S. J. H., Smith,B., & Wang, J. C. K. (2003). A meta-analysis of perceivedlocus of causality in exercise, sport, and physical educationcontexts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25,284–306.

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differ-entiating autonomy from individualism and independence: Aself-determination theory perspective on internalization ofcultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 84, 97–110.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (NEO-PI-R) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psy-chological Assessment Resources.

Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2005). Motivation and burnoutamong top amateur rugby players. Medicine and Science inSports and Exercise, 37, 469–477.

deCharms, R. C. (1968). Personal causation: The internal af fec-tive determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards onintrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 18, 105–115.

Deci, E. L., Betley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L., & Porac, J. (1981).When trying to win: Competition and intrinsic motivation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 79–83.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994).Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theoryperspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119–142.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analy-sis review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsicrewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125,627–668.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsicrewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsideredonce again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.

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. (1994). Promoting self-determinededucation. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38,3–14.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” ofgoal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination ofbehavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M.(1981). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations towardcontrol versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrin-sic motivation and competence. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 83, 642–650.

Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M. L., Walling, M. D., & Catley, D.(1995). Task and ego orientation and intrinsic motivation insport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 40–63.

Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport:Recent extensions and future directions. In R. N. Singer,H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sportpsychology (2nd ed., pp. 417–443). New York: Wiley.

Duda, J. L., & Hayashi, C. T. (1998). Measurement issues incross-cultural research within sport and exercise psychology.In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psycholo-gy measurement (pp. 471–483). Morgantown, WV: FitnessInformation Technology.

Dwyer, J. J. M. (1995). Effect of perceived choice of music onexercise intrinsic motivation. Health Values, 19, 18–26.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, val-ues, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.

Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (in press). The appli-cation of self-determination theory to the exercise domain:New methodological and conceptual directions. In M. Hagger& N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Self-determination in exer-cise and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Edwards, Y. V., Portman, T. A. A., & Bethea, J. (2002). Counsel-ing student computer competency skills: Effects of technolo-gy course in training. Journal of Technology in Counseling,2(2). Available from http://jtc.colstate.edu/issues.htm.

Fairchild, A. J., Horst, S. J., Finney, S. J., & Barron, K. E.(2005). Evaluation existing and new validity evidence for theAcademic Motivation Scale. Contemporary Educational Psy-chology, 30, 331–358.

Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsicmotivation among adolescent students in physical education.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 267–279.

Fortier, M. S., & Grenier, M. N. (1999). Les déterminants per-sonnels et situationnels de l’adhérence à l’exercise: Une étudeprospective [Personal and situational determinants of exer-cise adherence]. STAPS, 48, 25–37.

Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Brière, N. M., & Provencher, P. J.(1995). Competitive and recreational sport structures andgender: A test of their relationship with sport motivation.International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 24–39.

Frederick, C. M., Morrison, C., & Manning, T. (1996). Motivationto participate, exercise affect, and outcome behaviors towardphysical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 691–701.

Gagné, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy sup-port and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being ofgymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372–390.


Goudas, M., Biddle, S. J. H., & Fox, K. (1994). Achievement goalorientations and intrinsic motivation in physical fitness test-ing with children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 6, 159–167.

Goudas, M., Biddle, S. J. H., Fox, K., & Underwood, M. (1995).It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it! Teaching styleaffects children’s motivation in track and field lessons. SportPsychologist, 9, 254–264.

Gould, D., Dieffenbach, K., & Moffett, A. (2002). Psychologicalcharacteristics and their development of Olympic champions.Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 172–204.

Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., Stewart, D. G., & Gushue,N. R. (1998). Coping with the less interesting aspects oftraining: Toward a model of interest and motivation enhance-ment in individual sports. Basic and Applied Social Psycholo-gy, 20, 251–261.

Grouzet, F. M. E., Vallerand, R. J., Thill, E. E., & Provencher,P. J. (2004). From environmental factors to outcomes: A testof a motivational causal sequence. Motivation and Emotion,28, 331–346.

Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hier-archical structure of self-determined motivation: A test oftop-down, bottom-up, reciprocal, and horizontal effects. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992–1004.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assess-ment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: TheSituational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emo-tion, 24, 175–213.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Blais, M. R. (1999).The Global Motivation Scale. Unpublished manuscript, Uni-versité Laval, Ste-Foy, Quebec, Canada.

Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (in press). A trans-contextual model of self-determined motivation in physicaleducation and leisure contexts. In M. S. Hagger & N. L.Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Self-determination theory in exerciseand sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N., Barkoukis, V., Wang, C. K. J.,& Baranowski, J. (in press). Perceived autonomy support inphysical education and leisure-time physical activity: Across-cultural evaluation of the trans-contextual model. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N., Culverhouse, T., & Biddle,S. J. H. (2003). The processes by which perceived autonomysupport in physical education promotes leisure-time physicalactivity intentions and behavior: A trans-contextual model.Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 784–795.

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist,13, 673–685.

Hein, V., Müür, M., & Koka, A. (2004). Intention to be physical-ly active after school graduation and its relationship to threetypes of intrinsic motivation. European Physical EducationReview, 10, 5–19.

Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise onchildren’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psy-chological Bulletin, 128, 774–795.

Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (2002). Perfectionism and stressenhancement, perpetuation, anticipation, and generation inpsychopathology. In G. L. Flett & P. L. Hewitt (Eds.), Perfec-tionism: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 742–775).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hodgins, H., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and con-scious experience. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Hand-book of self-determination research (pp. 87–100). Rochester,NY: University of Rochester Press.

Hodgins, H., Yacko, I., & Gottlieb, E. (2005). Autonomy andnondefensiveness. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Perceived coachingbehaviors and college athletes’ intrinsic motivation: A test ofself-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psycholo-gy, 17, 20–36.

Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Medley, A. (1998). Exercisemotives and stages of change. Journal of Health Psychology,3, 477–489.

Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Sheppard, K. E. (2003). Per-sonality and self-determination of exercise behavior. Person-ality and Individual Dif ferences, 26, 1921–1932.

Iwasaki, Y., & Mannell, R. C. (1999). Situational and personali-ty inf luences on intrinsically motivated leisure behavior:Interaction effects and cognitive processes. Leisure Sciences,21, 287–306.

Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value ofchoice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.

Jackson, S. A., Kimiecik, J. C., Ford, S. K., & Marsh, H. W.(1998). Psychological correlates of f low in sport. Journal ofSport and Exercise Psychology, 20, 358–378.

Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Houlfort, N. (2004).Introducing uninteresting tasks to children: A comparison ofthe effects of rewards and autonomy support. Journal of Per-sonality, 72, 139–166.

Karageorghis, H. M., & Vlachopoulos, S. P. (2002). Motives forexercise participation as predictors of exercise dependenceamong endurance athletes. Journal of Sports and MedicinePhysical Fitness, 42, 233–238.

Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G. C. (1996). Motivation in physicalactivity contexts: The relationship of perceived motivationalclimate to intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. Journal ofSport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 264–280.

Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture,emotion, and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and theUnited States. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93–124.

Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-determination and consistency between attitudes, traits, and


behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,52–59.

Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Set-ting limits in children’s behavior: The differential effects ofcontrolling versus informational styles on intrinsic motiva-tion and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233–248.

Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (1999). Motivational determinants off low: Contributions from self-determination theory. Journalof Social Psychology, 139, 355–368.

Kowal, J., & Fortier, M. S. (2000). Testing relationships from thehierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation usingflow as a motivational consequence. Research Quarterly forExercise and Sport, 71, 171–181.

Lemyre, P.-N., Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (2006). Inf luenceof variability in motivation and affect on elite athlete burnoutsusceptibility. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.

Lévesque, C., & Pelletier, L. G. (2003). On the investigation ofprimed and chronic autonomous and heteronomous motiva-tional orientations. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 29, 1570–1584.

Li, F. (1999). The Exercise Motivation Scale: Its multifacetedstructure and construct validity. Journal of Applied Sport Psy-chology, 11, 97–115.

Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). The coach-athleterelationship: A motivational model. Journal of Sports Sci-ences, 21, 883–904.

Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification of the Behav-ioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include anassessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psy-chology, 26, 191–196.

Matsumoto, H., & Takenaka, K. (2004). Motivational profilesand stages of exercise behavior change. International Journalof Sport and Health Science, 2, 89–96.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychomet-ric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a com-petitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis.Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

McAuley, E., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). The effects of subjectiveand objective competitive outcomes on intrinsic motivation.Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 84–93.

Miquelon, P., Vallerand, R. J., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Cardinal, G.(2005). Perfectionism, academic motivation, and psychologi-cal adjustment: An integrative model. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 31, 913–924.

Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A gradedconceptualization of self-determination in the regulation ofexercise behavior: Development of a measure using confir-matory factor analytic procedures. Personality and IndividualDif ferences, 23, 745–752.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions ofability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.

Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asiansand Westerners think dif ferently and why. New York: FreePress.

Ntoumanis, N. (2001a). A self-determination approach to under-standing motivation in physical education. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 7, 225–242.

Ntoumanis, N. (2001b). Empirical links between achievementgoal theory and self-determination theory in sport. Journal ofSports Sciences, 19, 397–409.

Ntoumanis, N. (2002). Motivational clusters in a sample ofBritish physical education classes. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 3, 177–194.

Ntoumanis, N. (in press). A prospective study of participation inoptional school physical education using a self-determinationtheory approach. Journal of Educational Psychology.

Ntoumanis, N., & Blaymires, G. (2003). Contextual and situa-tional motivation in education: A test of the specificityhypothesis. European Physical Education Review, 9, 5–21.

Ntoumanis, N., Pensgaard, A.-M., Martin, C., & Pipe, K. (2004).An idiographic analysis of amotivation in compulsory schoolphysical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,26, 197–214.

Orlick, T. D., & Mosher, R. (1978). Extrinsic awards and partic-ipant motivation in a sport related task. International Journalof Sport Psychology, 9, 27–39.

Parfitt , G., & Gledhill, C. (2004). The effect of choice of exer-cise mode on psychological responses. Psychology of Sportand Exercise, 5, 111–117.

Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., & Lévesque, C. (2004). Can self-determination help protect women against socioculturalinf luences about body image and reduce their risk of experi-encing bulimic symptoms? Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-chology, 23, 61–88.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M.(2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support,forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study.Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279–306.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M.,Brière, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measureof intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivationin sports: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). Journal of Sportand Exercise Psychology, 17, 35–53.

Pelletier, L. G., & Sarrazin, P. (in press). Measurement issues inself-determination theory and sport. In M. S. Hagger & N. L.Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Self-determination theory in exerciseand sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pelletier, L. G., Séguin-Lévesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002).Pressure from above and pressure from below as determi-nants of teachers’ motivation and teaching behaviors. Journalof Educational Psychology, 94, 186–196.

Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors’ beliefsand subordinates’ intrinsic motivation: A behavioral confir-


mation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo-gy, 71, 331–340.

Pelletier, L. G., Vallerand, R. J., Brière, N. M., & Blais, M. R.(2006). When coaches become autonomy-supportive: Ef fectson intrinsic motivation, persistence, and performance. Unpub-lished manuscript, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Pelletier, L. G., Vallerand, R. J., Green-Demers, I., Blais, M. R.,& Brière, N. M. (1996). Vers une conceptualisation motiva-tionnelle multidimensionnelle du loisir: Construction et vali-dation de l’Échelle de Motivation vis-à-vis des Loisirs (EML)[Toward a multidimensional motivational conceptualizationof leisure: Construction and validation of the Leisure Moti-vation Scale]. Loisir et Société, 19, 559–585.

Pensgaard, A. M., & Roberts, G. C. (2002). Elite athletes’ expe-riences of the motivational climate: The coach matters. Scan-dinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 12,54–59.

Raedeke, T. D. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress?A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport and Exer-cise Psychology, 19, 369–417.

Ratelle, C. F., Baldwin, M., & Vallerand, R. J. (2005). On thecued activation of situational motivation. Journal of Experi-mental Social Psychology, 41, 482–487.

Ratelle, C. F., Senécal, C., Vallerand, R. J., & Provencher, P. J.(in press). The relationship between school-leisure conflictand poor educational and mental health indices: A motiva-tional analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

Ratelle, C. F., Vallerand, R. J., Chantal, Y., & Provencher, P.(2004). Cognitive adaptation and mental health: A motiva-tional analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34,459–476.

Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivat-ing style: Is it teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychol-ogy, 23, 312–330.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing arationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy tomotivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivationand Emotion, 26, 183–297.

Reinboth, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensionsof coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychologicaland physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and Emo-tion, 28, 297–313.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, R., & Ryan,R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, com-petence, and relatedness. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 26, 419–435.

Riordan, J. (1977). Sport in Soviet society. Cambridge, England:Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, E. D. (1977). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and athlet-ics. In L. I. Gedvilas & M. E. Kneer (Eds.), Proceedings of theNational College of Physical Education Association forMen/National Association for Physical Education of College

Women national conference (pp. 346–353). Chicago: Univer-sity of Illinois at Chicago Circle Press, Office of PublicationsServices.

Ryan, E. D. (1980). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and athlet-ics: A replication and extension. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Hal-liwell, K. M. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology ofmotor behavior and sport—1979 (pp. 19–26). Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.

Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon,K. M. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence.International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 335–354.

Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L. G., &Curry, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female hand-ballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 57, 749–761.

Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1986). Social psychologicalaspects of competition for male youth sport participants: Pt.IV. Predictors of enjoyment. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8,25–35.

Senécal, C., Vallerand, R. J., & Guay, F. (2001). Antecedents andoutcomes of work-family conflicts: Toward a motivationalmodel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,176–186.

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). Whatis satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidatepsychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 80, 325–339.

Simons, J., Dewitte, S., & Lens, W. (2003). Don’t do it for me.Do it for yourself ! Stressing the personal relevance enhancesmotivation in physical education. Journal of Sport and Exer-cise Psychology, 25, 145–160.

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). Predictingmotivation regulations in physical education: The interplaybetween dispositional goal orientations, motivational climateand perceived competence. Journal of Sports Sciences, 21,631–647.

Standage, M., & Treasure, D. C. (2002). Relationship amongachievement goal orientations and multidimensional situa-tional motivation in physical education. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 72, 87–103.

Standage, M., Treasure, D. C., Duda, J. L., & Prusak, K. A.(2003). Validity, reliability, and invariance of the SituationalMotivation Scale (SIMS) across diverse physical activitycontexts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25,19–43.

Tauer, J. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2004). The effects of coop-eration and competition on intrinsic motivation and perfor-mance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86,849–861.

Thill, E., & Mouanda, J. (1990). Autonomy or control in thesports context: Validity of cognitive evaluation theory. Inter-national Journal of Sport Psychology, 21, 1–20.


Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (in press). The role ofself-determined motivation to the understanding of exercise-related behaviors, cognitions, and physical self-evaluation.Journal of Sports Sciences.

Thomas, J. R., & Tennant, L. K. (1978). Effects of rewards onchildren’s motivation for an athletic task. In F. L. Smoll &R. E. Smith. Psychological perspectives in youth sports(pp. 123–144). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsicand extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). NewYork: Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic andextrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. Roberts(Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (2nd ed.,pp. 263–319). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Vallerand, R. J. (in press). The hierarchical model of intrinsicand extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity. InM. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Self-determination theory in exercise and sport. Champaign, IL:Human Kinetics.

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic,and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior : Aprospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620.

Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G.(1989). Construction et validation de l’Échelle de motivationen éducation (EME) [On the construction and validation ofthe French form of the Academic Motivation Scale]. Canadi-an Journal of Behavioral Science, 21, 323–349.

Vallerand, R. J., Brière, N. M., Blanchard, C., & Provencher, P.(1997). Development and validation of the MultidimensionalSportspersonship Orientations Scale. Journal of Sport andExercise Psychology, 19, 197–206.

Vallerand, R. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Intrinsicmotivation in sport. In K. Pandolf (Ed.), Exercise andsport science reviews (Vol. 15, pp. 389–425). New York:Macmillan.

Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J.-P., Brière, N. M., & Pel-letier, L. G. (1996). Toward a multidimensional definition ofsportsmanship. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 8, 89–101.

Vallerand, R. J., & Fortier, M. S. (1998). Measures of intrinsicand extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: Areview and critique. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advancements in sportand exercise psychology measurement (pp. 83–100). Morgan-town, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward amotivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 72, 1161–1176.

Vallerand, R. J., Gauvin, L., & Halliwell, W. R. (1986a). Effectsof zero-sum competition on children’s intrinsic motivation

and perceived competence. Journal of Social Psychology, 126,465–472.

Vallerand, R. J., Gauvin, L., & Halliwell, W. R. (1986b). Nega-tive effects of competition on children’s intrinsic motivation.Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 649–657.

Vallerand, R. J., & Grouzet, F. M. E. (2001). Pour un modèlehiérarchique de la motivation intrinsèque et extrinsèque dansles pratiques sportives et l’activité physique [For a hierarchi-cal model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport andphysical activity]. In F. Curry, P. Sarrazin, & J. P. Famose(Eds.), Théories de la motivation et pratiques sportives(pp. 57–95). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Vallerand, R. J., Guay, F., Mageau, G., Blanchard, C. M., &Cadorette, I. (2005). Self-regulatory processes in humanbehavior: A test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic andextrinsic motivation. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1994). Self-determined moti-vation and sportsmanship orientations: An assessment oftheir temporal relationship. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology, 16, 229–245.

Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysisof intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal ofApplied Sport Psychology, 11, 142–169.

Vallerand, R. J., & O’Connor, B. P. (1991). Construction et val-idation de l’Échelle de Motivation pour les personnes âgées(EMPA) [Construction and validation of the French form ofthe Elderly Motivation Scale]. International Journal of Psy-chology, 26, 219–240.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M.,Senécal, C., & Vallières, E. F. (1992). The Academic Motiva-tion Scale: A measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivationin education. Educational and Psychological Measurement,52, 1003–1019.

Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brière, N. M.,Senécal, C., & Vallières, E. F. (1993). On the assessment ofintrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidenceon the concurrent and construct validity of the AcademicMotivation Scale. Educational and Psychological Measure-ment, 53, 159–172.

Vallerand, R. J., & Perreault, S. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation in sport: Toward a hierarchical model. In R. Lidor& M. Bar-Eli (Eds.), Sport psychology: Linking theory andpractice (pp. 191–212). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Informa-tion Technology.

Vallerand, R. J., & Ratelle, C. F. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation: A hierarchical model. In E. L. Deci & R. M.Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research(pp. 37–64). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the causal effects of per-ceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitiveevaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 94–102.


Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1988). On the relative effects ofpositive and negative verbal feedback on males’ and females’intrinsic motivation. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sci-ences, 20, 239–250.

Vallerand, R. J., & Rousseau, F. L. (2001). Intrinsic and extrin-sic motivation in sport and exercise: A review using the hier-archical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In R. N.Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbookof sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 389–416). New York: Wiley.

Vallerand, R. J., & Thill, E. E. (1993). Introduction au concept demotivation [Introduction to the concept of motivation]. In R. J.Vallerand & E. E. Thill (Eds.), Introduction à la psychologie dela motivation [Introduction to the psychology of motivation](pp. 3–39). Laval, Canada: Éditions Études Vivantes.

Vlachopoulos, S. P., Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (2000).Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theoryperspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71,387–397.

Wagner, S. L., Lounsbury, J. W., & Fitzgerald, L. G. (1989).Attribute factors associated with work / leisure perceptions.Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 155–166.

Wang, C. K. J., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2001). Young people’s moti-vational profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Jour-nal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 1–22.

Wang, C. K. J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Spray, C. M., & Biddle,S. J. H. (2002). Achievement goal profiles in school physicaleducation: Differences in self-determination, sport abilitybeliefs, and physical activity. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 72, 433–445.

Weinberg, R. S., & Ragan, J. (1979). Effects of competition, suc-cess/failure, and sex on intrinsic motivation. Research Quar-terly, 50, 503–510.

Weiner, B. (1972). Theories of motivation: From mechanism tocognition. Chicago: Markham.

Weiss, M. R., & Amorose, A. J. (2005). Children’s self-perceptions in the physical domain: Between- and within-agevariability in level, accuracy, and sources of perceived compe-tence. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27, 226–244.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept ofcompetence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2002). The relationshipbetween exercise motives and physical self-esteem in femaleexercise participants: An application of self-determinationtheory. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7, 30–43.

Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2004). The relationshipbetween perceived autonomy support, exercise regulations,and behavioural intentions in women. Psychology of Sport andExercise, 5, 229–242.

Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (in press). Self-determinationtheory, exercise, and well-being. In M. S. Hagger & N. L.Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Self-determination theory in exerciseand sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Fraser, S. N., & Murray, T. C.(2004). Relationships between exercise regulations and moti-vational consequences in university students. Research Quar-terly for Exercise and Sport, 75, 81–91.

Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Hall, C. R., & Gammage, K. L.(2003). Do autonomous exercise regulations underpin differ-ent types of exercise imagery? Journal of Applied Sport Psy-chology, 15, 294–306.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport and Physical ... · Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation...

Documents

Transcript of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Sport and Physical ... · Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation...