<%BANNER%>

Creation and Validation of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale


PAGE 1

CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE SCALE By ERIC DANIEL MODEL A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Eric Daniel Model

PAGE 3

This dissertation is dedicated to those who see the world clearly but struggle to make sense of it, and those who believed they knew their path, until they found a better way. Always remember, you are who you want to be, a nd the greatest thing about the future is the power you have over it.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation was possi ble due to the outstanding friends and loved ones I leaned upon in its creation. I would like to fi rst thank my mentor and advisor Dr. Chris Janelle. He was a pillar in all aspects of this dissertati on and my success at UF. I thank him for his ear when times were rough, his generosity through each semester, and his willingness to go the extra mile. He set the example of the professor I strive to be. I would also like to thank my other chair, Dr. John Todorovich. His support, time, patience and encouragement were the foundation I buil t upon through my Ph.D. I could not have done it without him, nor would I have wanted to. I would also like to thank se veral others for their significant role in this paper, as well as making my stay at UF more enjoyabl e. I thank Dr. Mark Tillman, as our days playing sports were the inspiration for this topic and I could not have asked for a better committee member. Dr. Tim Vollmer, who was a saving grace in my time of need and his help will not be forgotten. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to know him and this product was vastly improved because of his input. I would also like to than k those closest to me for their unwavering support over my graduate career. My father and mother en abled me to become who I always wanted to be and they are truly shining st ars that helped guide my way. Tracey, the love of my life and the best friend I could have, I thank her for believing in me. Lastly, I would like to thank my dogs for keeping me sane, and all my friends for their input and support; I look forward to having them call me Dr. Model.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 MOTIVATION RECONSIDERED.............................................................................1 Self-Determination Theory Strengths...........................................................................5 Self-Determination Theory Weaknesses......................................................................5 Current Studies.............................................................................................................6 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................8 Motivation History........................................................................................................8 Historical Underpinnings............................................................................................13 William James.........................................................................................................13 Sigmund Freud........................................................................................................14 Clark Hull................................................................................................................17 B.F. Skinner............................................................................................................18 James White............................................................................................................24 Edward Deci............................................................................................................28 Edward Deci and Rich Ryan...................................................................................30 Self-determination theory....................................................................................30 Motivation styles.................................................................................................31 Psychological needs.............................................................................................34 Integration and internalization.............................................................................35 Outcome states.....................................................................................................35 Robert Vallerand.....................................................................................................37 Motivation levels.................................................................................................37 Five postulates of the hierarchical model............................................................38 Conclusion..................................................................................................................39 3 THEORETICAL FORMULATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE SCALE (DMPS).........................................................................................................41

PAGE 6

vi Evolving Motivation...................................................................................................41 Previous Research...................................................................................................42 Design and Application..........................................................................................44 Motivation Scales...................................................................................................45 Achievement Goal Theory......................................................................................47 Dual Continuum Perspective..................................................................................48 Duality Model of Motivation 2004.........................................................................50 Purpose.......................................................................................................................5 2 Hypotheses..................................................................................................................53 4 STUDY 1....................................................................................................................54 Method........................................................................................................................5 4 Participants..............................................................................................................54 Purpose 1.................................................................................................................55 Panel of Experts......................................................................................................55 Pilot Study...............................................................................................................55 Focus Group............................................................................................................56 Construct Validation...............................................................................................57 Criterion Validation................................................................................................58 Subscale Reliability.................................................................................................59 Test-Retest Reliability.............................................................................................59 Results........................................................................................................................ .59 DMPS Scale Validation..........................................................................................59 Step 1 Content Validation.....................................................................................59 Step 2 Construct Validation..................................................................................64 Step 3 Criterion Validation...................................................................................66 Step 4 Subscale Reliability...................................................................................66 Step 5 Test-Retest Reliability...............................................................................67 Discussion...................................................................................................................68 Conclusion..................................................................................................................71 5 STUDY 2....................................................................................................................73 Athlete Study..............................................................................................................73 Participants..............................................................................................................73 Measures.................................................................................................................73 Procedure................................................................................................................74 Data analysis...........................................................................................................75 Results........................................................................................................................ .76 Preliminary Analyses..............................................................................................76 Study Analyses........................................................................................................77 Discussion...................................................................................................................78 6 GENERAL DISCUSSION.........................................................................................83 Theoretical Considerations.........................................................................................83

PAGE 7

vii Practical Implications.................................................................................................83 Limitations..................................................................................................................85 Future Research..........................................................................................................86 Conclusion..................................................................................................................88 APPENDIX A CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 1......................................................................90 B CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 2......................................................................92 C CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 3......................................................................94 D VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 1 WI TH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS...............96 E VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 2 WI TH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS...............99 F VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 3 WI TH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS.............101 G VALIDATED DMPS FINAL VERSION................................................................103 H FOCUS GROUP OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS......................................................105 I FINAL FORMATTING OF THE DMPS WITH SCORING...................................106 J SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE (SMS)..................................................................108 K DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET........................................................................................111 L IRB STUDY APPROVAL.......................................................................................113 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................120

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Motivation Perspectives..............................................................................................8 2-2 Motivation Overview Outline....................................................................................9 4-3 Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 1............60 4-4 Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 2............62 4-5 Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 3............63 4-6 Confirmatory Factor Analys is for Construct Validation..........................................65 4-7 Criterion Validation Between the SMS and the DMPS...........................................66 4-8 Means, Standard Deviations a nd Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS.......................67 4-9 Test-Retest Correlati on Scores for the DMPS.........................................................68 5-10 Means, Standard Deviations a nd Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS.......................76 5-11 Profile Means for Athlete Levels.............................................................................77

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination Continuum.....................................................37 3-2 Nicholl's Task/Ego Perspectives..............................................................................48 3-3 Potential Dual Conti nuum Motivation Profiles........................................................49 3-4 Duality Model of Motivation...................................................................................51 3-5 Profile Categories.....................................................................................................52 4-6 Scoring Range Per Profile........................................................................................58 5-7 Group Motivation Profiles.......................................................................................77 5-8 Scoring Range Per Elite Profile...............................................................................79 5-9 Example SMS Scoring Style....................................................................................80

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE SCALE By Eric Daniel Model May 2005 Chair: Christopher Janelle Cochair: John R. Todorovich Major Department: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology Self-Determination Theory postulates that the satisfaction of three specific needs in a given environment will produce one motivation style along a continuum of motivation. Yet, in achievement environmen ts such as sports competition, it seems plausible that both extrinsi c and intrinsic motivators drive motivation simultaneously. The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the background leading to SelfDetermination Theory, the historical pers pectives of how current motivation was formulated and the contribution of the key re search. This dissertati on further theorized a new model, The Dual Motivation Model, in which two types of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic, can concurrently promote our cogni tions, affect and behaviors. This model was utilized in establishing the creation of, The Dual Motivati on Profile Scale (DMPS), an assessment tool capable of determining dual mo tivations simultaneously in sport settings. Two studies were undertaken to create and vali date the DMPS, the first study utilized 452 athletes ranging from recreat ional to NCAA varsity elite. Five stages of validation

PAGE 11

xi provided evidences the scale was valid and re liable. Specifically, a confirmatory factor analysis provided successful validation of 5 subscales, tw o intrinsic in nature and 3 extrinsic. The second study further validat ed the DMPS by profiling 57 NCAA elite level athletes from various sports. In direct contrast to self-d etermination theory’s simplex assumption, results from this study showed independence between the intrinsic and extrinsic continuums. Further, 2 separa te one-way ANOVA’s indicated 4 different motivation profiles that fluctuated with leve l of athlete performance, however, motivation profiles were not statistically different across these groups.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 MOTIVATION RECONSIDERED Why do we do the things we do? More specif ically, what causes us to behave in a particular fashion, how do we cope with a ch anging environment, and what stirs us to action? One’s sense of self is intertwined in these questions, yet to fully understand these drives or motives is limited. The concept of motivation is explored due to its application in all aspects of life. A broad definition of motivation conceived by Heckhauser (1991) states, “It appears to be a force or a tendenc y that directs and amp lifies, initiates and terminates, coordinates and delineates the c ognitive and motor behavior work (p. 2).” Few other concepts can be operationalized to encompass such a broad and pervasive part of life. Motivation is the common thread across ma ny researchers’ attempts to answer the question, “Why do we perform as we do?” In one’s daily routine, rarely are motives or drives questioned. Apparently, as time ha s progressed, the link between motives and action has become clouded. The lack of th is motive to behavior connection seems contrary to basic human evolution, where pr imate beings could operate on drives for hunger or safety, similar to many levels of the animal kingdom, (Goodenough, McGuire & Wallace, 2001). In today’s society, these everyday drives are no longer so clear, making the motivation concept difficult to define despite its almost universal application (Carron, Hausenblas, & Eastabrooks, 2003). Motivation can be considered developmen tal in each individual (Nicholls, 1984), and can be described as an energizing action, persistence in the face of failure, behavioral

PAGE 13

2 pursuits, and/or a force from within (Deci & Ryan, 2002). As well, both cognitive and physical elements can contribute towards th e different forces of motivation. Given the importance of motivation in one ’s thoughts, behaviors, and pu rsuits (Treasure, 2003), it is often assumed that the unde rstanding of this concept is well defined. However, motivation continues to be a difficult elemen t to categorize, promote, and foster in laboratory and non-laboratory based settings. Th is difficulty has led researchers, coaches and many others to continue the study of motivation and motivational theory. Establishing the connection between mo tivation and behavior is a key issue throughout motivation research (Deci & Ryan, 1985). One’s past and present ability to function seems to initiate with a basic motivation or drive. Whether these drives are instinctual (e.g., a fight or flight re sponse) (Cannon, 1939), physiological, (e.g., a response to chemical balances indicating hunger), or cognitive (e.g., a strong work ethic to achieve a promotion) (Mischel, 1973), the “motivation” behind the behavior is always present. In the past, understanding motivati on was often intertwined with drives and forces. In today’s understanding, these elements are terms to help define motivation and are considered the basic r oots of motivational theory. With constant study has come constant e volution of the motiv ational construct. Historically, motivation can be traced back to William James and Sigmund Freud. Freud conceptualized motivation as an instinctua l base and laid the groundwork for future researchers. Although the concept of motivation is historically rich, the literature is filled with disagreement and debate regarding what is correct and what needs updating; in today’s research, motivation has taken on ma ny different forms. Some of the current theories of motivation are The Transtheor etical Model (Prochas ka & DiClemente, 1983),

PAGE 14

3 Nicholl’s Achievement Goal Theory (1984), De ci and Ryan’s Self-Determination theory (1985), Vallerand’s Hierarchi cal Model of Motivation (2000) to name a few. Each theory provides a different perspective attemp ting to explain “why” behavior occurs as it does. According to motivation theory, all behavior can be tied back to motives in some sense (James, 1890). Going grocery shopping may be a weekly errand, yet the basis could be tied to a biological motivation to avoid st arvation. Examples of motivated behavior are limitless, as motivation can seemingly be tied to all aspects of being human. In certain life domains, such as sports, motivation seem s more prevalent in one’s perceptions and actions. Achievement environments are rich in motivational issues due to the pertinent goals attached to particip ating in such domains. Although motivational forces may be confused as the cause for good or poor performance, the relationship is typically indirect (Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Motivation can be tremendously high and performance can still be poor. Conversely, motivation can be extremely low and performance can soar to new heights. Despite th is incongruence, if one asks sport coaches, business executives, or an exercise leader to identify top required factors to achieve success, motiva tion will usually be near the top. Although outcomes and motivation are often intertwined, the relationship between these two is not clearly evident (Treasur e, 2003). Motivation is one of many factors involved in producing outcomes The first step in making any link between motivation and performance is to understand the histor y of motivation, specifi cally self-determined motivation. As an understanding of the b ackground occurs, one can recognize the elements important towards promoting benefi cial motivation and be havior. A second step

PAGE 15

4 must also occur before attempting to apply motivation theory to behavior, specifically, motivation must be individualized to each pe rson so the appropriate profile can be exposed, understood, and then applied. To accomplish these goals, assessment, di sproof, and revision of established theory is needed. Utilizing Self-Determi nation Theory (SDT), one can recognize the strengths and limitations of existing motivation research in the sports field. SelfDetermination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is a pervasive approach used to explain the influence of intrinsic interest and extrin sic rewards on behavior. The core motivation styles are operationalized themes or styles of motivation that crea te a model or single continuum of motivation. This continuum has three main motivation orientations, amotivation, extrinsic motiva tion and intrinsic motivation. Am otivation is the first point on the continuum and represents an indivi dual who simply lacks motivation. Extrinsic motivation is the middle spot on the con tinuum and represents externally based motivation. An extrinsic individu al typically performs actions for motives external of the self. The top point on the continuum is intr insic motivation, also considered the ideal motivation according to Self-Determination Theory. Often people who are intrinsically motivated are said to be self-determined in behavior. Each different motivation along this continuum can have varied effects on our thoughts, behaviors and feelings. Motivation shifts along this continuum by the satisfaction of three psyc hological needs. The higher the degree of perceived satisfaction for these needs, the higher the level of intrinsic motivation experienced (Treasure, 2003). Higher levels of intr insic motivation are in turn reported to promote greater poten tial achievement behavior.

PAGE 16

5 Self-Determination Theory Strengths Strengths of self-determination theory are its ability to accommodate internal forces, external influences, the social envi ronment, and a variety of potential motivation styles. It is important to a ppreciate that SDT is a powerfu l theory since its inception in 1985. The core elements of the SDT, specifi cally the single con tinuum of motivation, have remained the same for almost 20 years. However, the current SDT continuum restricts the classification of motivation one experiences to one score on the continuum. This means that only intrinsic or extrinsi c motivation can be active within any given environment. This restrictive classificati on system has been supported by several means since the inception of the theory almost 20 years ago. Self-Determination Theory Weaknesses First, previous research identifies one active motivation while other alternative motivations are reduced or ignored. Second, th e interpretation of the theory design is flawed, leading to flawed motivation conc lusions. Third, past and current motivation scales distinguish our motivation orientations as one style, where the motivation outcome is capable of only one label. Scales such as the Sport Motivation S cale (Pelletier, 1996) and the Situational Motivation Scale (Gua y, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000) provide a single score of motivation repr esenting a level, or rough cate gory of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation that the individual is operating within. Higher scores refer to better motivation styles (intrinsic), lower scores refer to extrinsic or amotivation. Because the continuum is designed as a si ngle construct, motivation is represented as a single concept (Deci & Ryan, 1985, Pelletier et al., 1994). Although intrinsic and extrinsic motivations offer different incentiv es (Black & Weiss, 1992; Chantal, Guay,

PAGE 17

6 Dobreva-Martinova, Vallerand, 1996), the cu rrent single continuu m does not allow dual motivation representation. This restricts ma ny possible influences (e.g., external desire for fitness, forced pressure to participate) and behaviors from being understood in sports, teaching, and other achievement environments, as only one motivation orientation is possible within the limitations of current SDT. Recognizing that SDT struggles to expl ain a full range of motivation is an important step in motivation research. SDT a nd SDT scales currently lack the capacity to represent all environmental influences from multiple motivation orientations. This has led to limited clarity in various situations and rest rictive labels for motivation. Similar to any research paradigm, exploring the potential fo r new and better models is essential. By recognizing the potential dual mo tivation continuums offer, we can alleviate the holes currently found in Self-Determination Theo ry research. By having two continuums operate independently of one another, each motivation can theoretically exert its own influence on behavior. This eliminates the rest rictive labeling utilized in SDT, replacing it with individualized motivation profil es established for each environment. Current Studies To overcome the entrenched obstacles in current motivation thinking, a new model of motivation is proposed and two st udies will be undertaken. The new model is called the Duality Model of Motivation and although it builds upon the current SDT model, it will delineate intrinsic and extrinsi c motivations as indivi dual influences, each represented along separate cont inuums. This model will th en be the foundation for study one, the creation and validation of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS). The scale will provide an assessment of the delineated motivations. This evolution will allow

PAGE 18

7 multiple motivations to simultaneously be eval uated to help coaches, teachers, and others promote potential performance behavior s. By having two continuums operate independently, intrinsic and extrinsic motiva tion can be independently distinct towards influencing behavior. As such, study two is designed to build upon the individual profile capability of the DMPS by examining the profiles of elite level NCAA athletes within the respective sports environment. Since no scales to date can determine multiple influences of motivation, the opportunity to verify a profile of dual motivation influe nces with a unique population of athletes is a ke y step to entrenching the Du ality Model of Motivation and the Dual Motivation Profile Scale in the SDT sport research. The combination of these two studies provides the opportunity to assess and verify a du al profile of motivation, yet maintain the strengths of previous theory. Simply put, the creation and validation of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale a nd the application of the scale with elite athletes, helps address the limitations currently found in self -determination research. Only with a tool designed, tested and validated for assessing dual continuums can SDT evolve and grow. By creating and testing a new model of motiv ation, this dissertation hopes to stimulate future research towards a greater understanding of multiple motivations during sport behavior.

PAGE 19

8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Motivation History Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is currently a dominant perspective in motivation research. Fr om its inception in 1985 and subsequent modifications (Vallerand, 1999), the key as pects of the theory have never been challenged. The core ideas can be traced to pa st research and key literature. The influence of each past researcher helped promote new insights and ideas that have led to the modern-day theory of Self-Determined motiva tion. Further, the past literature provides insight into areas where the current theory of motivation may be improved. The following table (Table 2-1) outlines each researche r’s ideas, the progression of motivation perspectives, and the elements of motivation that e volved through time. Table 2-1. Motivation Perspectives Researcher William James Sigmund Freud Clark Hull James White Edward Deci Edward Deci and Rich Ryan Robert Vallerand Time Frame 1887-1910 1914-1928 1940-1955 1959-1967 1971-1981 1985-1997 1999-2004 Proposed Theory Idea Interests and Attention Instinct Theory Hullian Drive Effectance Motivation Cognitive Evaluation Theory Self-Determination Theory Hierarchical Model

PAGE 20

9 Table 2-1. Continued Since the numerous contributions to mo tivation and Self-Determination Theory are expansive, an outline of each researcher is presented below (Table 2-2). These tables offer each vantage point of history, theory, a nd theory connections towards the evolution of motivation. From Freud’s in trospective and assumption-ba sed ideas to more modern empirical research, each time frame help s show how the progression of selfdetermination ideas occurred. By understandi ng how motivation theory came to be, one can recognize the areas in need of improveme nt, hence leading to “The Duality Model of Motivation.” Each researcher, their background, and the tene ts behind their theory are further presented in the forthcoming section. Table 2-2. Motivation Overview Outline Contribution to Theory Evolution Initial link towards motivation Behaviorist Perspective leading to Drive Theory First link to extrinsic motivation First link to intrinsic motivation Motivation is expanded to include psychological factors Motivation is adaptive to the person and environment Motivation is p ro p osed to o p erate on several levels Researcher Proposed Theory Tenets William James Explored motivation through the concept of instincts Was convinced that interest played a vital role for our attention and consequent behavior Inspired Freudian theory of how instincts were linked to behaviors Proposed that instincts, like motivation, require energy direction and ‘ma y ’ onl y lack p ersistence Theory Connections Laid the foundation for future motivation theory Created an initial link from attention and motivation to the A, B, C’s of sport psychology o Affect o Cognition o Behavior Researcher William James Sigmund Freud Clark Hull James White Edward Deci Edward Deci and Rich Ryan Robert Vallerand

PAGE 21

10 Table 2-2. Continued Researcher Proposed Theory Tenets Sigmund Freud Proposed that our actions might be related to two main drives, sex and aggression Combined sex and aggression drives into Instinct Theory (Freud, 1914) Speculated that the conscious and unconscious mind were both key issues in our behavior Postulated that we are gratification-seeking beings Theorized that two instincts formed our entire motivational process o Life Instinct o Death Instinct Theory Connections Linked Instinct theory to the psychological processes of pleasure seeking Tied motivated behavior to our mind and our perceived environment Restricted all human behavior as motivated instincts linked to physical needs, thereby eliminating internal influence on behavior Researcher Proposed Theory Tenets Clark L. Hull Introduced the motivation concept of Drive Theory (1940) Changed the motivation perspective from Freud’s pleasure seeking to a more total picture Proposed that Drive reduction causes reinforced behavior o i.e., motivation is the desire to reduce drives to a state of neutrality Could not to expl ain exploratory behavior with Drive theory Left a hole in research for what caused motivation in the first place Theory Connections Expanded Freud’s sex and aggression drives to include hunger and thirst Placed motivation as a singular physiological dimension called drives Linked motivation to both internal and external influences Pulled together Freud’s philosophizing with an empirical basis for support

PAGE 22

11 Table 2-2. Continued Researcher Proposed Theory Tenets James White Provided an in depth criticism of Hull’s Drive theory Proved that exploration begets more exploration not diminished drives Proposed innate energy as responsible for exploration and open behavior Explained how motivation could be active rather than passive Eliminated reinforcement as necessary for motivation Researcher Proposed Theory Tenets Edward Deci Included cognitions, perceptions and emotions into motivation theory Explored intrinsic motivation and the value of choice Explored various environments and rewards on motivation styles Developed Cognitive Evaluation Theory Explained extrinsic rewards in two means, controlling and informational Theory Connections Criticized the external basis or external origin s of drives Built upon Freudian idea of Independent Ego Energy as internal motivation Created first non-drive based motivation, now considered the original intrinsic motivation Accommodated both extrinsic and intrinsic forces again linking to SDT Theory Connections Developed current form of intrinsic motivation Laid Groundwork for SelfDetermination Theory

PAGE 23

12 Table 2-2. Continued Researcher(s) Proposed Theory Tenets Edward Deci & Rich Ryan Proposed Self-Determination Theory of motivation Emphasized the experience of choice, having choices and making choices Broke motivation into two parts intrinsic and extrinsic Determined motivation from three psychological needs o competence o autonomy o relatedness Proposed motivation to fall along a single continuum Researcher Proposed Theory Tenets Vallerand Expanded SDT into The Hierarchical Model of motivation Posited that motivation operated at three levels o Global o Contextual o Situational Proposes five postulates key to the Hierarchical model and motivation Theory Connections Included elements of internal and external influences and psychological components. Built upon Freud, Hull, and White to create a flexible motivational theory Theory Connections Little research has examined the impact of motivation on contextual levels of performance, specifically in athletics

PAGE 24

13 Table 2-2. Continued Historical Underpinnings William James James, who started as a physiology teach er, switched to psychology for several years and eventually gravitate d to philosophy. Most sport ps ychology literature is traced back to William James and our first link in the motivation research evolution is no exception. In 1890, an article “What is an Ins tinct?” proposes severa l concepts pertaining to motivation. Freud later revives the concep t of instinct promoting behavior, but its origins lie in James’ definition. Instinct is usually defined as the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce certain ends, w ithout foresight of the ends, and without previous education in the performance. That instincts, as thus defined, exist on an enormo us scale in the animal kingdom needs no proof. They are the functional correlatives of structure. (p. 23) Researcher Proposed Theory Tenets Model Examined the limitations of current motivation theory Proposed dual continuums to operate independently and concurrently Examined the parallel nature of dual continuums Proposed multiple combinations of dual continuums to accommodate different environments Termed new theory the Duality Model of Motivation (DMM) Theory Connections Challenged the single classification of motivation by SDT New model helps explain multiple influences within one environment

PAGE 25

14 James ascertained that interest played a vital role for attent ion and consequent behavior (James, 1890). This assertion is si milar to current Self-Determination Theory (SDT) thinking, whereby it is claimed that one’s cognitions and environment can influence behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Althoug h attention is distin ct from motivation, this seems to be a starting point for motivatio ns roots. James theori zed the details of how instincts may serve us in be havior. In the following quote one can see the themes that future philosophers and researchers, Freud in particular, capitalize upon in explaining behavior. A very common way of talk ing about these admirable definite tendencies to act is by naming abstractly the purpose they subserve, such as self-preservation, or defense, or care for eggs and young… and saying the animal has an instinctive fear or death or love of life, or that she has an instinct of selfpreservation, or an instinct of maternity and the like. (p. 47) Motivation within this definition is purely a ba sic system within an organism that allows it to function and survive. Yet, the rudime ntary elements or motiv ation (e.g., a drive or motive to stay alive) can be seen. Instincts, like motivation, require energy direction and may only lack persistence. These three characte ristics are considered the key elements in defining motivation (Ryan, Connell, and Deci, 1985). James’s contribution towards motivational literature may have been incidental, as his intention does not seem to be to explai n human behavior but animals, yet James’s work laid the foundation for fu ture motivational theories. Sigmund Freud In the early 1900’s, motivation is traced to Freudian research. In 1915, Freud proposed that one’s actions might be relate d to two main drives: sex and aggression. These two forces combined into what Fre ud called Instinct Theory (Freud, 1923). Sex

PAGE 26

15 and aggression were considered very primary or core elements to the individual and these forces were both part of the pleasure-seek ing component of a person (Fancher, 1973). According to Freud, two primary drives, sex and aggression, ar e under control of the “id.” The id is a person’s pleasure seeking com ponent and tries to accrue as much personal pleasure as possible. Few individua ls repudiate the notion that people want to experience pleasurable things. Self-Determination Theory similarly proposes that humans are inherently motivated to seek out intrin sically enjoyable envir onments (Ryan & Deci, 2002). However, what each person finds plea surable, how one seeks out pleasures, and how ‘motivated’ an individual may be, can be very different (Boeree, 1997; Fancher, 1973). Based upon Freud’s experiences with Anna O., a patient who through psychoanalysis was able to h eal herself from multiple odd problems, Freud speculated that the conscious and unconscious mind we re key issues in our behaviors. Here, motivation from ones actions became inherently tied to the mind and the perceptions experienced from the environment (Freeman, 1990). The conscious mind is what one is aware of at any particular moment, the present perceptions, memories, thoughts, fantasies, feelings, etc. (Fancher, 1973). Working closely with the conscious mind is another le vel of mental activity which Freud called the preconscious, or what today might be cal led "available memory." Available memory typically refers to anything that can easily be made conscious, the memories we are not at the moment thinking about but can readily br ing to mind (Boeree, 1997). Freud suggested the largest part of the mind is the unconscious; it includes all th ings that are not easily

PAGE 27

16 available to awareness, including many things that originate there, such as drives or instincts (Pende rgast, 1997). Based upon the idea that we are pleasure-s eeking beings, Freud postulated that we were innately gratification-s eeking beings and coined the id ea of Instinct Theory (Whyte, 1960). According to Freud, the unconscious is the source of our motivations, whether they are simple desires for food or sex, neurot ic compulsions, or the motives of an artist or scientist. Freud saw all human behavior as motivated by drives or instincts, which in turn are the neurological repr esentations of physical needs (S ulloway, 1979). At first, he referred to these needs as life instincts. Thes e instincts perpetuate (a) the life of the individual, by motivating him or her to s eek food and water, and (b) the life of the species, by motivating individuals to have sex. The motivational en ergy of these life instincts, the impetus that powers our psyches, he called libido, from the Latin word for "I desire" (Boeree, 1997). Freud later began to believe that the life instincts did not tell the whole story. He believed the libido to be a lively thing allo wing the pleasure princi ple to keep us in perpetual motion. Yet, the goal of this motion was still to become satisfied and be at peace, essentially to have no more need s (Wallace, 1983). The goal of life, Freud postulated, was death. Freud began to believe th at "under" and "beside" the life instincts there was a death instinct. He began to believe that every person has an unconscious wish to die. These two instincts were later named, “Eros” for life instinct and “Thanatos” for death instinct (Sulloway, 1979) These two components formed the central elements of Freud’s motivational instinct theory. Simply put, Freud believed motivation stems from a

PAGE 28

17 desire to pursue or avoid behaviors depending upon which of these two instincts is stronger in manipulating our prim ary consciousness (Sulloway, 1979). Within Freud’s theory, all behavior was stimulated from two main drives, Eros and Thanatos. However, the id was the primar y stimulus for these drives. The id, in its constant quest for gratification or pleasure, promoted these drives to induce behavior, in turn reducing the drive. From this persp ective, all motivated behavior is based upon external drives and motives only. There is no allowance for internal influence on behavior and drive reduction from intern al sources. Hence, from Freud’s theory, explaining exploratory behavior would be difficult. Neither Eros nor Thanatos drives could sufficiently explain random explorator y behavior (White, 1963). Essentially, Freud contended that motivation results from pur ely external manipulation and promotes behavior as needed. Clark Hull In the early 1940’s, motivation research moved forward with the introduction of Clark Hull’s work. Hull introduced a new concept of motivation called Drive Theory (Hull, 1943). Drive Theory was an expans ion of Freud’s thinking, yet Hull expanded Freud’s two drives of sex and aggression into sex, hunger, thirst and pain avoidance. According to Hull’s theory, behaviors are deri ved from one of these four drives (Hull, 1943). This theory, often called Hullian Drive Theory, changed the motivation perspective from Freud’s pleasure seeking to a more complex structure. Hull classified motivation as a singular phys iological dimension he called drives (Hull, 1943). Since drives were specific, mo tivated behavior needed to be specific According to Hullian Drive Theory, a drive occurs and provides energy for action (e.g.,

PAGE 29

18 hunger). Any behavior successful in reducing the drive is reinfo rced for future reference, (e.g., eating). This creates an association between drive and behavior, so the drive reduction process is, in essence, the guid e for ones actions (Miller & Dollard, 1941). Simply put, as physiological drives occur, one becomes motivated to reduce these drives and return the system to a state of neutra lity. According to Hull's theory, drives are aversive, hence motivating all organisms to re duce their drive level to zero (Hull, 1943). Simply put, this is the first connection to what later was termed extrinsic motivation. Hull’s Drive theory was the first motivation theory to pull together components of Freud’s philosophizing, an emphasis on behavior and an empirical basis for support. In fact, Freud’s theory was initially named Dr ive Theory and was later changed to its contemporary name, Instinct Theory. Build ing upon Freud’s theorizing, Hull’s Drive Theory took instinct theory and applied it to a behaviorist appro ach (Schultz & Schultz, 1987). B.F. Skinner To have a basic understanding of behavioris m (Skinner, 1938) is important to the overall evolution of motivation. Behaviorism in its simplest form is the philosophy of science as it relates to be havior (Skinner 1976). Often be haviorism is misunderstood and underappreciated in its impact and infl uence on motivation research. This misunderstanding is based on preconceived no tions and misconceived ideas. Behaviorist thinking does not restrict i ndividuals as stimulus respons e beings, nor does it eliminate cognitive elements from its paradigm. Behavi orism simply recognize s the contribution of consequences towards behavior as reinforcem ent. Skinner was the first to recognize the power of reinforcement on behavior and through his research a shift in psychology

PAGE 30

19 occurred away from classical conditioning principles and onto operant conditioning principles. Moreover, this shift led to the study of how reinforcements can change or influence the future probability of behavi or. This concept is a key aspect towards understanding motivation. According to B. F. Skinner, behaviorism is based on operant conditioning (Skinner, 1976). As such, people essentially ope rate on the environment or interact with the world. During this “operating” encounter a kind of stimulus, called a reinforcing stimulus, or simply, a reinforcer occurs. Th e reinforcer stimulus has the effect of increasing behaviors that occur just before the reinforcer, often called the operant: “the behavior is followed by a consequence, and th e nature of the consequence modifies the organisms tendency to repeat the behavior in the future” (Boeree, 1998; Skinner, 1976). To reiterate, this process does not deny the power of the unconscious or introspection. Although our behavior stems fr om specific reinfor cers, the style of reinforcer, and the reinforcer’s respective in fluence for each person can be internal or external and can influence all aspect s of our environmental interaction. For example, we can look at those features of behavior which have led people to speak of an act of will, or a sense of purpose, of experience as distinct from reality, of innate or acquired ideas, of memories, meanings, and the personal knowledge of the scientist, and of hundreds of other mentalistic things or events. Some can be “translated into behavior,” others discarded as unnecessary or meaningless. (p. 18) According to Skinner, behavior can be strengthened via reinforcement delivered either intrinsically or extrinsically. Having beha vior linked to internal reinforcers is often seen as contradictory in behaviorism. The a bove quote refers to the inadequacy of this thinking. An important link between behavioris t theory and internal reinforcers comes

PAGE 31

20 from the postulation of covert behaviors. Covert behaviors offer a “private condition associated with public behavior but not neces sarily generated by it (p. 52).” Essentially, different reinforcers, including internal reinforcers, can affe ct various behavior, drives, incentives, inhibitors, training, and more. When behavior can be attr ibuted to the inner workings of a person, one can start to understand why the behavior occurred. This internal reinforcer is a direct tie to motivation thinking. Since motivation research attempts to understand the link between why we do what we do, and the actual behavior performed, the root or foundation of motivation theory is inhere ntly linked to elements of the behaviorist’s paradigm. The pervasiveness of reinforcement with in Self-Determination Theory indicates the importance reinforcers play in many as pects of motivation and behavior. Since behaviorism ties reinforcement to such broa d aspects of our being, it is important to develop an understanding of the various reinforcers and reinforcement schedules postulated by Skinner. The initial reinforcement Skinner presents is called continuous reinforcement This refers to a reinforcer being de livered every time a specific behavior is performed (Skinner, 1976). The fixed ratio schedule of reinforcement indicates a fixed ratio between behaviors and reinforcer s: 3 to 1, 5 to 1, 20 to 1, etc. A fixed interval schedule uses some sort of timing device in th e reinforcing process. If a specific behavior is implemented during a particular stretch of tim e, then the reinforcer is delivered. If no behavior is performed, no reinfo rcer is given. An important element to this reinforcement schedule is that only one reinforcer is provi ded per time session, irre levant of the number of proper behaviors performed (Skinner, 1976).

PAGE 32

21 Skinner also looked at variable schedules Variable ratio means a change in the number of reinforcers given during each tim e session. For example, during a basketball practice, 5 free throws may be required within 30 seconds before a reinforcer is given (e.g., good work), however, during later practic es, 15 free throws may be required, then maybe 10, and so on. Variable interval al so means changing the time period, first 55 seconds, then 35, then 50, then 25 and so on. In both cases, the variable environment tends to keeps individuals highl y vigilant. With a variable schedule, pacing oneself is inadequate as it is difficult to establis h a “rhythm” between behavior and reward (Skinner, 1976). This is a common technique used in casinos and gambling, as one never knows when a payoff is coming. Behaviorist thinking is also very pervasiv e in influencing current thinking towards motivation theory. A recent article by Ca meron, Banko and Pierce (2001), specify key points on how rewards influence intrinsic motivation, and provides a key piece of literature for re-examining current Self-Deter mination Theory thinking. A crucial aspect of the article is that reward contingencie s do not necessarily have negative effects on intrinsic motivation. This is contrary to a plet hora of motivation rese arch. In this paper, reinforcers previously analyzed were re-e xamined from a behaviorist approach. The researchers examined past investigations where an established negative effect from rewards occurred. These conditions were rean alyzed using a meta-analysis to isolate rewards causing negative outcomes. The resu lts clearly show rewards and intrinsic motivation to not be antagonistic concepts. Wh at did result was th at reward style and activity type were key elements in the rewa rd motivation relationship. These findings are

PAGE 33

22 possible as behaviorist theory looks to examine specific reinforcers, rather than an overall category or classification. Modern behavior analysis, a field deri ved from Skinners work, is somewhat distinct from current motivation theory i.e ., Self-Determination Theory, insofar as the qualitative difference between intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement is not viewed as inherent to the reinforcers intrinsic or extr insic nature. Since current motivation theories operationalize themes or styles of motivation to create models to work with, a degree of arbitrary classification may be perceived from a behavi or analysis perspective. Irrespective of current differe nces however, behaviorism la id the foundation towards the formation of current motivation theory. Using a behaviorist approach, it is easy to see how self-determined motivation is inherently tied to th e concept of reinforcem ent. When looking at motivational theories however, it has always been assumed that behavi or can be reduced to a limited number of physical or physiological drives (Deci & Rya n, 1985). Behaviorism attempts to examine many specific elements, not necessarily broad or overall labels. Yet, in other psychology domains, researchers attempt to operationalize motivation into simpler means, and hence, some classification or grouping of reinforcers takes place. Hull’s theo ry is culpable of such reinforcement/motivation classification. According to Hull’s drive theory, as a physiological drive builds up, we can only satiate or eliminate the drive by performing be haviors that reduce the drive state (Welker, 1956). Freud, for example, felt that sexual or aggression drives would lead us to play sports or exercise to eliminate our frustra tions, hence reducing the drive state. Yet, as research with Hullian drive continued, certain holes began to develop. Researchers found

PAGE 34

23 behaviors that seemed to be motivated from s cenarios not tying back to any of Hulls’ four drives. For example, explorator y behaviors in animals did not fit nicely into Hull’s theory (Berlyne, 1950). This criticism of drive theory, where organisms seek out high levels of stimulation, or engage in reinforcing behavi ors that do not reduce dr ives was problematic for Hullian theory. For example, drive theory was not able to fully explain normal developmental patterns, as exploratory beha vior in children did not conform to Hull’s Theory principles (Hartmann, 1958). In curren t research, rats ofte n prefer saccharineflavored water to plain water (Myers, 2001), even though saccharine does not satisfy the hunger drive. We also see an example in human s who seek out high levels of arousal by riding roller coasters at an amusement park (Myers, 2001). We can conclude then that organisms seek out an optimal level of arousal as opposed to a complete lack of arousal. Although Hull’s theory helped thrust motivation research onto another level, it failed to satisfy the question, what caused the initial spark of motiva tion in the first place? Simply put, Hull’s drive theory stated four drives that explained anything tied to those four drives, but what about everything else ? Shapiro (1981) highlighted this problem by explaining that drives provide an urge for action but they do not provide any account or theory for the action, essentiall y, the core problem was drive theory lacked an energizing aspect (White, 1959). Both Freud’s theory a nd Hull’s theory shared this same weakness, thus, a new step in motivation was needed to further an understanding of behavioral scenarios.

PAGE 35

24 James White In 1959, White provided an in depth criticis m of Drive Theory and its theoretical approach. At the heart of this criticism was the external basis, or external origins of where drive started. White did not easily a ccept that the motivation process, thus the behavior process, was initia ted and occurred externally to the self (White, 1959). White used established research on the explorator y behaviors of animals (Montgomery, 1954) to demonstrate his point. If behaviors were to reduce drives, explorat ory behaviors were a strange anomaly. Exploration was, and is seen in all animals, and becomes more pervasive as exploration takes place. Essent ially, exploration begets more exploration, which rather than diminishing drives actually encourages them This theory runs directly counter to Hull’s theory and therefor e, motivation again became redefined. Ironically, in moving forward in motiv ation theory, White’s research was stimulated by past ideas. White took an id ea from Freud, specifically his “Independent Ego Energy.” This motivational force is based within psychoanalytic theory, referring to the Ego as its own energy source (White, 1959). This is a major distinction from previous thinking as the Ego was theorized as a deri vative of the ID and only used to mediate between the ID and environmental pre ssures. With this new concept of Independent Ego Energy the Ego is proposed to hold its own innate energy and is responsible for decisions regarding exploration, play, a nd ‘open’ behavior (White, 1963). Ego energy was the first non-drive based motivation to be proposed into theory and can also be considered the origin for what is currently called Intrinsic Motivation. White termed his new theory Effectance Motivation.

PAGE 36

25 White proposed that an innate force for behavior was better suited to explain the dilemmas and conflicts experienced in life, thereby tying elements of Freud’s research into his own. Effectance Motivation was considered an internal or innate energy source that could motivate an assortment of beha viors (White, 1963). Eff ectance Motivation was also considered a central component towa rds a child’s development. Furthermore, White’s new theory was not constrained by ex ternal cues and reduc tion of drive energy. The instigation of one’s behavior was sa id to be innate and formed through the developmental or pre adolescent years (White, 1960). Motivation within White’s theory took the form of an active process, whereby the individual was involved in becoming motivate d, rather than a passive bystander simply responding without option. From White’s E ffectance Motivation theory, the overall perspective of motivation cha nged towards an internal ongo ing procedure where choice was important. This view of motivation repl aced the previous perspective as White’s motivational concept improved upon drive theory yet it could also promote exploratory behavior within motivational theory. We al so see a connection to Self-Determination theory as choice and the opportuni ty for choice is a key factor. White’s theory of Effectance Motivati on explained how motivation within an individual could be active rather than passive. The opportu nity too not only respond to stimuli or past reinforcement, but also initia te behaviors. For example, for something to be considered a drive, there must be “a defici t or need in body tissu es outside the nervous system” that “energize behaviors that result in a consummatory response that reduces the deficit and produces learning” (p. 56) (Deci & Ryan, 1985). From the previous theories, exploration was not explainable and the esta blished principles of what a drive was

PAGE 37

26 restricted exploration from being its own drive. Within White’s theory, exploratory behaviors were defined differently. White believed living beings were inherently motivated to be effective in operating w ithin their surroundings. Specifically, White called Effectance Motivation “the innate urge to actively engage with our environment to make our influence felt, and to master task s in a competent fashion” (p. 297). From White’s perspective, the fee lings of competence or effect ance that follows successful dealings with the environment is reward enough for those specific behaviors to be repeated, irrelevant of drive focused reinforcement. The innate force in effectance motivati on was promoted because White felt that individuals want to ‘feel’ high efficacy in their interactions with people, places and situations (White, 1959). This quest for effi cacy was interpreted as a psychological need for competence. The term competence referred to structures that effectance motivation function within. Competence is the accumulated result of one’s interactions with the environment, of one’s exploration, learning, and adaptation. In the broad, biological sense, competence refers to the capacity for effective interactions with the environment that ensure the organism’s maintenance. (p. 31) Within White’s theory, competency pr ovides the major force or energy for behavior and, specifi cally, learning. Although competency from a biological perspective is to promote the survival of the being, the pragmatic reality is to acquire feelings of competence from effective in teraction (Ryan & Deci, 1999). White realized that our affective state could have an impact upon our motivation and our interaction with the environment. This realization helped prom ote White’s theory as a landmark piece of work, but also established the importan ce of the psychological need, competence,

PAGE 38

27 towards an individual being motivated. More specifically, towards an individual being intrinsically motivated. Social and experimental examples i nvolving competence to promote motivation are abundant. In sport settings anecdotal eviden ce is plentiful. Empirical evidence for the psychological need of competence is also easily found. Competence has been shown in many situations and many different environments as a key element in achieving high levels of intrinsic motivation (McAul ey, & Tammen, 1989; Ommundsen, Roberts, & Kavussanu, 1998; Sarrazin, Guillet, Cury, 2001; D uda and Treasure, 2001). It is obvious that White hit a major factor in establis hing a key determinant of current intrinsic motivation. Simply put, the key element to White’s theory was that no reinforcement was needed to promote motivated behavior while interacting with the environment. One should note that motivational al ternatives to White’s Effect ance Motivation still relied upon drives and ensuing drive reduction (Hu ll, 1943; Isaac, 1962; Montgomery, 1954). Alternatives like optimal arous al theory (Hebb, 1955), or di ssonance theory (Festinger, 1957), were externally reinforced theories sim ilar to most motivation perspectives at the time. Although this is a generalization (e.g., di ssonance theory is c ognitive in nature), these motivation theories remain limited due to the ever-present function of reinforcement. As such, little melding of in ternal motivation forces was possible until White’s theory broke from the normative behaviorist background. White’s proposal that beha vior, although influenced by the environment, does not have to be ruled by it, allows an element of choice in behavior, in turn, allowing behavior to change and adapt even in repe ated situations (White 1959). By suggesting

PAGE 39

28 that energy intrinsic to the individual can stimulate action, irrelevant of environmental stimuli, a division in the types of motiva tion was created. Motivational sources could now be (a) internal, operating solely from inner energy, (b) external, operating from energy based upon drives or (c) external rein forced stimuli. These motivation ideals could be viewed as a synergistic functioning of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in SelfDetermination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Edward Deci In the early seventies an emphasis to include an individual’s cognitions, perceptions and emotions into the components determ ining motivation and human behavior occurred. Specifically, intrinsic mo tivation was growing from its origin of Effectance theory and started to resemble intrinsic motivation as is found in current Self Determination Theory (Harter, 1978a). The core push during this time emphasized the power of motivation being psychological, yet influe ncing behavioral tendencies. Furthermore, the influence of motiva tion was innate and no longer required reinforcement or external influence. This is the current intrinsic motivation used in SelfDetermination Theory. Intrinsic motivation (IM) was an innate need to promote an organism towards self-determination and competen ce (Deci, 1974). This motivational style is considered to be internal and capable of energizing a larg e variety of behaviors. Intrinsic motivation also furthered an understanding of explorator y behaviors because it allows for choice in behavior by putting the power upon the indivi dual. Although IM is innate like drive theory, the similarities end there. Intrin sic motivation stipulates that individuals inherently seek out optimal challenges in life and choose to pursue those opportunities

PAGE 40

29 (Deci, 1971). Specifically, challenges that are neither too easy nor too difficult and which provide the opportunity to be self-determi ned and demonstrate competence (Deci, 1974, Deci & Ryan, 2002). In 1971, Edward Deci looked at the effect s of reward contingencies and other influences upon intrinsic motivation. This line of research spawned a theory called Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci, 1971). Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) expanded our understanding of intrinsic motivation by explaining the e ffects of incentive based motivation (Deci, 1976). This theory stated that extrinsic rewards could be interpreted in two ways, as controlling or informational. If the individual re cognized the extrinsic rewards as informational, then intrinsic mo tivation would remain high; if rewards were perceived as controlling however, intrinsi c motivation would diminish (Deci, 1978). This distinction within intrinsic motiv ation had strong implications on how the environment was perceived and resulting be havior. Although a particular setting, (e.g., math class), may remain fairly stable over time the interpretation of the feedback in this setting (e.g., teacher comments, grade awarded) may influence the level of motivation for the future (Deci, 1974, Treasure, 2003). Howeve r, this theory does not account for an individual’s sense of choice in activity or choice of actions. To accommodate for choice in CET, cognitive interpretation soon became linked to the concept of autonomy (Deci, 1978). The factor of “choice” created new elements that Cognitive Evaluation Theory did not seem capable of explaining. Instead the theory expanded and evolved into another motivation perspective called Self-Deter mination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

PAGE 41

30 Edward Deci and Rich Ryan As previously mentioned, an advancem ent of motivation theory arose in the 1980’s called Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self-Determination Theory originated from Cognitive Evaluation Theory since understanding the relative influence of intrinsic interests and extrin sic rewards on human behavior was important (Carron, Hausenblas, Estabrooks, 2003) According to Deci and Ryan (1985), self -determination was a human quality that involved the experience of choice, having choices and making choices (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This is directly different from drives, reinforcement ideals, or any other pressures or forces that may instigate behavior. As Deci and Ryan explain (1976, 1985, 1987) selfdetermined action is key to intrinsic motivati on, yet, is also part of certain extrinsic motivations, Self-Determination is more than a capacity; it is also a need. We have posited a basic, innate pr opensity to be self-determining that leads organisms to engage in interesting behaviors, which typically has the benefit of de veloping competencies, and of working toward a flexible accommodation with the social environment. (p. 31) As quoted, according to Self-Determination Theory, one may be acting self-determined and one of two different motivational styles may result. Herein lies the key element, SDT accommodates for the expansion of motivation into two parts, intr insic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Self-determination theory. Motivation in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a collection of ideas and hypotheses, which includes intrinsic and ex trinsic motivators, and the perception of competence, autonomy, and relatedness with in the environment. Self-Determination

PAGE 42

31 Theory proposes that psychological needs and the social environment will determine one of many potential motivations. Ea ch different motivation can have varied effects on our thoughts, behaviors and feelings. These motiv ations are believed to fall along a single continuum and are all connected with each other (Deci & Ryan, 1985). According to SDT, seven different motivations may be classified under three main categories. The first motivation style, amotivation actually refers to a lacking of any motivation and is the first and lowest cat egory on the continuum (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The next category is called extrinsic mo tivation, and it has f our points along the continuum. Extrinsic motivation is when one’s drive or action are externally based. The last category on the continuu m is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is considered the ideal motivation as one is said to be operating in a self-determined fashion or, internally centered (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Motivation shifts along a theoretical con tinuum by the satisfaction of the three psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The higher the degree of perceived satisfaction for these three needs, the higher the level of intrinsic motivation experienced (Treasure, 2003). In any give n scenario, our environment may provide a different amount of need satisfaction. These differences have a clos e connection with the type and style of motivation adopted along th e continuum. This is the core idea that defines SDT (Ryan, 1999). Motivation styles. A major element of SDT is the postulation that motivation can take several different styles (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Each of the 3 main categories on the continuum can be broken down into further subcategories. As one becomes less self-determined, one’s

PAGE 43

32 motivation orientation is assumed to move towards extrinsic motivation finally becoming amotivated. This movement along the continuum is based on the simplex assumption This assumption means, as we increase our need satisfaction, we move away from extrinsic motivators towards in trinsic motivators. Conversely, as needs are less satisfied, movement occurs in the opposite direction (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The lowest form of mo tivation is amotivation. Amotivation actually consists of four different types (Ryan & D eci, 2000). The first amotivation is referred to as one’s capacity-ability beliefs and results from a percei ved lack of ability to perform a behavior. The second amotivation type, strategy-belie fs, focuses on the person’s conviction that any given strategy will not produce the desire d outcome. The third amotivation type centers on capacity-effort beliefs. Specificall y, the belief that th e behavior is too demanding and the individual does not want to expend the necessary energy to engage in it. Lastly are helplessness beliefs. Here th e perception is that one ’s efforts are moot considering the enormity of the task to be accomplished (Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand, 2001). Extrinsic motivation is defined as motivati on contingent upon external reward, threat, or outside pressures, (e.g., trophies, co aches or parents, financial considerations) (Deci, & Ryan, 1987), extrinsic motivation can al so be classified into four sections. Starting from the most extrinsic to the least: 1) external motivation, this is when behavior is regulated through rewards and constraints. 2) Introjected regulation is reflective of an individual’s initial step toward internalizing the reasons for one’s actions. This process of internalization however, is not truly self-determined due to a lack of true perceived autonomy, (e.g., practicing only to show off one’s skill). 3) Identified regulation is the

PAGE 44

33 first type of extrinsic motivation orientation where behavior is engaged in due to choice. Here, the behavior in question is highly valu ed and judged as important by the individual. The behavior is therefore performed freely even if the activity itself is not pleasant. 4) Lastly, integrated regulation is a choice driv en motivation that re presents a harmonious part of the self (Vallerand, 2001). This mo tivation style although still classified as extrinsic, is considered to be almo st intrinsic and highly self-determined. The last category of motiv ation on the continuum is intrinsic motivation. This style of motivation has three subsections within it. Intrinsic motivation represents a state of involvement in which activities are engage d in for the inherent pleasure or enjoyment they bring (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motiv ation has also been proposed to have three types, namely IM for knowledge, IM for accomplishment and IM for stimulation (Vallerand, 2001). Intrinsic motivat ion to know is when activities are engaged in for the satisfaction one experiences while learning, ex ploring, or trying to understand something. Intrinsic motivation for accomplishment is focu sed on participating in activities for the pleasure and satisfaction experienced while one is attempting to accomplish or create something. Lastly, intrinsic motivation to expe rience stimulation is when the activity is pursued to experience pleasant sensations associated mainly with the senses (Vallerand, 2001). Most people consider intrinsic motiv ation as the ideal style of motivation, producing higher enjoyment levels and greater self-regulation of be havior (McAuley & Tammen, 1989; Reeve & Deci, 1996; Vallerand & Losier, 1999; Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, & Deci, 1998).

PAGE 45

34 Psychological needs. According to Deci and Ryan (1985), people inherently desire to be intrinsically motivated. This desire engenders individuals to seek out activities that promote this style of motivated behavior. They also argue that th e social conditions can facilitate or obstruct ones participation, in turn, in fluencing the choice of activ ity as well as the motivation orientation adopted in the activ ity. Specifically, if intrinsic motivation is to develop, the environment must support the athlete’s inna te psychological needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, relatedness). Simply put, motivati on styles are, assu medly, determined by whether or not ones psychological needs are satisfied. The first need, competence is the level of mastery one perceives or a sense of being effective in one’s interactions with the environment (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Satisfaction of competency can vary de pending upon several antecedents, one being social contextual events. These environmental cues can foster or diminish feelings of competence within an individual. Autonomy is the degree to which one is in control of one’s actions or the opportunity for choi ce in participation. According to SelfDetermination Theory, people must not only experience competence to foster intrinsic motivation, but they must also believe or per ceive that their behavi or is self-determined. This psychological need plays a key role in facilitating intrinsi c motivation. Because competence will not foster intrinsic mo tivation without a sense of autonomy accompanying it, autonomy is proposed to be the true element in achieving intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000, Model et al., 2002). Relatedness is defined as the degree to which one feels a sense of “belongingne ss and connectedness w ith others” (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Relatedness is also conceptual ized as behaviors promoted, modeled, or

PAGE 46

35 valued by significant others to whom one feel s (or wants to feel) a ttached (Deci & Ryan 1985; Kimiecik & Harris, 1996). Integration and internalization. A major component of the SDT continuum is that movement upon the model is largely from the psychological need of autonomy. The autonomy need can best be understood by understanding the elements th at determine the level of autonomy perceived from an environment. These two elements are integration and internalization To explain, ones motivation orientation is clos ely tied to the level of internalization and integration that occurs, intrinsic motivation representing the highest level of integration and internalization (Ryan & D eci, 2000). For example, as th e value of a given activity increases, the internalization and integration of that practice experience also increases. Internalization refers to taking in a valu e or guideline from the environment, (e.g., participating in sports is beneficial), while in tegration refers to a fu rther transformation of that value or guideline into one’s own belief sy stem (i.e., sport is an important part of my life), subsequently allowing it to emanate from the individuals own sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2000). If the activity (value) is deemed positive, the tendency may be to have the activity become internalized and integrated in to one’s sense of self. Activities that hold negative value beliefs, however, may still be assimilated into our self construct due to perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness that accompany them (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Outcomes states. Once motivation orientation is established, it then has the power to influence our cognitions, affect and behavior. Cognitions which are thoughts or a process of knowing,

PAGE 47

36 have a top down influence on behavior. It is these psychological or cognitive processes that must first be satisfied to achieve self-determined behavior. Thus, once one is behaving in an intrinsic fashion, more choi ce is perceived in ongoi ng behavior, a higher sense of enjoyment in actions is common and a greater interest in potential performance is ordinary. Affective states are states of feeling or temporary emotion. These “feel” states can influence behavior in multiple ways. First, as affect increases with ones level of intrinsic motivation, interest would also improve (T reasure, 2003). Increased interest should inherently promote increased dedication a nd persistence towards further performance (Vallerand, 1997). A second potential affec tive influence for improving behavioral outcomes could come from the increase the affective state may cause on arousal. Increased arousal could cause increased ener gization towards the behavior leading to improved performance (McAuley & Tammen, 1989). Putting all these elements t ogether, we start to get a picture of how the theory works. The key element is the motivational diffe rences that may be established within an individual. These different motivations are then proposed in SDT to fall on one continuum (Figure 2-1). The continuum model is proposed by Deci and Ryan to be influenced by the psychological need of autonomy, competence and relatedness. As autonomy is key, increased thoughts and beliefs regarding choice of participation and actions will promote increased competence and overall need satisf action. By fostering autonomy and intrinsic motivation, we are able to promote higher le vels of performance, physical education,

PAGE 48

37 medication adherence and academic achieve ment (McAuley & Tammen, 1989; Reeve & Deci, 1996; Williams, Rodin, Rya n, Grolnick, & Deci, 1998). Figure 2-1. Deci & Ryan’s Se lf-Determination Continuum Robert Vallerand In 2000, Vallerand expanded Self-Determina tion Theory into the Hierarchical Model of Motivation. Although SDT is still a do minant force in today’s research, this evolution of SDT allowed motivation to opera te on several new le vels. Vallerand (1997) took the basic continuum of the SDT mode l and successfully expanded it into his Hierarchical Model of Motivation. This m odel defined motivation along the same SDT continuum, but posited that motivation operate d at three levels. These were the global level, the contextual level and the situational level (Vallerand, 2000). Motivation levels. Global motivation is similar to a personality trait. It refers to a general motivational orientation the individual carries (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic), when dealing

PAGE 49

38 with the environment. It can be thought of as a relatively stable characteristic operating within each individual’s personality. Contextual motivation is representative of a specific life domain (e.g., sports, education). It is the second or middle level in the hierarchy and refers to one’s usual motivational orientation in a specific context. Contextual motivation assists in our understanding of the variation in people’ s behaviors in different context/areas of lif e (Vallerand, 1997, 2000). Situational motivation represents the lowest level in Vallerand’s hierarchy. It refers to the direct state, or right now level, where the motivation experienced is due to the immedi ate activity engaged in (e.g., shooting free throws at 2:15 pm). Five postulates of the hierarchical model. Vallerand (2000) further proposes five postulates, which are key to the hierarchical model. The first postulate indi cates that all three motivation types, 1) intrinsic motivation, 2) extrinsic motivati on, and 3) amotivation should be examined when measuring motivation. He proposes that al l three of these motivations play a crucial role in an individual’s u nderlying psychological processe s. By examining all three motivation types, one can develop a more complete understanding of human behavior. The second postulate states that intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation exist in each individual at the global, contextual, and situational levels. Vallerand argues that examination of the influe nces of each motivation type at each level allows greater precision and refineme nt towards understanding of motivation. The third postulate states that motivati on at any level result s from two potential sources. The first are social factors such as parents, coaches, and environmental conditions (e.g., crowds), while the second is motivation being transf erred from a higher

PAGE 50

39 level in the model. Simply put, global motiv ation can affect contextual motivation, and contextual motivation can infl uence situational motivation. It is also assumed that the impact of social factors are mediated at each level by perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Vallerand, 2001). If one is lower in any of these perceptions, motivation at that level is predic ted to be less self-determined. Vallerand’s fourth postulate indicates that there is a recursive or bottom up effect in the model. Specifically, lower levels in the hierarchy can influence the level immediately above in the model. Vallerand al so includes the specificity effect in his fourth postulate. This refers to situationa l motivation at a precise point in time. Motivation occurring toward this specific activity should mainly be affected by contextual motivation and situational f actors occurring at that very moment. The fifth and final postulate states that motivation lead s to important behavioral, cognitive, and affective consequences (Vallera nd, 2001). At the elite sport level, a most important consequence is performance. Howe ver, little research has been conducted to examine the impact of motivation styles/o rientation on athletic performance. Conclusion Through each researcher’s assumptions and hypotheses on motivation, a more refined perspective in theory has emerge d. However, recent thinking and research (Model, 2002) has postulated an alternative theory that allows for multiple motivations and a motivation profile. This new theory of motivation, called Th e Duality Model of Motivation, may offer new insights into our behavior, motivation theory, and promoting behavior. The essential step for exploring the dynamics of the Duality Model of Motivation is through the formation of a new scale, designed to demonstrate an

PAGE 51

40 individual’s motivation profile. The potential research and application this scale could offer, extends to sport teams performance, team cohesion, exercise maintenance, health choices, coaching techniques, and even elite sports athlete recruiting.

PAGE 52

41 CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL FORMULATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE SCALE Evolving Motivation Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) began by examining environmental effects on intrinsic motiva tion (Deci, 1974), and expanded into a broad motivational theory of motivation. This may be due to the difficulty in operationalizing the motivation concept (Heckhauser, 1991). Motivation involves en ergy, direction and persistence. However, the concept of mo tivation can be understood in many different ways. For example, one’s passion for part icipation or drive, the effort involved, continuing persistence, overcoming adversit y, dedication, and many mo re terms could all be involved in motivation (Carron, Hausenblas Eastabrooks, 2003). As such, it is easy to understand why it is difficult to fully explain mo tivation from any one line of thinking. Although motivation can be vi ewed from multiple theore tical perspectives, SelfDetermination Theory provides an immensel y comprehensive view of motivation in almost any context. Self-Determination Theory can be applied to work, sport, education, health, and many other achievement contex ts. The theory accommodates individual differences, the environment, and percepti ons from the surroundings (Vallerand, 1997). It is flexible enough to accommodate various personal differences through differing psychological needs and is accommodating in its motivation classification system. Few other theories can offer this type of widespread flexibilit y. SDT has therefore become one of the primary theories used in sport and ex ercise motivation literature, as well as many other life domains.

PAGE 53

42 Previous Research Until recently, past research has labeled one distinct motivation force as ideal for behavior, ignoring the potential forces other orientations o ffer (Koestner & Losier, 2002). Since intrinsic motivation has been viewed as the ideal motivation style (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Treasure, 2001) and extrinsic as a lo wer level of self-d etermined motivation, extrinsic and intrinsic motiva tions are essentially antagonist ic, or competing sources of influence. This is sometimes called the simplex assumption, whereby, if one source of motivation was promoting behavior another c ould not be (Deci, 1974). In fact, a recent meta-analysis (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) examined the influence of extrinsic influences on intrinsic motivation and result s indicated a negative trend between the two. Research has repeatedly found intrinsic motivation to promote more adaptive and beneficial behavior towards sport en joyment (Reeve & Deci, 1996), medication adherence (Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grol nick, & Deci, 1998), and educational achievement (Grolnick, & Ryan, 1987). Previous research has also shown intrinsic motivation to provide a higher degree of activ ity dedication and pers istence in activities (Deci, 1981, Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Despite the past support for the SDT con tinuum, the evidence seems contradictory to “anecdotal” and current research. A review by Koestner and Losier (2002), explored SDT motivations to distinguish the various intrinsic and extrinsic motivators we may experience. In this review, th e researchers attempt to mode rnize the view of extrinsic orientations, introjection and identified regulation, with a non-antagonistic of intrinsic orientations. The review further attempts to promote both intrinsic and extrinsic orientations as beneficial towards outcome behaviors. Other recent research by Cameron

PAGE 54

43 et al. (2001) has also supported this idea, whereby rewards may have a positive influence on performance, or at minimum, not detract from intrinsic motivation. This study provides empirical power towards re-exami ning the SDT continuum and evaluating the potential for multiple influences of motivation. To date however, only one study has occurred to challenge exis ting theory and the single continuum classification. Research conducted by Model et al. (2004) attempted to promote a dual motivation idea into mainstream literature The study attempted to show multiple motivations are active in promoting achieve ment behaviors. One hundred and fourteen university students enrolled in sport classes (e.g., flag footba ll) at a large southeastern university completed the Sport Motivation Sc ale (SMS)(Pelletier et al., 1995) to assess contextual sports motivation. Data were also collected on each student’s self-appraisal of his/her course satisfaction. The sub-scales of the Sport Motivation Scale were calculated individually to determine specific motivati onal orientation scores. Stepwise regression analyses were utilized to predict course satisfaction from the specific motivation orientations. Results specifically supported intrinsic and extrinsic continuums as independently predicting cour se satisfaction at the beginning and end of the course. Further, the correlation relationship between motivation style and course satisfaction was positive across all SMS subscales. These re sults support the notion that multiple motivations are active in sports and bo th should be assessed independently. Further anecdotal evidence has also s upported this study. At the professional level, athletes are paid to perform in their particular sport. An intrinsic ideal is often demonstrated by their desire to play and their love of the game. Yet, these athletes also demonstrate a large extrinsic incentive to pe rform from pressure or rewards. Further,

PAGE 55

44 monetary contracts are often incentive base d upon performance and the very nature of playing for pay is ex trinsically slanted. Daily examples come from the recreationa l athlete. Although recreational athletes do not get paid and participate largely from intrinsic enjoyment, extrinsic motivators are still present in this environm ent. For example, competition and the experience of winning is an extrinsic influence, even the achievemen t associated with participation is extrinsic. Obviously sport contains many inherently ex trinsic properties, however, the success or failure to meet these extrinsic demands doe s not necessarily diminish an athlete’s intrinsic motivation less they cease competing The idea presented is not that extrinsic motivation is more dominant than intrinsic, simply that both motivations pervasively influence behavior. Design and Application A second key reason why one SDT continuum score has pervaded motivation research comes from the design and applic ation of the theory. To understand this limitation one must look at two primary co mponents of SDT, the principles of internalization and integration and the sa tisfaction of the psychological needs. As discussed, the level of intern alization and integration of ones psychological needs and the environment are key elements in SDT. These components are fundamental in the formation of the SDT continuum as they synt hesize the different components determining motivational orientation (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Since these processes essentially combine any source that may be an influence, e.g., psyc hological needs, environment, etc., this is the funnel point in determining different motivation classifications. Although multiple motivations may exist prior to this point, the theory fuses them into one motivation

PAGE 56

45 orientation output, thus eliminating all but the predominant motiva tion. Again, this part of the theory is often refe rred to as the simplex assumption. Hence, if one is highly intrinsically motivated, being highly extrinsica lly motivated is not c oncurrently possible. This idea has recently been challenged in the motivation research (Model et al., 2002, Model, 2004). The second design and application limita tion comes from the interpretation of need satisfaction. When examining SDT, a ke y element comes from the satisfaction of the three psychological needs. As these need s are further satisfied, greater intrinsic motivation results. Comparatively, greater n eed satisfaction does not produce greater extrinsic motivation. To explain, need satisfa ction increases ones motivation to become self-determined. Because extrin sic motivation is not consid ered truly self-determined, extrinsic motivation only results when needs ar e not fully self-determined. This fact is defined by the proposed simplex assumption. Th is existing interpreta tion limits extrinsic forces to be secondary to in trinsic motivations. Koestner a nd Losier (2002), Cameron and Banko (2001), and Model (2004) have shown and argued that extrinsic motivation can be independently beneficial towards behavior. Si nce the two motivations are seen as polar opposites rather than beneficially parallel, the cu rrent theory fails to allow for the benefits extrinsic motivation may provide. Motivation Scales A final limiting influence currently restricting a multiple motivation perspective are the scales utilized in the research. Th ere are several excell ent motivation scales currently in the research th at evaluate motivation in s port and society. The Perceived Autonomy-Supportive Climate Questionnaire(s), the Self-Regulation Questionnaire(s),

PAGE 57

46 the Treatment Motivation Questionnaire, the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, and the SelfDetermination Scale to name a few. One pr edominant scale used in conjunction with SDT is the Sports Motivation Sc ale (Pelletier, Fortier, Vall erand, Tuson, Brier, & Blais, 1995). The Sport Motivation Scale is specificall y important towards this research as it was designed to measure contextual sports motivation and it is the predominant tool when determining ones sport motivation. The questionnaire contains seven motivations fashioned after the SDT continuum. Three of th e constructs are intrinsic (i.e., to know, to accomplish, to experience), three are extrin sic (i.e., external, introjected, identified regulation), and the last is amotivation. The validity of this scale is not in qu estion; it is the met hod of calculating and reporting motivation that is problematic. Each subscale score for the SMS is obtained by calculating the mean score for that subscale. This is the first step in calculating an overall measure of motivation for all seven subscal es, also known as the Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) score. The RAI is based on Pelletie r et al.’s guidelines (1995) for reporting self-determined motivation. Higher positive scores on the RAI reflect a more selfdetermined motivation, while lower or negati ve scores indicate less self-determined motivation. By collapsing all subscales to one score, motivation is limited to one classification or point on the continuum and one level of analysis. Hence, each individual is limited to one motivation orientation in each sports context. The potential alternative to a single continuum scoring system is havi ng dual continuums operate independently. An example of this dual system can be seen in other motivation litera ture of Achievement Goal Theory (Nicholl’s, 1984).

PAGE 58

47 Achievement Goal Theory Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) makes the contention that in achievement contexts such as sports, education, and other, people participate to demonstrate competence or ability (Nicholls, 1984). Nichol ls theorizes that there are two main goal states, task and ego, operating in achievement contexts. These two achievement styles in turn determine how individuals interpre t their ability and define success. A task-involved individual uses an undifferentiated conception of ability to determine ability. This means that the individua l chooses not to differentiate ability, luck, and effort as leading to success. Instea d success is defined through effort and the individual’s comparison to pr evious performances and pers onal reference points. In contrast, and ego involved i ndividual bases ability upon a differentiated viewpoint, whereby a norm-referenced perception of ability is utilized. Perceptions of success are attributed to ability-focused attributions. Si mply put, ego involved people typically view participation as opportunities to demonstrate hi gh ability in reference to others, that is participating to outperfor m others (Nicholls, 1984). These achievement contexts will vary across each person. People can adopt different goals based on the combination influe nces of their disposi tional goal orientation and their personal perception of the environmen t. One’s dispositional tendencies are said to be either ego or task orientations. Although Achievement Goal Theory provides a rationale for motivated beha vior different from Self-Determination Theory, it has elements that may contribute towards furthering SDT. AGT utilizes dual orientations to explai n behavior in various environments. Although debated, Achievement Goal Theory stip ulates that one rece ives two scores, a

PAGE 59

48 task score and an ego score for each scenario (Figure 3-2). This means in sports, one could be highly ego and low task oriented, yet in school, high task and low ego. Again this idea is debated, but the dual scores do explain many potential situations. SDT has never had this luxury of dual scores because all motivational styles are reduced to one motivation. High High Primary Score Types: High Ego : High Task High Ego : Low Task Low Ego : High Task Low Ego : Low Task Low Low Task Ego Figure 3-2. Nicholl’s Task / Ego Perspectives Dual Continuum Perspective Clearly a strong foundation supports Self-Determination Theory for understanding motivation in one ’s life. Yet, every theory has room for improvement. When applying SDT principles across multiple environments, it seems that alternative possibilities may be washed over, compresse d, and/or reformatted to fit the existing theory. Simply put, whichever type of force, intrinsic or extrinsic is greater becomes labeled as the single motivation or ientation for an individual. The alternative to a single classification of motivation is having both intrinsic and extrinsic continuums separate during the entire theoretical model. Essentially, intrinsic and extrinsic forces would be expressed conc urrently and independe ntly of each other. Simply put, a person could be highly extrin sic and highly intrinsi c in motivation, each

PAGE 60

49 motivation being reported along two separa te continuums. With a dual motivation perspective, many possible combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are possible, hence creating a motivation profile. This new motivation perspective is still su bject to the guiding framework of SelfDetermination Theory; yet, the forces that promote cognition, aff ect and behavior are now antecedents upon dual continuums. Essen tially, our satisfaction of perceived needs will influence the level of internalization a nd integration for two styles of motivation, intrinsic and extrinsic. These dual motivations will range from low to high and will not be dependent upon the other. Each motivation will then have equal potential to influence our outcome states (Figure 3-3). High High High Low Low High Low Low IM EM IM EM IM EM IM EM Amotivation Primary Expected Profiles Middle High High Middl e Middle Middle Middle Low IM EM IM EM IM EM IM EM Potential Alternative Profiles Figure 3-3. Potential Dual C ontinuum Motivation Profiles

PAGE 61

50 Within the various combinations of mo tivation profiles, one is particularly important and should be addre ssed. When someone is low in both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation it would appear that both internal and external influences are irrelevant for that environment. This profile is actually be ing proposed as a state of amotivation within this theoretical design. Amotivation is curr ently on the bottom end of the SDT continuum and is defined as the lack of any motivati on (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When a dual profile is low, a lack of motivation is assumed for this model. This Low Low profile is why a third continuum of amotivation is not necessa ry in the proposed dual continuums. Duality Model of Motivation 2004 Motivation within Self-Determination Th eory seems to inherently operate on multiple levels. In fact, SDT states multiple different motivations may operate in promoting behavior, yet, limits one motivati on style as active in any given environment (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The purpose of further re search is to redefine self-determined motivation as a dual construct, allowing dual motivations to be active. This new perspective will be called the Duality M odel of Motivation (DMM) (Figure 3-4). To support the limited research that has proposed this idea, the formulation of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS) was cons tructed. This scale helps clarify the relationship between multiple motivation forces in a single context and promote greater understanding of motivation ch aracteristics that influence achievement behaviors. As the DMPS needs to provide adequate information to describe each motivation profile, six planned types of motivation are expected from any athlete and are labeled based on existing SDT theory. This specificity in profiling is the key to understanding the true reinforcement promoting an athlete’s mo tivation and potential behavior. In order to

PAGE 62

51 understand the potential profiles, it is importa nt to operationalize each subscale along its respective motivation continuum. Psychological Needs Dual Continuums Profile Figure 3-4. Duality Model of Motivation The top level of extrinsic motivation is operationalized as “Driven to Win.” This subscale indicates an individual whose primar y purpose for sports participation is to achieve victory. Winning is a highly extr insic motivation and is often a powerful influence on behavior. The middle level of extrinsic motivation is “Sports Skill.” This level refers to individuals who are most concerned with demonstrating their own skill level and enjoying the opportunity to show ability during play. The bottom level of extrinsic motivation is termed “Forced Behavi or.” This subscale indicates someone who is solely participating because they feel a responsi bility to an extern al influence, e.g., coach, parents, friends etc. On the intrinsic continuum, the top-level subscale is operationalized as “Love of Game.” This classification refers to someone who plays for pure passion and desire of the sport and the inner drive for the game. The middle level of the intrinsic subscales is categorized as “Sense of Self.” In this subs cale, individuals particip ate due to their sense of self being intertwined with sports participation. In ot her words, the person and the athlete are not easily separated. The last a nd bottom category on the intrinsic continuum Environment Low High Competence Autonomy Relatedness Intrinsic Extrinsic Behavior Affect Cognition Outcome IM EM

PAGE 63

52 is called, “Game Sensation.” This category i ndicates someone who enjoys the sensations and emotions associated with participation and potential sport involvement e.g., physical, emotion, psychological experiences. The follo wing figure depicts each profile type and its relation to motivation subs cale category (Figure 3-5). Figure 3-5. Profile Categories Purposes The purpose of this dissertation was two fol d. The initial purpose was to develop the Dual Motivation Profile Scal e (DMPS) by establishing c ontent validit y, construct validity, criterion validity, s ubscale reliability, and test-re test reliability. The second purpose was to determine the relationship between various motivational profiles and performance behaviors in elite level athletes. Highest Extrinsic Lowest Intrinsic Highest Intrinsic Lowest Extrinsic Middle Extrinsic Middle Intrinsic Driven to Win Love of Game Sports Skill Forced Behavior Sense of Self Game Sensation Motivation Profiles

PAGE 64

53 Hypotheses Purpose 1: Development of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale The Dual Motivation Profile Scale was exp ected to have satisfactory validity and reliability in all necessary elements for scale validation. Purpose 2: Motivation Profiling Highly successful elite athlet es were predicted to demonstrate a motivation profile utilizing the highest degree of motivation from both intrinsi c and extrinsic influences.

PAGE 65

54 CHAPTER 4 STUDY 1 Similar to the Sport Motivation Scale, the DMPS operationalized motivation as the “why” of behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985) by assessing individuals ’ professed reasons for sport competition engagement. Each scal e response was reported on a Likert scale with the answers representi ng possible motivation styles. Method Participants Of the 500 athletes recruited for partic ipation, a total of 473 completed the study. However, an additional 21 athletes were eliminated from the data pool due to incomplete, inadequate or unusable data. This provided a sample of 452 athletes with the following sport breakdown; Flag Football – 67, Foot ball – 11, Baseball – 6, Basketball 95, Handball 18, Racquetball 20, Volleyball – 72, Soccer – 102, Softball – 39, Track and Field – 12, and Swimming – 10. All athletes were from a large southeastern university and athletes ranged in ability from recreationa l to NCAA Division I varsity. Confidentiality was stressed to all students prior to any data collection via verbal instruction. After obtaining written consent from each athlete, a brief introduction of the study was presented and all questionnaires were then distributed. The DMPS and SMS were administered only to athletes actively pa rticipating in a sport se ason, sports class, or sport specific practices. All athletes were informed that participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Questions were encouraged and answered prior to data collection. To ensure full attention was give n to the questionnaire

PAGE 66

55 and practice/time issues did not confound the coll ection process, all participants reported data prior to engagi ng in any activity. Purpose 1 To develop the Dual Motivation Profile S cale, a five-stage process of validation was conducted. The first stage involved a pane l of experts, three pilot studies on the scale, and a focus group. Each of these stages ensured that the DMPS had content validity for each following validation stage. Panel of Experts A panel of five experts had the primary purpose of formatting and determining the content of the DMPS (appendices A, B, C). Th e participants involved in this process were Sport and Exercise Psyc hology specialists, knowledgeable of the research. Experts were given specific information towards each sub theme of the DMPS as well as a description of the study purpos e. Experts independently re viewed and scrutinized the content for any errors or subscale prob lems and provided feedback accordingly. Suggestions were implemented and each revised questionnaire was given to another expert to repeat the process. This overall sequence was repeated 3 times for each expert. All of the experts were Ph.D. level students or professors. Pilot Study The Dual Motivation Profile Scale was administered three times on separate occasions to 10 active sports participants. Th e Scale was administer ed to each athlete during his or her sport-specific season. An expl oratory factor analysis was utilized after each pilot session to reduce th e data, establish subscale validity, and confirm acceptable

PAGE 67

56 content validity. Each version of the questi onnaire was subsequently be revised from previous feedback during pilot testing (appendices D, E, F, G) The final piloted scale was predicte d to consist of 24 total questions encompassing six preplanned subscales, thr ee indicating extrinsic motives and three indicating intrinsic motives. Subscales were broken down evenly to four questions per each subscale. Participants responded to the stem, “When I compete in sports….”. The scale questions were presented along a Likert scale of 1-5 per normative Likert format allowing for adequate variance in responding. The Likert score of 1 represented, “Does not correspond,” 5 representi ng, “Highly corresponds.” The pilot participants also completed open-ended questions after comple ting the DMPS, to ensure wording style was appropriate. Lastly, particip ants were asked if any phrase of the scale were confusing or needed to be changed. An independent pr ofessor ensured the fina l version of the scale had no other errors previously mi ssed during the pilot study process. Focus Group The purpose of the focus group was to finalize the content validity of the DMPS. Five graduate students completed the DMPS and th en had the opportunity to write comments or suggestions regarding the scale. Th e graduate students completed the scale independently to avoid any “group think” and had open opportunities to provide feedback. They were also specifically asked, “I s there anything you feel is needed for this scale,” and, “do you think this scale accu rately assessed your sports motivation perspective?” Any applicable suggestions were addressed and/or co rrected as necessary (appendix H).

PAGE 68

57 Construct Validation After the DMPS was verified for content validity, it was then authenticated for construct validity. Although 240 individuals acco mmodated a significant statistical result based on a small effect size and an alpha of .05 (Statistical Product and Service Solutions, 2001), the researchers collected data from 452 participants, or roughly 20 individuals per scale item. All scales (Dual Motivation Profile Scale, Sport Motivation S cale) (appendices I, J) were administered to sports particip ants enrolled at a Southeast Division 1A University. Eligible participants were require d to be currently competing in recreational sports, intramural sports, sports classes, or varsity level sports teams. The DMPS was administered only during in season times, or during off-season sport-specific competitions. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to assess the collected data for the two primary sections of intrin sic and extrinsic motivation, and the respective subscales. DMPS scale scoring occurred as follows. Subscale specific scores were added together to create a total subscale score and to tal subscale scores were then divided by 4 to produce a reduced score out of five. This process was repeated fo r each subscale, thus producing three intrinsic scores and three extrinsic scores. The top tier subscales (see Figure 5 above) in each category were multiplied by 3, the middle level subscales were be multiplied by 2, and the bottom level subscales multiplied by 1. The intrinsic subscales were then added together creating a total intr insic score, with the same process occurring for the extrinsic subscales creating a separa te extrinsic score. The following scoring

PAGE 69

58 system indicated the motivations most represen tative of the individual or their motivation profile (Figure 4-6). Figure 4-6. Scoring Range per Profile Criterion Validation Criterion validity of the DMPS was confir med by correlation analyses of the individual DMPS subscales, and the appropriate subscale from The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). The Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) is a 28-item measure of contextual motivation in the c ontext of sport. This self-r eport questionnaire contains seven motivational constructs and is desi gned to measure three intrinsic types of motivation (i.e., to know, to accomplish, to experience), three extrinsic types of motivation (i.e., external, introjected, a nd identified regulation), and amotivation. Participants respond to the stem “I take pa rt in sport…” on a seve n-point Likert scale ranging from 1, “does not correspond,” to 7, “corresponds exactly.” The SMS has been shown to be valid and reliable in previous sport research (Pe lletier et al., 1995). A correlation meeting or exceeding an alpha le vel of .05 will be acceptable for criterion validation. Motivation Profiles Driven to Win Love of Game Sports Skill Sense of Self Forced Behavior Game Sensation Scoring Range Scoring Ran g e 23-30 11-22 1-10 1-10 11-22 23-30

PAGE 70

59 Subscale Reliability To ensure true internal validity of the s cale, means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) for all s ubscales was performed for all six DMPS subscales. An alpha level of .70 for internal consistency was deemed acceptable for subscale validation. Test-Retest Reliability Lastly, to ensure the DMPS had strong te mporal stability, a seven-day test-retest reliability of the scale was performed. Roughl y ten percent of the total sample population was deemed acceptable for test-retest reli ability (Statistical Product and Service Solutions, 2001) hence a subset population of 50 was utilized. Participants were randomly chosen from the original part icipant pool and again completed the DMPS Scale. Subscale correlations again met or exceeded an alpha of .05 significance for acceptable test-retest reliability (Statist ical Product and Service Solutions, 2001). Results DMPS Scale Validation Step 1 Content Validation Results from each round from the panel of experts produced several changes in the overall scale. Most notabl y, after round two of content evaluation, an additional 27 questions were added to the DMPS. Each s ubscale now comprised of a minimum of 8 questions for an overall scale of fiftyone questions. The panel of experts and independent professor then approved all co ntent for this stage of validation. Each round of piloted results improved the overall data re duction and scale refinement process. The initial exploratory f actor analysis was perf ormed with a varimax

PAGE 71

60 rotation to examine the factor structure of the 51-item Dual Motivation Profile Scale. Based on Comrey and Lee’s (1992) criterion, a minimum factor weight of 0.45 (20% overlapping variance) was required before an it em was deemed to load on a factor, while a factor had to have an eigenvalue 1 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Since this was exploratory, several factors with weight between .40 to 0.45 were also deemed acceptable. After eliminating twenty-one items that loaded significantly on more than one factor, failed to load significantly, or loaded on inappropriate factor s, seven factors were extracted accounting for 94.5% of the varian ce (Table 4-3). Although seven variables were extracted instead of the pre-planne d six, three of the pl anned subscales had imperfect loadings and required reworking. As such, further data reduction was not possible at this point as the scale would fail to rotate appropriately. Table 4-3. Exploratory Factor Analysis w ith Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 1 Factora F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 I am most concerned with beating my opponent .782 .177 -.377 .144 .323 -.088 -.030 It is not enough to just participate, I want to win .898 -.006 .170 .191 .263 -.151 -.099 Achieving victory is important to me .984 -.047 .107 .068 -.015 -.032 -.095 I hate to lose .916 -.130 -.229 -.137 -.127 .137 -.004 It’s not just about participating I want to win .816 -.053 .085 .066 .437 -.335 .081 If I don’t win, it’s a waste of my energy .742 .302 .150 .004 .256 -.175 -.412 I love playing and giving everything I have .161 .650 -.273 -.198 -.435 .440 -.194 I am always ready to contribute in any way I can -.254 .811 -.128 -.445 -.096 -.086 .160 If I (we) are winning or losing, I always want to play hard. -.202 .904 -.056 .281 .078 -.200 .098 I always give it my all .079 .894 .109 .286 -.274 -.135 -.007 I play because I love to .131 .825 -.204 .364 -.248 .153 -.188

PAGE 72

61 Table 4-3. Continued Factora F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 I am excited about doing my best -.218 .800 .181 .070 .342 .213 .254 I enjoy the opportunity to show my skill .265 -.105 .166 .063 .912 -.019 -.058 Demonstrating my abilities to friends, teammates, others is fun -.131 -.084 .786 .124 .431 .053 -.162 I like to look good when any people are around .044 -.159 .750 -.140 .398 .129 .046 It’s the real me who comes out -.779 .137 -.118 .529 .106 -.058 -.004 I am the person I want to be .031 -.065 .343 .893 -.109 .584 .192 I am my true self -.176 .418 -.024 .840 .124 .064 .137 My participation style represents my personality -.779 .137 -.118 .529 .106 -.058 -.004 The feelings I get make participating more enjoyable -.034 -.387 .662 .033 .146 .404 .364 Whether I win or lose, I feel physically better -.581 .403 .230 .025 .172 .443 .215 I love the sensations of participating -.166 -.250 -.032 .239 -.219 .835 -.101 I love how my body and mind come together -.073 .191 .022 -.091 .069 .945 .120 I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to -.171 .075 .171 .072 .180 -.151 .932 I often play because a friend made me go .241 .157 -.008 .277 -.245 .298 .824 Eigenvalue 7.97 5.62 4.92 2.94 2.83 2.23 1.83 % of Variance 26.5 18.7 16.4 9.8 9.4 7.4 6.1 F1= Driven to Win ; F2= Love of the Game; F3= Sp orts Skill; F4= Sense of Self; F6= Game Sensation; F7= Forced Behavior. The second exploratory factor analysis followed all previous guidelines to examine the new 30-item Dual Motivation Prof ile Scale. A minimum factor weight of 0.45 (20% overlapping variance) was again required before an item was deemed to load on a factor, and again an eigenvalue 1 was required. After eliminating 12 items that failed to load significantly, loaded on more th an one factor, or load ed on an inappropriate factor, five factors were extracted accounting for 90.7% of the variance (Table 4-4).

PAGE 73

62 Table 4-4. Exploratory Factor Analysis w ith Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 2 Factora F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 It’s the real me who comes out .920 -.108 .271 -.156 .039 I feel the most myself .895 .371 -.048 -.091 -.093 I am the person I want to be .813 .490 -.165 -.068 -.090 I am my true self .799 .207 -.457 -.020 .041 I enjoy playing and giving everything I have .179 .930 .105 -.267 .102 If I (we) are winning or losing, I always want to play ha rd .223 .885 -.001 -.123 .187 I play because I love to -.091 .715 .051 .451 -.329 I am excited about doing my best .478 .741 -.011 -.078 .281 I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s) -.356 -.141 .862 -.086 .134 It is not enough to just participate I want to win .174 .439 .769 -.306 .167 Winning is key to my participation -.007 .044 .948 -.014 -.155 The feelings I get make participating more enjoyable -.181 -.072 -.248 .932 -.126 Whether I win or lose, I feel physically better -.089 -.034 -.587 .523 .395 I love the sensations of participating -.518 -.052 .363 .719 -.073 I love how my body and mind come together .265 -.142 -.152 .882 -.070 I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to -.156 .071 .008 -.203 .897 I often play because a friend made me go .098 .296 -.578 .091 .682 I find myself wishing I did not have too .123 .052 .064 -.026 .928 Eigenvalue 5.70 4.10 2.71 2.30 1.50 % of Variance 31.6 22.7 15.1 12.8 8.3 F1= Sense of Self; F2= Love of Game; F3= Driven to Win; F4= Game Sensation; F5= Forced Behavior; Sports Skill = Did not load. During this factor analysis, the sixth factor, Sports Skill, was not consistent in loading and caused interference with the now established alternate five factors. Accordingly, it was removed from the analys is and completely reworded for round three

PAGE 74

63 of pilot testing. This factor was restructuri ng by re-utilizing the pane l of experts to reestablish content validity. The final exploratory factor analysis repeated all previ ous procedures to examine the new 27-item Dual Motivation Profile Scale. Previous standards still applied for all statistical measures and analys is. After eliminating 6 questions that were insufficient to the scale, failed to load si gnificantly, or were excessive fo r a specific factor, six factors were extracted, accounting for 94.51% of the variance (Table 4-5). Table 4-5. Exploratory Factor Analysis w ith Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 3 Factora F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to .806 .385 -.088 -.185 .323 .005 I find myself wishing I did not have to .821 -.303 .393 .070 -.112 -004 I feel others pressure me to continue participating .898 .111 -.035 -.112 -.062 .080 I often play because a friend/teammate made me go .889 .238 -.147 .146 .016 -.004 Showing my talent is fun .404 .776 -.064 .347 .137 .245 It’s nice to exhibit my skills .130 .961 .019 -.075 -.194 -.041 Its fun when I show some difficult skills .219 .952 .061 .139 .012 -.005 I like showing what I can do -.503 .770 -.141 .100 .202 .171 I enjoy playing and giving everything I have .042 -.121 .954 .225 -.095 -.024 If I (we) are winning or losing, I still love to play -.448 -.202 .447 -.648 .030 .306 I play because I love to -.367 .018 .809 .174 .389 -.127 I am excited about doing my best .180 .005 .935 .139 .246 -.095 I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s) -.182 -.032 .044 .812 -.451 -.100 It is not enough to just participate I want to win -.069 .049 .300 .939 .086 .113 Achieving victory is important to me -.097 .023 .279 .457 -.796 .071 I play to win and want to win .090 .385 .357 .758 -.203 .176

PAGE 75

64 Table 4-5. Continued Factora F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 The participation itself makes me feel better .077 -.089 .204 -.055 .878 .205 I love the sensations of participating -.253 .190 .449 .009 .774 -.192 I feel most like myself -.009 .289 .434 -.080 -.264 .592 I am the person I want to be -.013 -.109 -.165 -.062 -.013 .961 I love how my body and mind come together .128 .448 .015 .291 .214 .779 Eigenvalue 5.14 4.43 3.42 3.17 2.10 1.56 % of Variance 24.5 21.1 16.3 15.1 10.0 7.47 ____________________________________________________________________________________ F1= Forced Behavior; F2=Sports Ability; F3= Love of Game; F4=Driven to Win; F5=Game Sensation; F6=Sense of Self From this factor analysis the final vers ion of the DMPS was created and utilized for all future stages of va lidation. Accordingly, the result s from this EFA produced a 21 question Dual Motivation Profile Scale maintaining three intrinsic and three extrinsic subscales overall. Step 2 Construct Validation Missing data on any form resulted in the su rvey being eliminated from the overall data pool. A confirmatory factor analysis wa s utilized to determine subscale and overall scale validity for construct validation. The c onfirmatory factor analysis was performed with a varimax rotation and akin to the EFA, factor levels were based on Comrey and Lee’s (1992) criterion of 0.45 minimum factor weight (20% overlapping variance) with an eigenvalue 1 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Results from the CFA found 5 subscales, th ree extrinsic and tw o intrinsic, which loaded significantly. The non-significant subsca le of Game Sensation, considered in the DMPS to be the least intrinsic, cross loaded on an extrinsic subscale and is thus invalid.

PAGE 76

65 As such, it was removed from the DMPS and not included in further analyses. Of the remaining 5 significant factor s, a total variance of 62.05% was extracted (Table 4-6). Table 4-6. Confirmatory Factor An alysis for Construct Validation Factora F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 I enjoy playing and giving everything I have .684 .148 .139 -.231 -.132 If I (we) are winning or losing, I still love to play .584 -.015 -.248 -.084 .273 I play because I love to 624 .138 .118 -.295 .262 I am excited about doing my best .681 .291 .219 -.176 .093 Showing my talent is fun .103 .844 .217 -.012 .076 It’s nice to exhibit my skills .108 .852 .269 .023 .136 Its fun when I show some difficult skills .289 .778 .223 -.047 .020 I like showing what I can do .356 .764 .267 .049 .090 I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s) -.044 .306 .657 -.011 042 It is not enough to just participate I want to win -.094 .167 .881 -.007 .068 Achieving victory is important to me .147 .168 .813 -.028 .110 I play to win and want to win. .147 .231 .800 .031 .019 I often play because a friend/teammate made me go -.112 .149 .005 .629 .247 I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to .109 -.118 .136 .557 -.512 I feel others pressure me to continue participating -.130 .067 -.081 .713 -.132 I find myself wishing I did not have to -.070 -.121 .026 .669 -.056 I feel most like myself .308 .162 .181 .077 .602 I am the person I want to be .269 .017 .284 -.071 .652 To feel my body and mind come together .143 .220 .120 .053 .683 Eigenvalue 6.04 2.94 1.72 1.31 1.01 % of Variance 28.7 14.0 8.22 6.24 4.79 F1= Love of Game; F2=Sports Skill; F3= Driven to Win; F4=Forced Behavior; F5=Sense of Self In this CFA analysis, Factor 1 referred to Love of the Game, Factor 2 was Sports Skill, Factor 3 was Driven to Win, Factor 4 was Forced Behavior and Factor 5 was Sense

PAGE 77

66 of Self. At this point, constr uct validation has been establis hed as 5 factors have met all requirements to verify and establish the DM PS. The one inadequate construct of Game Sensation, results in the DMPS having only two subscales conf irmed within the intrinsic continuum, however the scoring for the overa ll scale will be modifi ed so the profile scores remain equal (See Profile Scoring in study two). Step 3 Criterion Validation Results from the criterion testing can be seen in Table 4-7. The DMPS subscales correlated significantly with the main corre sponding SMS subscales as well as other appropriate corresponding SMS subscales. This result substantiates the CFA results and the content validation of the DMPS, as th e fitting SMS and DMPS subscale themes correlated appropriately. This was despite the fact the DMPS does not format its extrinsic subscales in a negative fashion. Simply put, similar sub themes between the two scales were significantly correlated in a positive dir ection, while the appropriate inverse themes were significantly correlated in a negative direction (Table 4-7). Table 4-7. Criterion Validation Between the SMS and the DMPS MTK MTA MTE ID INT EXT LG .464** .473** .578** .377** .160** .150** SS .452** .460** .472** .435** .296** .290** DW .178** .273** .242** .195** .222** .418** SS .341** .454** .397** .293** .220** .450** FB -.092* -.101* -.189** -.033 .171** .154** = at.05 ** = at.01 Note. Scale subscales are indicated below. DMPS: LG = Love of the Game, SS = Sense of Se lf, DW = Driven to Win, SS = Sports Skills, FB = Forced Behavior SMS: MTK = Motivation to Know, MTA = Motivation to Accomplish, MTE = Motivation To Experience, ID = Identified Regulation, IN T = Integrated Regulation, EXT = External Regulation Step 4 Subscale Reliability Means, standard deviations, and alph a coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) for all subscales were computed and are presented in Table 8. Internal consistencies matched or

PAGE 78

67 exceeded Nunnally’s (1978) criterion level of = 0.70 for the psychological domain of all subscales (Table 4-8). Table 4-8. Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS ____________________________________________________________________________________ Measures M SD Dual Motivation Profile Scale Love of the Game 4.41 .563 0.76 Sense of Self 4.05 .683 0.70 Driven to Win 3.70 .818 0.83 Sports Ability 4.04 .796 0.90 Forced Behavior 1.68 .598 0.73 Sport Motivation Scale IM to Know 4.94 1.21 0.83 IM to Accomplish 5.14 1.22 0.85 IM to Experience/Stimulation 5.13 1.16 0.79 Identified Regulation 4.38 1.27 0.76 Introjected Regulation 3.79 1.21 0.70 External Regulation 3.63 1.29 0.74 Amotivation 1.69 0.92 0.76 ____________________________________________________________________________ Step 5 – Test-Retest Reliability Final validation is provided from the test-retest results. Of the projected 41-subset population, a total retest sample of 46 was collected. Retesting of the DMPS took place between 7-10 days after the initial test. At hlete sport breakdown was as follows; Football – 9, soccer – 12, volleyball – 11, basketball – 12, racquetball 2 (Table 9). All subscales were significantly correlated at th e .01 level for retest validation.

PAGE 79

68 Table 4-9. Test-Retest Correlation Scores for the DMPS ____________________________________________________________________________________ Subscales R Love of the Game .93** Sense of Self .85** Driven to Win .91** Sports Ability .88** Forced Behavior .87** ____________________________________________________________________________ ** = at.01 Discussion The objective of the validation study was to verify all 5 stages necessary to authenticate the Dual Motivation Profile Scale. In contrast to prev ious research, (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Pelletier et al., 1995), the DMPS was proposed to accommodate dual motivation orientations to be assessed si multaneously, allowing multiple motivations to be accounted for during sports competition. This hypothesis stemmed from the idea that both self-determined and specific types of less self-determined motivations are active during sports, each potentially promoting behavior. According to Self-Determination Theo ry (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987), intrinsic motivation represents the ideal motivation for achievement environments (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Recent research (Model, 2002) suggests this may not be true in sports, due to the inherent emphasis on extrinsic motives, partic ularly winning and the associated outcome rewards (Chantal el al., 1996) From this study’s results, we can now determine the distinct levels of intrinsi c and extrinsic motivation each athlete utilizes when they compete.

PAGE 80

69 During the overall validation process, seve ral interesting results were revealed and will be reviewed. First, the Game Sensa tions subcategory failed to achieve construct validation leading to the subs cale being eliminated from the DMPS. Second, with Game Sensation eliminated from the DMPS, the intr insic continuum was limited to two intrinsic subscales and not three, causing uneven prof iles within the DMPS. Lastly, the cross correlations between the DMPS and the SMS subscales were indicative of multiple motivation relationships and c ould have a mixture of interpretations. Each topic will be reviewed in sequence. The failure to validate Game Sensation (or the bottom level of the intrinsic motivation profile) although disa ppointing, is not overly detrimen tal to the scale results. In fact, this result provides good feedback if the DMPS is refined at a future date. This result is interesting for two r easons, first, it posses the pote ntial that the Game Sensation orientation is extrinsic not intrinsic in natu re. As the data for this theme cross-loaded during the CFA onto two extrin sic subscales, specifically, Driven to Win and Sports Skill, the potential for this theme to be extrinsically based should be considered. To explain, athletes may be driven by external fo rces to experience spec ific body sensations during sports. Although this explan ation is possible, I would then have to believe athletes are not in touch with how thei r body feels during sports, and this does not make inherent sense given all the kinesthetic rese arch done (Thacker et al., 1999). Second, this subscale was based off the SMS subscale of Intrinsic Motivation to Experience, which has been verified and validated in prev ious research (Pelletier, 1995). I would thus conclude this DMPS subscale needs to be modified to accurately assess the desired orientation.

PAGE 81

70 Next is the limitation of having two in trinsic subscales not three. Since the subscale of Game Sensation was removed from further validation beyond construct validation, the DMPS was left with 5 subscal es rather than the pre-planned 6. Although this is a limitation of the study, it does not re move the current adequacy of the scale. The purpose of the DMPS was to determine if two motivation orientations exist simultaneously, second, to provide a profile of th ese orientations that can be utilized by an athlete, coach, or appropriate other. Agai n, the current version of the DMPS still meets each of these requirements. Although intrin sic motivation has a smaller continuum to display, the true importance of the DMPS is the positive orientations displayed by the extrinsic subscales. A profile of motivation is now possible, with the ability to reference specific extrinsic themes pertinent towards promoting greater potential in competition motivation. Third, the results from the DMPS and th e SMS subscale correlations provided a mixture of positive results. Although multip le subscales correlated with one another reducing the strictness of crit erion validation, I feel the subscale correlations show an accurate picture of the DMPS scales. To e xplain, the DMPS subscale Love of the Game, correlated most highly with the SMS subscale Intrinsic Motivation to Experience, then correlated with the other two SMS intrinsi c subscales. Although multiple correlations exist, the strength of the correlations was not equal and the sequence/order of these relationships did match established relationshi p requirements (i.e., pos itive with positive, negative with negative). The st rength and directio n of these correlation results were found across all subscales of both the DMPS and the SMS, whereby, intrinsic correlations were highest within the intrinsi c subscales, and lower when crossing between

PAGE 82

71 intrinsic and extrinsic. To emphasize this point, the DMPS subscale, Driven to Win, correlated most strongly with the SMS subs cale External Regulation, then Intrinsic Motivation to Accomplish. As the DMPS subsca le Driven to Win should include positive elements from an intrinsic and extrinsic pe rspective, this is exactly the combination expected from this subscale. A last example comes from the DMPS s ubscale of Forced Behavior and its correlations with each SMS subscale. The corre lations between Forced Behavior and the SMS extrinsic subscales are positive in relationship indi cating a good fit. While the correlations among the intrinsic subscales and Forced Behavior all had negative associations, indicating an inverse relations hip. This accurate assessment of the correct motivation qualities between the SMS and the DMPS, confirms the criterion validity to be correct. Although the overall matrix has multiple correlations among the scales, all motivation styles have a common theme, hen ce, the criterion validation shows evidence that the desired DMPS themes were adequately represented within the subscales and are thus valid for future use. Conclusion Based on the findings of the validati on study, the proposed duality model of motivation and the fundamental tenets of self -determination theory, these results confirm the creation and validation of a new scale, the DMPS. The overall scale has passed all 5 accountability processes and should be d eemed worthy of function within SelfDetermination sports literature. In this lig ht, it is important to note that winning and losing in sport is a very basic concept, a nd specific environments and populations outside of sport competition have not been teste d. Simply put, extrinsic motivators may not

PAGE 83

72 operate in the same fashion as in sport a nd continued study will be necessary to further validate the DMPS in alternate environments. Lastly, the influence of rewards and pre ssures are obviously more influential at the elite or professional levels of sport. Hence, this athlete sub population provides a unique opportunity to utilize the DMPS and assess profiles not expected from the recreational athlete. During th e validation process, recreatio nal, intramural, club, elite, and ultra elite athletes were ut ilized. It is possible that when only examining athletes most influenced by external pressures, more refi nement of the DMPS could be needed. Further study of the scale with elite athletes only is warranted to confirm or deny this possibility.

PAGE 84

73 CHAPTER 5 STUDY 2 To test the direct application of the DMPS towards performance behaviors, the researcher hypothesized that successful el ite athletes would demonstrate a unique motivation profile. Specifically, I speculated that successful elite athletes would have equally high motivation from both intrinsic and extrinsic forces (e.g., intrinsic, passion to play, and extrinsic forc es, desire to win). Athlete Study Participants A total sample of 57 athletes both male and female, from a large Southeastern University provided viable data from the study. Age ranged from 18-26 years old and sport breakdown and descriptive statistics we re as follows, 9 football, 1 softball, 22 soccer, 6 track and field, 10 swimming, and 9 volleyball players. Year in school was as follows, 15 freshmen, 12 sophomore, 10 juniors, and 11 seniors. Thirty-six of these athletes were team starters while 21 were not, further, 26 athletes were on full scholarship, 27 were on partial scholarshi p, and 4 had no scholarship assistance. Measures The Dual Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS). The 21-item DMPS (Model, 2005) is a measure of two contextual motivations in the context of spor t. This self-report questionnaire contains five motivational constr ucts and is designed to measure two levels of intrinsic motivation, and three extrinsic motivations. When a profile constitutes the bottom of both intrinsic and extrinsic continuum s (i.e., low and low) the individual is said

PAGE 85

74 to display an amotivation profile. Particip ants responded to the stem “I compete in sports…”on a five-point Likert scale ra nging from 1, “does not correspond,” to 5, “corresponds exactly.” The DMPS has been shown to be valid and reliable in previous research (Model, 2005). The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). The SMS (Pelletier et al., 1995) is a 28-item measure of contextual motivation in sports. Th is self-report questionn aire contains seven motivational constructs and is designed to measure three intrinsic types of motivation (i.e., to know, to accomplish, to experience), three extrinsic types of motivation (i.e., external, introjected, a nd identified regulation), and amo tivation. Participants respond to the stem “I take part in sport…” on a seve n-point Likert scale ra nging from 1, “does not correspond,” to 7, “corresponds exactly.” The SMS has been shown to be valid and reliable in previous sport re search (Pelletier et al., 1995). Performance demographics were assessed by two means. First, sport specific statistics recorded on each active athlete by official NCAA record keeping staff. Second, performance and past performance characte ristics collected through a demographic questionnaire (e.g., team starter, full scholarship, all SEC team) (Appendix K). Procedure Confidentiality was stressed to all at hletes and coaches prior to any data collection. After obtaining informed consen t, a brief introduction of the study was presented and the questionnaires distribute d. Athletes were also informed that participation was voluntary and they could st op at any time. Questions were encouraged and addressed prior to any data collection. Th e questionnaires were administered to all athletes during in season times, or during off-season sport-specific competitions.

PAGE 86

75 Individual performance information was collected from the demographic questionnaire, while performance statistics were collected from the official statistics page for each athlete’s sport. Performance leve l was determined by the satisfaction of 10 distinct performance categorie s (e.g., scholarship level, pe rformance statistics (position specific), past level of achievement). Each athlete was then grouped into an ultra high, high, medium, or low performance category acco rding to the following criteria. A high performer meet 7 of 10 performance accomplis hments, a middle level performer satisfied 4 of the 10 accomplishments and a low perfor mer satisfied only 1 requirement (Appendix K). Any athlete meeting all 10 criteria was cl assified as an ultra high performer and any athlete not meeting the minimum requireme nt was not considered elite and was subsequently dropped from further analysis. Al l demographics and stat istics were utilized from a season perspective to get a contextual performance perspective and not a situational specific reference. Data Analysis To determine the motivation profiles of the performance groups, simple descriptive statistics were ut ilized (e.g., mean scores pe r continuum). Scores for each level of group were averaged then compared to determine the differences in profiles between performance levels. To determine the motivation profile between the performance groups as significantly different, tw o separate one-way analyses of variance were used to compare the levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation across the four groups of interest. The SMS was also used as a means of comparison to demonstrate scoring differences between a single motiva tion score and a dual profile score. To

PAGE 87

76 determine any significant differences across group profiles, Tukey Post hoc tests were planned. Results Preliminary Analysis DMPS descriptive means, standard deviat ions, and alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) for all subscales were computed a nd are presented in Table 5-10. Internal consistencies matched or exceeded Nunnally’s (1978) criterion level of = 0.70 for the psychological domain for all subscales. After reviewing the demographic data sh eets, the breakdown of athletes was as follows. An initial 14 athletes fell into the top elite category, 6 fell into the middle elite category and 38 were classified simply as an elite varsity athlete (bottom category). Upon further review 11 of the bottom level athletes were eliminated due to failing to meet the minimum criteria for classification. This le ft 27 athletes in the bottom performance category. 4 athletes from the high performance group were then reclassified as the ultra elite group as each had achieved a world record in their sport and met every requirement from the demographics sheet. Profile mean sc ores are presented below for each level of the athletes (Table 5-11). Table 5-10. Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS ____________________________________________________________________________________ DMPS Measures M SD Love of the Game 4.46 .522 0.73 Sense of Self 4.23 .697 0.75 Driven to Win 4.44 .649 0.72 Sports Ability 4.35 .730 0.88 Forced Behavior 1.83 .675 0.70 ____________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 88

77 Table 5-11. Profile Means for Athlete Levels ___________________________________________________________________________________ Mean Score Athlete Level IM EM Ultra Elite Performers 25.6 25.7 Top Performers 27.4 24.9 Middle Performers 26.7 23.9 Bottom Performers 25.5 23.1 ____________________________________________________________________________ Study Analyses Results from the descriptive analysis found that at each level of athlete performance an increase in both intrinsic and extrinsic motiv ation occurred. The exception to this trend was found with the ultra elite athletes. These individuals had less intrinsic motivation than both top elite and middle performers, ye t the profile shows intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were almost the same (Figure 5-7). Figure 5-7. Group Motivation Profiles 30 25 20 15 10 05 01 Ultra High Middle Bottom Group IM EM Grou p Score

PAGE 89

78 To determine if the motivation profil e between the performance groups were significantly different, whereby the highly su ccessful performers profile was unique, separate one-way ANOVA’s were used to comp are levels of IM and EM across the four groups. Results from this analysis showed no significant differences among groups for intrinsic motivation [F (3,43) = 1.837, p = 0.155], or extrinsic motivation, [F (3,43) = 0.450, p = 0.719]. As significant differences in profiles were not observed, follow up tests were not performed. Discussion The objective of the presen t study was three fold. Firs t, I tested the direct application of the DMPS within an elite at hlete setting. Second, I examined the potential motivation profiles that occur across various le vels of NCAA athlet e performers. Thirdly, I determined if the motivation profiles of ultra elite athlete performers were distinctly different from the less accomplished athletes. Re sults show this study is again in contrast to previous theory and research in the field (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vallerand et al., 1999) and provides further s upport for the Duality Model of Motivation and the benefit and direct a pplication of the DMPS within a sports environment. Four ranges of profiles were discovere d within one small athlete population, whereby the competitors were all high in skill level. Hence, the capacity of the DMPS to distinguish these differences given the minima l variance is encouraging. According to the DMPS scoring system, all levels of athletes fall into the top section for intrinsic and extrinsic profiling, i.e., intrinsic Love of the Game, and extrinsic Driven to Win. Profiles within these categories showed di fferences between the achievement levels, hence, the study achieved the first go al of real world applicability.

PAGE 90

79 The second purpose of this study was to distinguish the potential profiles exhibited by different levels of performers, with the assumption that ultra elite athletes would show a) the highest intrinsic and extr insic motivation, and b) both motivations as equal in force. Results confirmed only part of this hypothesis, as th e ultra elite athletes did not exhibit the highest levels of intr insic motivation. To explain this result a breakdown of the profiles is beneficial. Firs t, the lowest level of performers had the lowest intrinsic, “Love of the Game,” a nd extrinsic, “Driven to Win,” scores. As performance accomplishments increased, both motivation styles also increased. This trend held true for each category of perfor mer except the ultra elite. These athletes displayed a profile with a decrease in intr insic motivation, yet an increase in extrinsic motivation. This group did however display an equal profile of motiv ations between the two orientations (Figure 5-7) hence supporting the notion that high achieving athletes are equally influenced from extrinsic and in trinsic motivation forces. This group also consisted of the fewest individuals, as few people were able to meet all performance demographic criteria. In fact, 3 of the 4 ultra elite athletes held a world record in their respective sport, so this pr ofile is obviously limited to specific performers. Figure 5-8 – Scoring Range per Elite Profile Elite Profiles Driven to Win Love of Game Sports Skill Sense of Self Forced Behavior Game Sensation Scoring Range Scoring Ran g e 23-30 11-22 1-10 1-10 11-22 23-30

PAGE 91

80 The third hypothesis speculated that this ultra elite profile wo uld be significantly different from the other profiles. Unfortunatel y, the profiles were not significantly diverse from one another, yet this does not discount the meaningfulness of the profiles toward future research. One key element in these finding s is the capacity for athletes to have dual motivations. Previous Self-determinati on research (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987, Ryan & Deci, 2000), has consistently labeled intrin sic motivation as the ideal force within achievement environments, hence reducing th e role of extrinsic motivators. This argument has been exacerbated by the theoreti cal stance that self-d etermined influences are distinct from non self-determined aspect s, causing a single c ontinuum of motivation. For example, when athletes were measured through the SMS, the elite group (not the ultra elite) demonstrated an ideal motiva tion profile. To explain, the SMS is based off a single continuum of motivati on, hence, it subtracts the extr insic influences from the intrinsic to produce one motivation score (Figure 5-9). As the DMPS shows, SMS scoring was inadequate in determining th e true motivation promoting top athlete behavior. Figure 5-9. Example SMS Scoring Style 30 25 20 15 10 05 01 -5 Ultra High Middle Bottom Group IM EM Grou p Score Example SMS

PAGE 92

81 While the data and results from the athlete study are somewhat limited by the failure to find statistical significance betw een the groups, this does not diminish the distinct profiles found for the athlete levels, a nd a general profile them e distinct to each category of athlete. As argued throughout this paper and as displayed from these results, having a strong emphasis on extrinsic motives, particularly winning and the associated rewards, can be distinct from intrinsic motiv es. Further, both motivations can be positive toward achievement, both occur simultaneously, and extrinsic factors should not be tied to intrinsic elements. Consistent with ideas presented by Koestner and Losier (2002), and Model (2004), each motivation style has separate influence upon an athlete’s perspective, hence both should be assessed independently. This point of independence between c ontinuums is key to distinguishing the DMPS from other scales. As confirmed fr om this study, the two continuums are independent in their influence. Specificall y, as the extrinsic continuum increased the intrinsic continuum did not d ecrease, as the SMS would di ctate. Interestingly, elite athletes showed high levels of intrinsic motivation despite the desire and focus upon winning and outcome. Further, the DMPS a llowed both continuums to fluctuate separately as evidenced by both continuums in creasing across three athlete levels, yet, extrinsic motivation increased for ultra elite performers while intrinsic motivation decreased. These independent pr ofiles directly contradict the current single continuum theory. The dual profile perspective explains how behaviors not inherently enjoyable (e.g., training regimes) yet, are within an enjoyable context (e.g. sports), are performed

PAGE 93

82 for other reasons, (i.e., desire for victory or potential incentives). This study also takes the first step towards supporting previous anecdot al evidence that athletes do want to win, and this external motivator does not conflict wi th an intrinsic passion and love to play.

PAGE 94

83 CHAPTER 6 GENERAL DISCUSSION Theoretical Considerations In the scale construction and validati on study, 5 levels of validation provided substantial evidence that two independent cont inuums should be uti lized when assessing motivation in sports. In the athlete study, in trinsic motivation or being self-determined was a strong motivation style for each athlet e, yet, extrinsic mo tivation also provided equal motivation for ultra elite athletes. The findings from the two studies ultimately suggest that motivation is not a single construct and the SDT subsections of intrinsic and extrinsic do reside on separate continuums. By allowing these two motivations to be evaluated independently, a greater cap acity to understand motivation, apply recommendations, and evaluate the perceptions of the environment is possible. As the goals of each athlete can range fr om internal to external, a motivation profile is needed to allow these differing perspectives to be understood and explored. Understanding motivation is a quest to understand why These studies offer in sight and opportunity to help answer this question, and provide a fi rst step towards the acceptance of the Duality Model of Motivation. Practical Implications The duality in motivation (or dual prof iles) helps explain how rewards and incentives are influential in professional spor ts, yet athletes love competing. Based on the findings of the present studies, elite colle giate coaches should attempt to place an emphasis on creating an autonomous and competen cy rich environment for their athletes.

PAGE 95

84 Specifically, boosting effective interactions at hletes experience during sports, with the intention of promoting intrinsi c and extrinsic motivation. An in trinsically rich interaction can be promoted through positive verbal feedback and the development of task and social cohesion (Carron & Dennis, 2001). Further, intrinsic interactions can be built by promoting skill improvement and achieveme nt of team and individual goals. Comparatively, an extrinsic interaction will em phasize the external value an athlete may assign to the interaction. For example, extrinsi c athlete interactions should include valued rewards where failure to achieve the outco me is meaningful towards each person. The desire for each athlete to achieve will prom ote competency, and will also enable extrinsic forces (e.g., winning) to promote greater potential achievement. Coaches however, should avoid an over-e mphasis on extrinsic interactions or failing to promote internal incentives concurre ntly to each external enticement as this could hinder competency if failures were to occur. When determining what elements to include/exclude towards an athl ete’s environment, one should consider two things. First, losing is part of sport and creating an envi ronment that shields an athlete from poor outcomes is not necessarily beneficial in th e long term. Second, an extrinsic interaction should not to refute an athlet e’s competence, it should promote the inherent desire to play well, achieve victory, and/or demonstrate the skills they have ac quired during practice. These interactions should be carefully planned to promote the positive elements of extrinsic motivation and avoid any potential p itfalls. An example of this interaction can be seen from NCAA basketball programs across the country, where midnight madness games of mock competition star t off the season. This style of interaction is a perfect

PAGE 96

85 example of promoting extrinsic motivation wh ere the environment still has value for the athlete. Coaches able to promote intrinsic and extr insic interactions while emphasizing the potential for success should enable the de velopment of motivation profiles conducive towards achievement behaviors in their athlet es. To carry this effect into competition, accentuating the factors that athlete’s value (i.e ., pride, dedication, desire to win), as well as promoting factors relevant to that envi ronment (i.e., ability, effort, opportunity for victory), coaches will allow athletes to draw upon motivation from each continuum and have the best opportunity for a successful experience. Limitations One of the primary limitations of this study was the reduced variability in skill level across all the sports athl etes. Only 4 athletes were cl assified as ultra elite and overall, most athletes fell into the bottom elite category. Upon further analysis, many of these bottom elite athletes were in their first year of eligibility and had not accrued enough recognition in their college careers to meet the achievement demographic requirements this study utilized. Hence, vari ability between top a nd bottom athletes may have been closer than the results show and s lightly skewed the resu lts to the top. Future research should approach this limitation by comparing upper level elite athletes towards a moderate or recreational sports population. The second limitation within the athl ete study was the lack of statistical significance across motivation co ntinuums of the athlete levels. Although the graphed findings do show a difference and change at each performance leve l (Figure 5-7), these findings were not strong enough to warrant statistical confir mation. This limitation could

PAGE 97

86 be linked to the previous limitati on (i.e., lack of true athlete variability), ho wever, it could also be linked to a potential flaw in the DMPS instrument, or the DMPS’s inability to differentiate enough within the given sample. I tend to discount this second argumen t as the DMPS passed all 5 stages of validation and the DMPS and SMS scores from the athletes during the validation process were consistent with the fina l findings. As such, I suggest further review of the DMPS to continue to refine the continuums, yet also feel an increase in the va riety of athlete level would enhance future research. Future Research The studies presented build upon the th eoretical perspec tive that multiple motivation orientations are beneficial in promoting potential achievement behavior. Although the influence of rewards and pressures may be more influential at the elite or professional sport levels, winning and losing is a very elementary concept, such is love of the game and a desire to win. These core con cepts allow sport to be a unique environment to assess for dual motivations. To further th e potential of dual motivation profiles, several potential studies woul d be beneficial. First, a study determining the initiati on point of dual continuums in children would be helpful in promoting positive expe riences for this age group. Simply put, at what point in a child or yout h’s life does a distinction be tween intrinsic and extrinsic incentives occur, thus incr easing the extrinsic influen ces children acknowledge? From Achievement Goal Theory, one knows that little distinction be tween Task and Ego orientations occurs until age 8 (Nicholls, 1984) however, because winning and losing is

PAGE 98

87 always active within sports, is this age range representative for an extrinsic profile of motivations to occur, or do we only establish an extrinsic continuum as we become older. Second, research examining athletes who pa rticipate for exercise and not sports competition (i.e., jogging, swi mming, weight lifting) may pr oduce profiles not found in the current studies, while also contributing to an understanding of dual motivation in an alternative environment. Exercise cannot be cons idered the same style of activity as sport, as the rational behind the beha viors are completely different. Seeing as dual motivation in sport relies upon the inherent intrinsic and extrinsic forces present during competition, exercisers should provide totally different pr ofiles to be examined. Further, exercise motivation environments will offer a new oppor tunity to test the DMPS and expand its potential usage in alternate environments. Thirdly, reformatting the DMPS for usage in health and medical environments would be a key study to undertake. Future re search examining the dual motivations of individuals attempting to stop smoking, lose weight, or perform me dical rehabilitation would provide new insights into the motivatio nal mechanisms that eventually manifest these important behaviors. Current SDT resear ch in these environments states results similar to those found in sports (i.e., intrinsic motivation is ideal and extrinsic motivation is insignificant). Again how ever, anecdotal evidence sugge sts otherwise. Often people state a reason to lose weight is to look bette r as well as feel better, hence a dual profile of influence. The opportunity to understand the potential dual forces promoting one to stop smoking could obviously benefit health organization, educational programs and techniques used to overcome the addiction.

PAGE 99

88 Lastly, two small changes to the DMPS may yield interesting results for the future. Due to the stem in the current study be ing “when I compete in sport” an emphasis was placed on competition. An interesting series of studies could come from changing the stem to more neutral or more extreme adjec tive, e.g., when I am involved in sports, when I prepare for sports, when I dominate my s port. This variation could provide totally different profiles and thus totally new scal e applications. Further, the opportunity to create additional specif ic subscales e.g., negativ e sports reinforcement, within the current continuums of motivation, could boost expl anatory power as well as provide a new perspective of profiles. Conclusion The DMPS was created to determine a le vel of satisfaction derived from the psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness. Thus, it is evident that intrinsic and extrinsic DMPS subscales requ ire elements of competency, autonomy and relatedness. In other words, although ones actions may be drawn from a less selfdetermined motivation, (i.e., Driven to Win), the needs to feel competent and autonomous remain important parts of wan ting to achieve victory. The presence of competence and autonomy does not diminish the extrinsic forces one may show, it merely confirms multiple motivation for ces to be equally influenced by one’s psychological needs (Figure 3-4). Simply put, these findings es tablish extrinsic motivation as an independent motivation with virtually no chance of it becoming another type of motivation (namely intrinsic), due to high perceptions of autonomy. This single point is the crux of the Du ality Model of Motivation, the DMPS, and the potential future of where SDT research should proceed. Based upon these findings, I

PAGE 100

89 feel confident that the dual profile approach offers greater insight towards understanding sports motivation and SDT motivation researc h. I also believe that the dual profile approach demonstrates encouraging advant ages over the single continuum approach through the validation of the DMPS, as well as the variable profile s exhibited from the athlete study

PAGE 101

90 APPENDIX A CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 1 Directions: Below are some statements about motivation in sport. Read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the stat ement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. When I compete in sports …. Extrinsic 1. Driven to Win This subscale indicates an individual whose primary purpose for sports participation is to achieve victory. 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s) 2. Winning is an important element 3. I am more satisfied when I am victorious. 4. Its not enough to just part icipate, I want to win. 2. Sports Ability This level refers to individuals who are mo st concerned with demonstrating their own skill level and enjoying the opportunity to show ability during play 1. I enjoy the opportunity to sometimes show off 2. Demonstrating my ability is fun 3. Playing well in front of others is important to me 4. If I (we) are losing, I tend to focus on my own performance 3. “Forced Behavior This subscale indicates someone who is so lely participating because they feel a responsibility to an external influenc e, e.g., coach, parents, friends etc. 1. I only do so because I feel comm itted to my team/family/coach 2. I feel a need to fulfill a responsibility 3. I feel pressure from significant others to continue 4. I would quit but I would be ashamed Intrinsic continuum 1. Love of Game This classification refers to someone who pl ays for pure passion and desire of the sport and the inner drive for the game 1. I love being in the game and giving everything I have 2. I am always ready to c ontribute in any way I can 3. If I/we are losing I just want to play harder 4. Once the match is over I am waiting to compete again

PAGE 102

91 2. Game Sensation This category indicates someone who enjoys th e sensations and emotions associated with participation and potential sport involv ement e.g., physical, emotion, psychological experiences. 1. I enjoy the physical workout I get 2. The rush from competing is fantastic 3. I enjoy the demands I put on myself 4. The feelings I get from competi ng make participating more enjoyable 3. Sense of Self In this subscale, individuals participate due to their sense of self being intertwined with sports participation. In other words, the pe rson and the athlete are not easily separated. 1. I feel most at peace 2. I’m happy, often I’m bored with other stuff 3. Because I wouldn’t know what to do if I didn’t 4. I am the person I want to be

PAGE 103

92 APPENDIX B CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 2 Directions: Below are some statements about motivation in sport. Read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the stat ement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. When I compete in sports …. Extrinsic 1. Driven to Win This subscale indicates an individual whose primary purpose for sports participation is to achieve victory. 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s). 2. Winning is an important element. 3. I am more satisfied when I win than when I lose 4. It is not enough to just pa rticipate, I want to win. 2. Sports Ability This level refers to individuals who are mo st concerned with demonstrating their own skill level and enjoying the opportunity to show ability during play 1. I sometimes enjoy the opportunity to show my skill 2. Demonstrating my abilities to friends/teammates/others is fun 3. Playing well in front of others is important to me 4. If I (we) are losing, I tend to focus on my own performance 3. Forced Behavior This subscale indicates someone who is so lely participating b ecause they feel a responsibility to an external influenc e, e.g., coach, parents, friends etc. 1. I only do so because I feel comm itted to my team/family/coach 2. I feel a need to fulfill a responsibility 3. I feel pressure from significant others to continue 4. I sometimes want to quit but I would be ashamed Intrinsic continuum 1. Love of Game This classification refers to someone who pl ays for pure passion and desire of the sport and the inner drive for the game 1. I love playing and giving everything I have 2. I am always ready to c ontribute in any way I can 3. If I/we are losing I just want to play harder 4. Once the match is over I can’t wait to compete again

PAGE 104

93 2. Game Sensation This category indicates someone who enjoys th e sensations and emotions associated with participation and potential sport involv ement e.g., physical, emotion, psychological experiences. 1. I enjoy the physical workout I get 2. The rush from competing is fantastic 3. I enjoy the demands I put on myself 4. The feelings I get from competi ng make participating more enjoyable 3. Sense of Self In this subscale, individuals participate due to their sense of self being intertwined with sports participation. In other words, the pe rson and the athlete are not easily separated. 1. I feel at peace with myself 2. I become my true self 3. I feel comfortable and at ease 4. I am the person I want to be

PAGE 105

94 APPENDIX C CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 3 Directions: Below are some statements about motivation in sport. Read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the stat ement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. When I compete in sports …. Extrinsic 1. Driven to Win This subscale indicates an individual whose primary purpose for sports participation is to achieve victory. 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s). 2. Winning is the primary focus. 3. I am more satisfied when I win than when I lose 4. It is not enough to just pa rticipate; I want to win. 5. Achieving victory is important to me. 6. I hate to lose. 7. Its not just about par ticipating I want to win. 8. If I don’t win, it’s a waste of my energy. 2. Sports Ability This level refers to individuals who are mo st concerned with demonstrating their own skill level and enjoying the opportunity to show ability during play 1. I enjoy the opportunity to show my skill 2. Demonstrating my abilities to fr iends, teammates, others is fun 3. I like to look good when any people are around. 4. I am always concerned with my own performance. 5. I need to play well. 6. I like to be a key player on the team. 7. I like to be better than other players. 8. I typically feel I have mo re ability than most people. 9. I tell others of my previous accomplishments. 3. Forced Behavior This subscale indicates someone who is so lely participating because they feel a responsibility to an external influenc e, e.g., coach, parents, friends etc. 1. I do so because I feel committed to my team, family, coach, friends. 2. I feel a need to fulfill a responsibility. 3. I feel pressure from certa in people to participate.

PAGE 106

95 4. I sometimes want to quit, but I would be embarrassed to. 5. If I don’t like the game, I won’t try very hard. 6. If I’m not involved I won’t play again. 7. I often play because a friend made me go. 8. I rarely enjoy myself. 9. I sometimes just wait for the end. Intrinsic continuum 1. Love of Game This classification refers to someone who pl ays for pure passion and desire of the sport and the inner drive for the game 1. I love playing and giving everything I have 2. I am always ready to c ontribute in any way I can 3. If I (we) are winning or losing, I always want to play hard. 4. Once the match is over I can’t wait to compete again. 5. I love being involved and just playing in the game. 6. I always give it my all. 7. I play because I love to. 8. I am excited about doing my best. 9. I don’t care about the scor e I just love competing. 2. Game Sensation This category indicates someone who enjoys th e sensations and emotions associated with participation and potential sport involv ement e.g., physical, emotion, psychological experiences. 1. I enjoy the physical workout I get. 2. The rush from competing is fantastic. 3. I enjoy the demands I put on myself. 4. The feelings I get make pa rticipating more enjoyable. 5. I feel alive. 6. Whether I win or lose, I feel physically better. 7. I love the sensations of participating. 8. I love how my body a nd mind come together. 3. Sense of Self In this subscale, individuals participate due to their sense of self being intertwined with sports participation. In other words, the pe rson and the athlete are not easily separated. 1. It’s the real me who comes out. 2. My personality doesn’t change. 3. I feel the most myself. 4. I am the person I want to be. 5. I am my true self 6. I make the friends I hang out with outside of sports. 7. My participation style re presents my personality. 8. I often just follow the example of others.

PAGE 107

96 APPENDIX D VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 1 WITH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS NAME____________________________________________ Directions: The following questions will attemp t to assess your motiva tion. Please read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the statement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. Please respond to the following stem for each question below: When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s). 1 2 3 4 5 2. I enjoy the opportunity to show my skill 1 2 3 4 5 3. I do so because I feel committed to my team, family, coach, friends 1 2 3 4 5 4. I love playing and giving everything I have 1 2 3 4 5 5. Winning is the primary focus. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I am always ready to contribute in any way I can. 1 2 3 4 5 7. It’s the real me who comes out. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I enjoy the physical workout I get. 1 2 3 4 5 9. My personality really shines. 1 2 3 4 5 10. Demonstrating my abilities to friends, teammates, others is fun 1 2 3 4 5 11. The rush from competing is fantastic. 1 2 3 4 5 12. I am more satisfied when I win than when I lose 1 2 3 4 5 13. I feel the most myself. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 108

97 When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 14. I feel a need to fulfill a responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I like to look good when any people are around. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I feel pressure from certain people to participate. 1 2 3 4 5 17. If I (we) are winning or losing, I always want to play hard. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I enjoy the demands I put on myself. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I am the person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 20. It is not enough to just participate, I want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I am always concerned with my own performance. 1 2 3 4 5 23. Once the match is over I can’t wait to compete again. 1 2 3 4 5 24. The feelings I get make participating more enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 25.Achieving victory is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 26. I need to play well. 1 2 3 4 5 27. If I don’t like the game, I won’t try very hard. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I love being involved and just playing in the game. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I feel alive. 1 2 3 4 5 30. I am my true self 1 2 3 4 5 31. Whether I win or lose, I feel physically better. 1 2 3 4 5 32. I hate to lose. 1 2 3 4 5 33. I like to be a key player on the team. 1 2 3 4 5 34. If I’m not involved I won’t play again. 1 2 3 4 5 35. I always give it my all. 1 2 3 4 5 36. I make the friends I hang out with outside of sports. 1 2 3 4 5 37. I play because I love to. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 109

98 When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 38. My participation style represents my personality. 1 2 3 4 5 39. I often play because a friend made me go. 1 2 3 4 5 40. I love the sensations of participating. 1 2 3 4 5 41. I like to be better than other players. 1 2 3 4 5 42.It’s not just about participating I want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 43. I rarely enjoy myself. 1 2 3 4 5 44. I typically feel I have more ability than most people. 1 2 3 4 5 45. I am excited about doing my best. 1 2 3 4 5 46. I love how my body and mind come together. 1 2 3 4 5 47. I often just follow the example of others. 1 2 3 4 5 48. I sometimes just wait for the end. 1 2 3 4 5 49. I don’t care about the score I just love competing. 1 2 3 4 5 50. If I don’t win, it’s a waste of my energy. 1 2 3 4 5 51. I tell others of my previous accomplishments. 1 2 3 4 5 Please respond to the following questions. 1. How could you reword the questions to make them clearer? 2. What would you do to make the questions better? 3. How could the overall questionnaire be made better?

PAGE 110

99 APPENDIX E VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 2 WITH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS NAME____________________________________________ Directions: The following questions will attemp t to assess your motiva tion. Please read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the statement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. Please respond to the following stem for each question below: When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s). 1 2 3 4 5 2. I enjoy the opportunity to show my skill 1 2 3 4 5 3. I enjoy playing and giving everything I have 1 2 3 4 5 4. I am always ready to contribute in any way I can. 1 2 3 4 5 5. It’s the real me who comes out. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Demonstrating my abilities to friends, teammates, others is fun 1 2 3 4 5 7. I feel the most myself. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I feel a need to fulfill a responsibility. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I like to look good when any people are around. 1 2 3 4 5 10. If I (we) are winning or losing, I always want to play hard. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I am the person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 12. It is not enough to just participate I want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 111

100 When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 14. The feelings I get make participating more enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 15.Achieving victory is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I am my true self 1 2 3 4 5 17. Whether I win or lose, I feel physically better. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I hate to lose. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I always give it my all. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I make the friends I hang out with outside of sports. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I play because I love to. 1 2 3 4 5 22. My participation style represents my personality. 1 2 3 4 5 23. I often play because a friend made me go. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I love the sensations of participating. 1 2 3 4 5 25. I like to be better than other players. 1 2 3 4 5 26. Winning is key to my participation. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I am excited about doing my best. 1 2 3 4 5 28. I love how my body and mind come together. 1 2 3 4 5 29. If I don’t win, it’s a waste of my energy. 1 2 3 4 5 30. I find myself wishing I did not have to be there. 1 2 3 4 5 Please respond to the following questions. 1. How could you reword the questions to make them clearer? 2. What would you do to make the questions better? 3. How could the overall questionnaire be made better?

PAGE 112

101 APPENDIX F VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 3 WITH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS NAME____________________________________________ Directions: The following questions will attemp t to assess your motiva tion. Please read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the statement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. Please respond to the following stem for each question below: When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s). 1 2 3 4 5 2. Showing my talent is fun. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I enjoy playing and giving everything I have 1 2 3 4 5 4. It’s the real me who comes out. 1 2 3 4 5 5. It’s nice to exhibit my skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel like myself the most. 1 2 3 4 5 7. I often want to just sit out. 1 2 3 4 5 8. If I (we) are winning or losing, I always play hard. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I am the person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 10. It is not enough to just participate I want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to. 1 2 3 4 5 12. The feelings I get make participating more enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 13. Achieving victory is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 14. The participation itself makes me feel better. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I play because I love to. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 113

102 When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 16. I feel obligated to play for others (team/friends). 1 2 3 4 5 17. I love the sensations of participating. 1 2 3 4 5 18. Its fun when I show some difficult skills. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I play to win and want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I am excited about doing my best. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I love how my body and mind come together. 1 2 3 4 5 22. I find myself wishing I did not have to. 1 2 3 4 5 23. I am my true self. 1 2 3 4 5 24. I like showing what I can do. 1 2 3 4 5 25. I feel others pressure me to continue participating. 1 2 3 4 5 26. Promoting my ability helps me play. 1 2 3 4 5 27. I often play because a friend/teammate made me go. 1 2 3 4 5 Please respond to the following questions. 1. How could you reword the questions to make them clearer? 2. What would you do to make the questions better? 3. How could the overall questionnaire be made better?

PAGE 114

103 APPENDIX G VALIDATED DMPS FINAL VERSION NAME____________________________________________ Directions: The following questions will attemp t to assess your motiva tion. Please read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the statement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. Please respond to the following stem for each question below: When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s). 1 2 3 4 5 2. Showing my talent is fun. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I enjoy playing and giving everything I have 1 2 3 4 5 4. I often play because a friend/teammate made me go. 1 2 3 4 5 5. It’s nice to exhibit my skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel most like myself. 1 2 3 4 5 7. If I (we) are winning or losing, I still love to play. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I am the person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 9. It is not enough to just participate I want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Achieving victory is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 12. The participation itself makes me feel better. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I play because I love to. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I feel others pressure me to continue participating. 1 2 3 4 5 15. I love the sensations of participating. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 115

104 When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 16. Its fun when I show some difficult skills. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I play to win and want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I am excited about doing my best. 1 2 3 4 5 19. I love how my body and mind come together. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I find myself wishing I did not have to. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I like showing what I can do. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 116

105 APPENDIX H FOCUS GROUP OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS 1. Is there anything you feel is needed for this scale? 2. Do you think this scale accurately assessed your sports motivation perspective? 3. What would you change about the formatting to improve the scale? 4. How would you make the questions clearer? 5. Where did you have trouble with the scale or questionnaire?

PAGE 117

106 APPENDIX I FINAL FORMATTING OF DMPS WITH SCORING NAME____________________________________________ Directions: The following questions will attemp t to assess your motiva tion. Please read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the statement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. Please respond to the following stem for each question below: When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 1. I am most concerned with beating my opponent(s). 1 2 3 4 5 2. Showing my talent is fun. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I enjoy playing and giving everything I have 1 2 3 4 5 4. I often play because a friend/teammate made me go. 1 2 3 4 5 5. It’s nice to exhibit my skills. 1 2 3 4 5 6. I feel most like myself. 1 2 3 4 5 7. If I (we) are winning or losing, I still love to play. 1 2 3 4 5 8. I am the person I want to be. 1 2 3 4 5 9. It is not enough to just participate I want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to. 1 2 3 4 5 11. Achieving victory is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 12. The participation itself makes me feel better. 1 2 3 4 5 13. I play because I love to. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I feel others pressure me to continue participating. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 118

107 When I compete in sports …. Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 15. I love the sensations of participating. 1 2 3 4 5 16. Its fun when I show some difficult skills. 1 2 3 4 5 17. I play to win and want to win. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I am excited about doing my best. 1 2 3 4 5 19. To feel my body and mind come together. 1 2 3 4 5 20. I find myself wishing I did not have to. 1 2 3 4 5 21. I like showing what I can do. 1 2 3 4 5 Scoring Extrinsic Intrinsic Driven to Win Love of Game 1, 9, 11, 17 3 7, 13, 18 Sports Ability Sense of Self 2, 5 16, 21 6, 8, 19 Forced Behavior Game Sensation 4, 10 14 201 2, 15

PAGE 119

108 APPENDIX J SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE (SMS) NAME____________________________________________ Directions: Below are some statements about motiva tion in sport. Read each statement carefully and then circle the number to the right of the st atement that best reflects how you feel. Circle only one number for each statement. There are no right or wrong answers and all information will be kept strictly confidential. I take part in sports………… Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 1. For the pleasure I feel in living exciting experiences 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. For the pleasure it gives me to know more about the sport that I play 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I used to have good reasons for participating, but now I am asking myself if I should continue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. For the pleasure of discovering new techniques 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. I don’t know anymore; I have the impression that I am incapable of succeeding in sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Because it allows me to be well regarded by people I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. Because, in my opinion, it is one of the best ways to meet people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Because I feel a lot of personal satisfaction while mastering certain difficult techniques 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Because it is absolutely necessary if one wants to be in shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. For the prestige of being an athlete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 120

109 Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 11. Because it is one of the best ways I have chosen to develop other aspects of myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. For the pleasure I feel while improving some of my weak points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. Because I must to feel good about myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. For the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Because people around me think it is important to be in shape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. Because it is a good way to learn lots of things which could be useful to me in other areas of my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. For the intense emotions that I feel 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 19. It is not clear to me anymore; I don’t really think my place is in sports 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. For the pleasure that I feel while executing certain difficult movements 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. Because I would feel bad if I was not taking time to do it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. To show others how good I am in my skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. For the pleasure that I feel while learning techniques that I have never tried before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. Because it is one of the best ways to maintain good relationships with my friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. Because I like the feeling of being totally immersed in the activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. Because I must engage in sports regularly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 121

110 Not at all Somewhat Very True True True 27. For the pleasure of discovering new performance strategies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. I often ask myself; I can’t seem to achieve the goals that I set for myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 122

111 APPENDIX K DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET ATHLETE SHEET Please answer all of the following questions. There is no right or wrong answer and your information will not be shared with anyone. If you are a Varsity athlete, what year of eligibility are you in? 1st 2nd 3rd 4th What year of school are you in? 1 Freshman 2 Sophmore 3 Junior 4 Senior How old are you?________ What is your current GPA? 1. 3.6-4.0 2. 3.0-3.5 3. 2.5-2.9 4 2.0-2.4 5 1.5-1.9 What sport do you play? (Competing in when you filled this form out) 1 Football 2 Softball 3 Soccer 4 Tennis 5 Basketball 6 Ultimate Frisbee 7 Volleyball 8 Other (please indicate)____________________ Do you start for your team? Yes No

PAGE 123

112 What level of Scholarship are you on? 1-Full 2-Partial 3-None Have you ever been selected as an SEC player of the week? Yes No Have you ever been nominated for a s ports award during your college career? Yes No Are you a team captain or assistant captain? Yes No Have you ever been selected as an all American? Yes No Have you ever been selected as a firs t, second or third team SEC player? Yes No Have you ever been selected to an All American team? Yes No Are you a college record holder is any category in your sport? Yes No How many schools were you recruited by? _____________ Have you won any specific awards ? (e.g. defender of the year) Yes No (What was is_______________________________________) Please feel free to list any ot her accomplishments you would like to mention not covered in this survey?

PAGE 124

113 APPENDIX L IRB STUDY APPROVAL

PAGE 125

114 LIST OF REFERENCES Berlyne, D. E. (1950). Novelty and curiosity as determinants of e xploratory behavior. British Journal of Psychology 41 :68-80. Bloom, B, (1985). Developing talent in young people : New York: Ballantine Books. Boeree, C. (1997). B.F. Skinner. MSN. h ttp://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/skinner.html. October 22, 2004. Cameron, J. Banko, K. & Pierce W. (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivatin: The myth continues. The Behavior Analyst 24 1-44. Comrey, A.L. & Lee, H.B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis, (2nd Ed.) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cannon, W.B. (1939). The wisdom of the body Second edition, New York: Norton. Carron, A., Hausenblas, H., & Eastabrooks, P. (2003). The psychology of physical activity McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewa rds on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18 105-115.l Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation New York: Plenum Press. Deci, E. L. (1976). Notes on the theory a nd metatheory of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 15 130-145. Deci, E. L. (1981). The psychology of self-determination Lexington, MA: Heaths. 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. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. ( 1999). A meta-analytic revi ew of experiments examining the effects of extrinsi c rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125 627-668.

PAGE 126

115 Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.) Improving academic achievement: Contributions of social psychology (pp.59-85). New York: Academic Press. Duda, J.L., & Treasure, D.C. (2001). Toward optimal motivation in sport: Fostering athletes’ competence and sense of control. In J.M. Williams (Ed.) Applied sport psychology: Personal growth to peak performance (4th Ed.) (pp.1-41). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Press. Fancher, R. (1973). Psychoanalytic psychology: The d evelopment of Freud's thought. New York: Norton. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson. Freeman, L. (1990). The story of Anna O. The woman who led Freud to psychoanalysis New York: Paragon House. Freud, S. (1914) On narcissism. The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14) London: Hogarth Press, 1957. (Originally published 1914). Freud, S. (1915). Instincts and their vicissitudes In Collected papers (Vol. 4) London: Hogarth, 1925 (Originally published, 1915) Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. New York: Norton, 1962. (Originally published, 1923). Goodenough, S. (2001). Perspectives on animal behavior (2nd edition). McGuire & Wallace: New York. Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. ( 2000). On the assessmen t of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The situational motivation scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175-213. Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P.H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology Vol. 4. New York: Wiley Hartmann, H. (1958). Ego psychology and the problem of adaptation New York: International Universities Press. Hebb, D.O. (1955). Drives and th e conceptual nervous system. Psychological Review, 62 243-254.

PAGE 127

116 Heckhauser, H. (1991). Motivation and action New York: Springer-Verlag. Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behavior. An introduction to behavior theory New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Isaac, W. (1962). Evidence for a sensory drive in monkeys. Psychological Reports, 11 175-181. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology New York: Holt. Kimiecik, J., & Harris, A. (1996). What is enjoyment? A conceptual/definitional analysis with implications for sport and exercise psychology. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 247-263. Koestner R.& Losier G. (2002). Distinguish ing three ways of being internally motivated: A closer look at introjection, iden tification and intrinsic motivation. Handbook of self-determination research New York: The University of Rochester Press. McAuley, E., & Tammen, V. (1989). The effects of subjective and objective competitive outcomes on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 84-93. Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press. Mischel W. (1973) Towards a cognitive, soci al learning reconcepti on of personality. Psychological Review 80 252-283. Model, E., Treasure, D., & Ntoumos, N. (2002). Motivation and performance predictors in elite level athletes : A self-determination perspective Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Conference. Tuscon, Arizona, p. 46. Model, E., (2004). The potential for dual motivations in sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (In Review). Montgomery, K.C. (1954). The role of exploratory drive in learning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47 60-64. Myers, D.G. (2001). Psychology today (Eds. 6 ). New York: Worth Publishers. Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames and C. Ames (Ed.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation, (Vol. 1). (pp. 39-73). New York: Academic Press.

PAGE 128

117 Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G.C., & Kavussa nu, M. (1998). Perceived motivational climate and cognitive and affective co rrelates among Norwegian athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16 153-164. Pelletier, L.G., Fortier, M.S., Vallerand, R.J., Tuson, K.M., Brier, N.M., & Blais, M.R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrin sic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The s port motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17 35-53. Pendergast, M. (1997). Victims of memory New York: HarperCollins. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983) Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 390-395. Reeve, J., & Deci, E. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic motivation. The Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 22 24-33. Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., & Deci, E.L. (1985). A motivational analysis of selfdetermination and self-re gulation in education In C. Ames & R.E. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu. New York: Academic Press. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-deter mination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55 1-31. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potenti als: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 52; pp. 141-166). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, New York: University of Rochester Press. Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia, J. G. (1999). Achievement motivation within a pressured society: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivati ons to learn and the politics of school reform. In T. Urdan (Ed.) Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol 11 (pp. 45-85). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Sarrazin, P., Guillet, E., and Cury, F. (2001) The effect of coach’s taskand egoinvolving climate on the changes in perc eived competence, relatedness and autonomy among girl handballers. European Journal of Sport Science, 1(4).

PAGE 129

118 Schultz, D.P. & Schultz, S.E. (1987). A history of modern psychology Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publications. Shapiro, D. (1981). Autonomy and rigid character New York: Basic Books. Skinner, B.F. (1938) The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis New York: Appleton-Century Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior New York: Macmillan. Skinner, B.F. (1966a). Preface to the seventh printing. The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis (7th printing) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Skinner, B.F. (1966b). About behaviorism New York: Vintage Books Edition. Statistical Product and Service Solutions. (2001). Sample Power [Computer software]. Chicago, IL. Sulloway, F. (1979). Freud, biologist of the mind New York: Basic Books. Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.K. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd Ed.) New York: Harper Collins. Thaker, S.B., Stroup, D.F., Branche, C.M., G ilchrist, J., Goodman, R.A., & Weitman, E.A. (1999). The prevention of ankle sprains in sports: A systematic review of the literature. American Journal of Sports Medicine 27 753-760 Treasure, D.C. (2003). Toward optimal motivation in sport: Fostering athletes’ competence and sense of control Applied Sport Psychology: Personal Growth to Peak Performance (Vol. 4). Mountain View California: Mayfield. Vallerand, R.J. (1997). Toward a hierarchic al model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experiment al Social Psychology, 29 271-290. Vallerand, R.J. (2001). A hierachical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G.C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise. (pp. 263-320). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Vallerand, R.J., & Losier, G.F. (1999). An inte grative analysis of in trinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 3 143-169. Wallace, E.R. (1983). Freud and anthropology: A history and reappraisal. New York: International Universities Press.

PAGE 130

119 Weinberg R.S. & Gould, D. (2003). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology Illinois: Human Kinetics Welker, W.L. (1956). Some determinants of play and exploration in chimpanzees. Journal of comparative and physiological psychology, 49 84-89. White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66 297-333. White, R.W. (1960). Competence and the psychosexual stages of development In M.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivati on (Vol. 8). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. White, R.W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory (Psychological Issues Series, Monograph No. 11). New York: International Universities Press. Williams, G.C., Rodin, G.C., Ryan, R.M., Gr olnick, W.S., & Deci, E.L. (1998). Autonomous regulation and long-term medica tion adherence in adult outpatients. Health Psychology, 17 269-276. Whyte, L.L. (1960). The unconscious before Freud. Sacramento California: Basic Books.

PAGE 131

120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH I, Eric Model, was born and raised in Toronto, Canada. My academic career started in honors psychology at Queens Univer sity in Kingston, Ontario. I transferred for my second year to the University of British Columbia in beautiful Vancouver, Canada. Here I completed a double major in human kinetics and psychology, graduating with a Bachelor of Human Kinetics in May of 1999. My Master of Science degree was conferred in May 2001 from Arizona State Un iversity, where I specialized in sport psychology. My final degree, a Doctor of Philosophy, was (hopefully) received from the University of Florida in May of 2005, with a specialization in sport and exercise psychology. Upon graduating in May, I will be getting married during the summer and going on a long honeymoon vacation.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010101/00001

Material Information

Title: Creation and Validation of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010101:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010101/00001

Material Information

Title: Creation and Validation of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010101:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE SCALE


By

ERIC DANIEL MODEL













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005






























Copyright 2005

by

Eric Daniel Model




























This dissertation is dedicated to those who see the world clearly but struggle to make
sense of it, and those who believed they knew their path, until they found a better way.
Always remember, you are who you want to be, and the greatest thing about the future is
the power you have over it.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation was possible due to the outstanding friends and loved ones I

leaned upon in its creation. I would like to first thank my mentor and advisor Dr. Chris

Janelle. He was a pillar in all aspects of this dissertation and my success at UF. I thank

him for his ear when times were rough, his generosity through each semester, and his

willingness to go the extra mile. He set the example of the professor I strive to be. I

would also like to thank my other chair, Dr. John Todorovich. His support, time, patience

and encouragement were the foundation I built upon through my Ph.D. I could not have

done it without him, nor would I have wanted to.

I would also like to thank several others for their significant role in this paper, as

well as making my stay at UF more enjoyable. I thank Dr. Mark Tillman, as our days

playing sports were the inspiration for this topic and I could not have asked for a better

committee member. Dr. Tim Vollmer, who was a saving grace in my time of need and his

help will not be forgotten. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to know him and this

product was vastly improved because of his input.

I would also like to thank those closest to me for their unwavering support over

my graduate career. My father and mother enabled me to become who I always wanted to

be and they are truly shining stars that helped guide my way. Tracey, the love of my life

and the best friend I could have, I thank her for believing in me. Lastly, I would like to

thank my dogs for keeping me sane, and all my friends for their input and support; I look

forward to having them call me Dr. Model.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TA BLE S ......... .......... ................................ ................ .... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ......................... ...... ........ ............ ix

A B ST R A C T ................. .......................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 M OTIVATION RECON SIDERED ........................................ ........................

Self-Determination Theory Strengths ...........................................................5
Self-D term nation Theory W weaknesses ........................................... .....................5
C current Stu dies ................................................ .......................... 6

2 L IT E R A TU R E R E V IE W .................................................................. .....................8

M o tiv atio n H isto ry ................................. ....................................................... ..... 8
H historical U nderpinnings................................................ ............... ............... 13
W illia m Ja m e s ................................................................................................... 1 3
S ig m u n d F reu d ........................................................................................................ 14
C lark H u ll ................................................................................................................ 17
B .F S k in n e r ................................................................1 8
Jam es W h ite ................................................................2 4
E dw ard D eci ............................................................................................. ....... 28
E dw ard D eci and R ich R yan ........................................................................ .......... 30
Self-determ nation theory ............................................................. .............30
M otiv action sty les ........................................................................ ......... 3 1
P sy ch o lo g ical n eed s....................................................................................... 3 4
Integration and internalization...................................35
O u tc o m e state s ............................................................................................... 3 5
R o b ert V alleran d ............................................................................................... 3 7
M motivation levels................................................37
Five postulates of the hierarchical model .....................................................38
C conclusion ...................................................................................................... ....... 39

3 THEORETICAL FORMULATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE
S C A L E (D M P S ) ................................................................................................... 4 1


v









E v olv ing M otiv ation .......................................................................... ................... 4 1
P reviou s R research ............ ... ............................................................ ......... ...... 42
D esign and A application ................................................ .............................. 44
M motivation Scales ................................... ... .. ......... ...............45
A chievem ent G oal T heory ......................................................................................47
Dual Continuum Perspective .......................................................................... 48
Duality M odel of M otivation 2004 .............. ...................................................50
P u rp o s e ................................................................................................................. 5 2
H ypotheses ................................................. 53

4 S T U D Y 1 ..................................................................5 4

M ethod ............. ....................... .......................................54
P articip ants .............. ................. ................................................................. 54
P u rp o s e 1 ........................................................................................................... 5 5
P an el of E x p erts ...............................................................55
P ilo t S tu d y ......................................................................................................... 5 5
F o cu s G ro u p ................................................................... .................................5 6
C o n stru ct V alid atio n ......................................................................................... 5 7
C riterion V alidation ............................................................58
S u b scale R eliab ility .................................................................................................5 9
Test-Retest Reliability ............. ....... ................. 59
R results ......... ................................ ............... 59
D M PS Scale V alidation ............................................... ............... 59
Step 1 Content Validation.............................. ..............................59
Step 2 Construct V alidation................................................. 64
Step 3 Criterion Validation ........ .......... .........................66
Step 4 Subscale Reliability .............. ...................................66
Step 5 T est-R etest R liability .......................................................67
Discussion ............. .......... ................................ 68
C on clu sion ............. ..................................................................................... 7 1

5 S T U D Y 2 ............. ..... ............. .....................................................................7 3

A athlete Study ................................................................... 73
P articip ants ............. .................................................................................... 7 3
M e a su re s ........................................................................................................... 7 3
P ro c ed u re ................................................................7 4
D ata a n a ly sis ..................................................................................................... 7 5
Results ................ ............. .................................76
P relim inary A nalyses ...........................................................76
Study Analyses ...... ................... ....... ...... .........77
Discussion ............. .......... ............................... 78

6 GENERAL DISCUSSION .............. ......... ..............83

Theoretical Considerations ........... ......... .........................83










P practical Im plication s ........................................................................ ...................83
L im itatio n s ..................................................................................................... 8 5
F utu re R research ................................................................86
C conclusion ...................................................................................................... ....... 88

APPENDIX

A CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 1........................ ......... .........90

B CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 2............................ ...... .........92

C CONTENT VALIDATION ROUND 3................................................94

D VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 1 WITH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS ..............96

E VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 2 WITH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS ............99

F VALIDATED DMPS VERSION 3 WITH OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS ...........101

G VALIDATED DM PS FINAL VERSION ...............................................................103

H FOCUS GROUP OPEN ENDED QUESTIONS ......................... ............... 105

I FINAL FORMATTING OF THE DMPS WITH SCORING ................................106

J SPORT MOTIVATION SCALE (SMS) ................................ ................................108

K D E M O G R A PH IC SH EE T .................................................................................. 111

L IRB STUDY APPROVAL .............. .... ...................... 113

LIST OF REFERENCES .......................... ......... .........114

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................ ........ ........ ........120















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1 M otivation P erspectives............................................................. ........................ 8

2-2 M otivation O verview O utline ......................................................... .....................9

4-3 Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 1............60

4-4 Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 2............62

4-5 Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 3............63

4-6 Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Construct Validation.........................................65

4-7 Criterion Validation Between the SMS and the DMPS ........................................66

4-8 Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS.....................67

4-9 Test-Retest Correlation Scores for the DM PS .............. ............ .....................68

5-10 Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS.....................76

5-11 Profile M eans for A athlete L evels .................................................. .....................77














LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

2-1 Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination Continuum................................ ............37

3-2 N icholl's Task/Ego Perspectives ........................................ ........................ 48

3-3 Potential Dual Continuum M otivation Profiles............................................ 49

3-4 Duality M odel of M motivation ......... ........................................................51

3-5 Profile C categories ......... ..... ..... .................................... .... 52

4-6 Scoring R ange Per Profile ............................. ........ ...............................58

5-7 G roup M otivation Profiles ............................................... ............................ 77

5-8 Scoring Range Per Elite Profile ........................................ .......................... 79

5-9 Example SMS Scoring Style ................................................. 80















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

CREATION AND VALIDATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE SCALE

By

Eric Daniel Model

May 2005

Chair: Christopher Janelle
Cochair: John R. Todorovich
Major Department: Applied Physiology and Kinesiology

Self-Determination Theory postulates that the satisfaction of three specific needs

in a given environment will produce one motivation style along a continuum of

motivation. Yet, in achievement environments such as sports competition, it seems

plausible that both extrinsic and intrinsic motivators drive motivation simultaneously.

The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the background leading to Self-

Determination Theory, the historical perspectives of how current motivation was

formulated and the contribution of the key research. This dissertation further theorized a

new model, The Dual Motivation Model, in which two types of motivation, intrinsic and

extrinsic, can concurrently promote our cognitions, affect and behaviors. This model was

utilized in establishing the creation of, The Dual Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS), an

assessment tool capable of determining dual motivations simultaneously in sport settings.

Two studies were undertaken to create and validate the DMPS, the first study utilized 452

athletes ranging from recreational to NCAA varsity elite. Five stages of validation









provided evidences the scale was valid and reliable. Specifically, a confirmatory factor

analysis provided successful validation of 5 subscales, two intrinsic in nature and 3

extrinsic. The second study further validated the DMPS by profiling 57 NCAA elite level

athletes from various sports. In direct contrast to self-determination theory's simplex

assumption, results from this study showed independence between the intrinsic and

extrinsic continuums. Further, 2 separate one-way ANOVA's indicated 4 different

motivation profiles that fluctuated with level of athlete performance, however, motivation

profiles were not statistically different across these groups.














CHAPTER 1
MOTIVATION RECONSIDERED

Why do we do the things we do? More specifically, what causes us to behave in a

particular fashion, how do we cope with a changing environment, and what stirs us to

action? One's sense of self is intertwined in these questions, yet to fully understand these

drives or motives is limited. The concept of motivation is explored due to its application

in all aspects of life. A broad definition of motivation conceived by Heckhauser (1991)

states, "It appears to be a force or a tendency that directs and amplifies, initiates and

terminates, coordinates and delineates the cognitive and motor behavior work (p. 2)."

Few other concepts can be operationalized to encompass such a broad and pervasive part

of life.

Motivation is the common thread across many researchers' attempts to answer the

question, "Why do we perform as we do?" In one's daily routine, rarely are motives or

drives questioned. Apparently, as time has progressed, the link between motives and

action has become clouded. The lack of this motive to behavior connection seems

contrary to basic human evolution, where primate beings could operate on drives for

hunger or safety, similar to many levels of the animal kingdom, (Goodenough, McGuire

& Wallace, 2001). In today's society, these everyday drives are no longer so clear,

making the motivation concept difficult to define despite its almost universal application

(Carron, Hausenblas, & Eastabrooks, 2003).

Motivation can be considered developmental in each individual (Nicholls, 1984),

and can be described as an energizing action, persistence in the face of failure, behavioral









pursuits, and/or a force from within (Deci & Ryan, 2002). As well, both cognitive and

physical elements can contribute towards the different forces of motivation. Given the

importance of motivation in one's thoughts, behaviors, and pursuits (Treasure, 2003), it is

often assumed that the understanding of this concept is well defined. However,

motivation continues to be a difficult element to categorize, promote, and foster in

laboratory and non-laboratory based settings. This difficulty has led researchers, coaches

and many others to continue the study of motivation and motivational theory.

Establishing the connection between motivation and behavior is a key issue

throughout motivation research (Deci & Ryan, 1985). One's past and present ability to

function seems to initiate with a basic motivation or drive. Whether these drives are

instinctual (e.g., a fight or flight response) (Cannon, 1939), physiological, (e.g., a

response to chemical balances indicating hunger), or cognitive (e.g., a strong work ethic

to achieve a promotion) (Mischel, 1973), the "motivation" behind the behavior is always

present. In the past, understanding motivation was often intertwined with drives and

forces. In today's understanding, these elements are terms to help define motivation and

are considered the basic roots of motivational theory.

With constant study has come constant evolution of the motivational construct.

Historically, motivation can be traced back to William James and Sigmund Freud. Freud

conceptualized motivation as an instinctual base and laid the groundwork for future

researchers. Although the concept of motivation is historically rich, the literature is filled

with disagreement and debate regarding what is correct and what needs updating; in

today's research, motivation has taken on many different forms. Some of the current

theories of motivation are The Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983),









Nicholl's Achievement Goal Theory (1984), Deci and Ryan's Self-Determination theory

(1985), Vallerand's Hierarchical Model of Motivation (2000), to name a few. Each

theory provides a different perspective attempting to explain "why" behavior occurs as it

does.

According to motivation theory, all behavior can be tied back to motives in some

sense (James, 1890). Going grocery shopping may be a weekly errand, yet the basis could

be tied to a biological motivation to avoid starvation. Examples of motivated behavior are

limitless, as motivation can seemingly be tied to all aspects of being human. In certain

life domains, such as sports, motivation seems more prevalent in one's perceptions and

actions. Achievement environments are rich in motivational issues due to the pertinent

goals attached to participating in such domains.

Although motivational forces may be confused as the cause for good or poor

performance, the relationship is typically indirect (Weinberg & Gould, 2003). Motivation

can be tremendously high and performance can still be poor. Conversely, motivation can

be extremely low and performance can soar to new heights. Despite this incongruence, if

one asks sport coaches, business executives, or an exercise leader to identify top required

factors to achieve success, motivation will usually be near the top.

Although outcomes and motivation are often intertwined, the relationship between

these two is not clearly evident (Treasure, 2003). Motivation is one of many factors

involved in producing outcomes. The first step in making any link between motivation

and performance is to understand the history of motivation, specifically self-determined

motivation. As an understanding of the background occurs, one can recognize the

elements important towards promoting beneficial motivation and behavior. A second step









must also occur before attempting to apply motivation theory to behavior, specifically,

motivation must be individualized to each person so the appropriate profile can be

exposed, understood, and then applied.

To accomplish these goals, assessment, disproof, and revision of established

theory is needed. Utilizing Self-Determination Theory (SDT), one can recognize the

strengths and limitations of existing motivation research in the sports field. Self-

Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is a pervasive approach used to explain the

influence of intrinsic interest and extrinsic rewards on behavior. The core motivation

styles are operationalized themes or styles of motivation that create a model or single

continuum of motivation. This continuum has three main motivation orientations,

motivation, extrinsic motivation and intrinsic motivation. Amotivation is the first point

on the continuum and represents an individual who simply lacks motivation. Extrinsic

motivation is the middle spot on the continuum and represents externally based

motivation. An extrinsic individual typically performs actions for motives external of the

self. The top point on the continuum is intrinsic motivation, also considered the ideal

motivation according to Self-Determination Theory. Often people who are intrinsically

motivated are said to be self-determined in behavior. Each different motivation along this

continuum can have varied effects on our thoughts, behaviors and feelings. Motivation

shifts along this continuum by the satisfaction of three psychological needs. The higher

the degree of perceived satisfaction for these needs, the higher the level of intrinsic

motivation experienced (Treasure, 2003). Higher levels of intrinsic motivation are in turn

reported to promote greater potential achievement behavior.






5


Self-Determination Theory Strengths

Strengths of self-determination theory are its ability to accommodate internal

forces, external influences, the social environment, and a variety of potential motivation

styles. It is important to appreciate that SDT is a powerful theory since its inception in

1985. The core elements of the SDT, specifically the single continuum of motivation,

have remained the same for almost 20 years. However, the current SDT continuum

restricts the classification of motivation one experiences to one score on the continuum.

This means that only intrinsic or extrinsic motivation can be active within any given

environment. This restrictive classification system has been supported by several means

since the inception of the theory almost 20 years ago.

Self-Determination Theory Weaknesses

First, previous research identifies one active motivation while other alternative

motivations are reduced or ignored. Second, the interpretation of the theory design is

flawed, leading to flawed motivation conclusions. Third, past and current motivation

scales distinguish our motivation orientations as one style, where the motivation outcome

is capable of only one label. Scales such as the Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier, 1996)

and the Situational Motivation Scale (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000) provide a

single score of motivation representing a level, or rough category of intrinsic/extrinsic

motivation that the individual is operating within. Higher scores refer to better motivation

styles (intrinsic), lower scores refer to extrinsic or motivation.

Because the continuum is designed as a single construct, motivation is represented

as a single concept (Deci & Ryan, 1985, Pelletier et al., 1994). Although intrinsic and

extrinsic motivations offer different incentives (Black & Weiss, 1992; Chantal, Guay,









Dobreva-Martinova, Vallerand, 1996), the current single continuum does not allow dual

motivation representation. This restricts many possible influences (e.g., external desire

for fitness, forced pressure to participate) and behaviors from being understood in sports,

teaching, and other achievement environments, as only one motivation orientation is

possible within the limitations of current SDT.

Recognizing that SDT struggles to explain a full range of motivation is an

important step in motivation research. SDT and SDT scales currently lack the capacity to

represent all environmental influences from multiple motivation orientations. This has led

to limited clarity in various situations and restrictive labels for motivation. Similar to any

research paradigm, exploring the potential for new and better models is essential. By

recognizing the potential dual motivation continuums offer, we can alleviate the holes

currently found in Self-Determination Theory research. By having two continuums

operate independently of one another, each motivation can theoretically exert its own

influence on behavior. This eliminates the restrictive labeling utilized in SDT, replacing it

with individualized motivation profiles established for each environment.

Current Studies

To overcome the entrenched obstacles in current motivation thinking, a new

model of motivation is proposed and two studies will be undertaken. The new model is

called the Duality Model of Motivation and although it builds upon the current SDT

model, it will delineate intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as individual influences, each

represented along separate continuums. This model will then be the foundation for study

one, the creation and validation of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS). The scale

will provide an assessment of the delineated motivations. This evolution will allow









multiple motivations to simultaneously be evaluated to help coaches, teachers, and others

promote potential performance behaviors. By having two continuums operate

independently, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be independently distinct towards

influencing behavior.

As such, study two is designed to build upon the individual profile capability of

the DMPS by examining the profiles of elite level NCAA athletes within the respective

sports environment. Since no scales to date can determine multiple influences of

motivation, the opportunity to verify a profile of dual motivation influences with a unique

population of athletes is a key step to entrenching the Duality Model of Motivation and

the Dual Motivation Profile Scale in the SDT sport research. The combination of these

two studies provides the opportunity to assess and verify a dual profile of motivation, yet

maintain the strengths of previous theory. Simply put, the creation and validation of the

Dual Motivation Profile Scale and the application of the scale with elite athletes, helps

address the limitations currently found in self-determination research. Only with a tool

designed, tested and validated for assessing dual continuums can SDT evolve and grow.

By creating and testing a new model of motivation, this dissertation hopes to stimulate

future research towards a greater understanding of multiple motivations during sport

behavior.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Motivation History

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) is currently a dominant

perspective in motivation research. From its inception in 1985 and subsequent

modifications (Vallerand, 1999), the key aspects of the theory have never been

challenged. The core ideas can be traced to past research and key literature. The influence

of each past researcher helped promote new insights and ideas that have led to the

modern-day theory of Self-Determined motivation. Further, the past literature provides

insight into areas where the current theory of motivation may be improved. The following

table (Table 2-1) outlines each researcher's ideas, the progression of motivation

perspectives, and the elements of motivation that evolved through time.

Table 2-1. Motivation Perspectives


Researcher

William James

Sigmund Freud

Clark Hull

James White

Edward Deci

Edward Deci and Rich Ryan

Robert Vallerand


Time Frame

1887-1910

1914-1928

1940-1955

1959-1967

1971-1981

1985-1997

1999-2004


Proposed Theory Idea

Interests and Attention

Instinct Theory

Hullian Drive

Effectance Motivation

Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Self-Determination Theory

Hierarchical Model


I I









Table 2-1. Continued
Researcher

William James

Sigmund Freud

Clark Hull

James White

Edward Deci

Edward Deci and Rich Ryan

Robert Vallerand


Since the numerous contributions to motivation and Self-Determination Theory

are expansive, an outline of each researcher is presented below (Table 2-2). These tables

offer each vantage point of history, theory, and theory connections towards the evolution

of motivation. From Freud's introspective and assumption-based ideas to more modern

empirical research, each time frame helps show how the progression of self-

determination ideas occurred. By understanding how motivation theory came to be, one

can recognize the areas in need of improvement, hence leading to "The Duality Model of

Motivation." Each researcher, their background, and the tenets behind their theory are

further presented in the forthcoming section.

Table 2-2. Motivation Overview Outline


Proposed Theory Tenets

* Explored motivation through
the concept of instincts

* Was convinced that interest
played a vital role for our attention
and consequent behavior

* Inspired Freudian theory of how
instincts were linked to behaviors

* Proposed that instincts, like
motivation, require energy direction
and 'may' only lack persistence


Theory Connections


* Laid the foundation for
future motivation theory

* Created an initial link from
attention and motivation to the
A, B, C's of sport psychology
o Affect
o Cognition
o Behavior


Contribution to Theory Evolution

Initial link towards motivation

Behaviorist Perspective leading to Drive Theory

First link to extrinsic motivation

First link to intrinsic motivation

Motivation is expanded to include psychological factors

Motivation is adaptive to the person and environment

Motivation is proposed to operate on several levels


Researcher
William James









Table 2-2. Continued


Researcher

Sigmund Freud


Proposed Theory Tenets


* Introduced the motivation concept
of Drive Theory (1940)

* Changed the motivation perspective
from Freud's pleasure seeking to
a more total picture

* Proposed that Drive reduction causes
reinforced behavior
o i.e., motivation is the desire
to reduce drives to a state of
neutrality

* Could not to explain exploratory
behavior with Drive theory

* Left a hole in research for what
caused motivation in the first place


Proposed Theory Tenets


* Proposed that our actions might
be related to two main drives,
sex and aggression

* Combined sex and aggression
drives into Instinct Theory
(Freud, 1914)

* Speculated that the conscious and
unconscious mind were both key
issues in our behavior

* Postulated that we are
gratification-seeking beings

* Theorized that two instincts formed
our entire motivational process
o Life Instinct
o Death Instinct


.9


Theory Connections


* Expanded Freud's sex and
aggression drives to include
hunger and thirst

* Placed motivation as a
singular physiological
dimension called drives

* Linked motivation to both
internal and external
influences

* Pulled together Freud's
philosophizing with an
empirical basis for support


Theory Connections


* Linked Instinct theory to the
psychological processes of
pleasure seeking

* Tied motivated behavior to
our mind and our perceived
environment

* Restricted all human behavior
as motivated instincts linked
to physical needs, thereby
eliminating internal influence
on behavior


Researcher

Clark L. Hull









Table 2-2. Continued


Researcher

Edward Deci


Proposed Theory Tenets


* Provided an in depth criticism of
Hull's Drive theory

* Proved that exploration begets
more exploration not diminished
drives

* Proposed innate energy as
responsible for exploration and
open behavior

* Explained how motivation could
be active rather than passive

* Eliminated reinforcement as
necessary for motivation


Proposed Theory Tenets


* Included cognitions, perceptions and
emotions into motivation theory

* Explored intrinsic motivation and
the value of choice

* Explored various environments and
rewards on motivation styles

* Developed Cognitive Evaluation
Theory

* Explained extrinsic rewards in two
means, controlling and informational


Researcher

James White


Theory Connections


* Developed current form of
intrinsic motivation

* Laid Groundwork for Self-
Determination Theory


Theory Connections


* Criticized the external basis or
external origins of drives

* Built upon Freudian idea of
Independent Ego Energy as
internal motivation

* Created first non-drive based
motivation, now considered
the original intrinsic
motivation

* Accommodated both extrinsic
and intrinsic forces again
linking to SDT









Table 2-2. Continued


Researchers) Proposed Theory Tenets

Edward Deci & Rich Ryan

Proposed Self-Determination
Theory of motivation

Emphasized the experience of
choice, having choices and making
choices

Broke motivation into two parts
intrinsic and extrinsic

Determined motivation from three
psychological needs
o competence
o autonomy
o relatedness

Proposed motivation to fall along a
single continuum


Proposed Theory Tenets


* Expanded SDT into The
Hierarchical Model of motivation

* Posited that motivation operated
at three levels
o Global
o Contextual
o Situational

* Proposes five postulates key to
the Hierarchical model and
motivation


Theory Connections


* Included elements of internal
and external influences and
psychological components.

* Built upon Freud, Hull, and
White to create a flexible
motivational theory


Theory Connections


*Little research has examined
the impact of motivation on
contextual levels of
performance, specifically in
athletics


Researcher

Vallerand









Table 2-2. Continued


Proposed Theory Tenets


Model


* Examined the limitations of current
motivation theory

* Proposed dual continuums to operate
independently and concurrently

* Examined the parallel nature of dual
continuums

* Proposed multiple combinations of
dual continuums to accommodate
different environments

* Termed new theory the Duality
Model of Motivation (DMM)


Theory Connections


* Challenged the single
classification of motivation by
SDT

* New model helps explain
multiple influences within one
environment


Historical Underpinnings

William James

James, who started as a physiology teacher, switched to psychology for several

years and eventually gravitated to philosophy. Most sport psychology literature is traced

back to William James and our first link in the motivation research evolution is no

exception. In 1890, an article "What is an Instinct?" proposes several concepts pertaining

to motivation. Freud later revives the concept of instinct promoting behavior, but its

origins lie in James' definition.

Instinct is usually defined as the faculty of acting in such a
way as to produce certain ends, without foresight of the ends,
and without previous education in the performance. That instincts,
as thus defined, exist on an enormous scale in the animal kingdom
needs no proof. They are the functional correlatives of structure. (p. 23)


Researcher









James ascertained that interest played a vital role for attention and consequent

behavior (James, 1890). This assertion is similar to current Self-Determination Theory

(SDT) thinking, whereby it is claimed that one's cognitions and environment can

influence behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Although attention is distinct from motivation,

this seems to be a starting point for motivations roots. James theorized the details of how

instincts may serve us in behavior. In the following quote one can see the themes that

future philosophers and researchers, Freud in particular, capitalize upon in explaining

behavior.

A very common way of talking about these admirable
definite tendencies to act is by naming abstractly the purpose
they subserve, such as self-preservation, or defense, or care
for eggs and young... and saying the animal has an instinctive
fear or death or love of life, or that she has an instinct of self-
preservation, or an instinct of maternity and the like. (p. 47)

Motivation within this definition is purely a basic system within an organism that allows

it to function and survive. Yet, the rudimentary elements or motivation (e.g., a drive or

motive to stay alive) can be seen. Instincts, like motivation, require energy direction and

may only lack persistence. These three characteristics are considered the key elements in

defining motivation (Ryan, Connell, and Deci, 1985).

James's contribution towards motivational literature may have been incidental, as

his intention does not seem to be to explain human behavior but animals, yet James's

work laid the foundation for future motivational theories.

Sigmund Freud

In the early 1900's, motivation is traced to Freudian research. In 1915, Freud

proposed that one's actions might be related to two main drives: sex and aggression.

These two forces combined into what Freud called Instinct Theory (Freud, 1923). Sex









and aggression were considered very primary or core elements to the individual and these

forces were both part of the pleasure-seeking component of a person (Fancher, 1973).

According to Freud, two primary drives, sex and aggression, are under control of

the "id." The id is a person's pleasure seeking component and tries to accrue as much

personal pleasure as possible. Few individuals repudiate the notion that people want to

experience pleasurable things. Self-Determination Theory similarly proposes that humans

are inherently motivated to seek out intrinsically enjoyable environments (Ryan & Deci,

2002). However, what each person finds pleasurable, how one seeks out pleasures, and

how 'motivated' an individual may be, can be very different (Boeree, 1997; Fancher,

1973).

Based upon Freud's experiences with Anna O., a patient who through

psychoanalysis was able to heal herself from multiple odd problems, Freud speculated

that the conscious and unconscious mind were key issues in our behaviors. Here,

motivation from ones actions became inherently tied to the mind and the perceptions

experienced from the environment (Freeman, 1990).

The conscious mind is what one is aware of at any particular moment, the present

perceptions, memories, thoughts, fantasies, feelings, etc. (Fancher, 1973). Working

closely with the conscious mind is another level of mental activity which Freud called the

preconscious, or what today might be called "available memory." Available memory

typically refers to anything that can easily be made conscious, the memories we are not at

the moment thinking about but can readily bring to mind (Boeree, 1997). Freud suggested

the largest part of the mind is the unconscious; it includes all things that are not easily









available to awareness, including many things that originate there, such as drives or

instincts (Pendergast, 1997).

Based upon the idea that we are pleasure-seeking beings, Freud postulated that we

were innately gratification-seeking beings and coined the idea of Instinct Theory (Whyte,

1960). According to Freud, the unconscious is the source of our motivations, whether

they are simple desires for food or sex, neurotic compulsions, or the motives of an artist

or scientist. Freud saw all human behavior as motivated by drives or instincts, which in

turn are the neurological representations of physical needs (Sulloway, 1979). At first, he

referred to these needs as life instincts. These instincts perpetuate (a) the life of the

individual, by motivating him or her to seek food and water, and (b) the life of the

species, by motivating individuals to have sex. The motivational energy of these life

instincts, the impetus that powers our psyches, he called libido, from the Latin word for

"I desire" (Boeree, 1997).

Freud later began to believe that the life instincts did not tell the whole story. He

believed the libido to be a lively thing allowing the pleasure principle to keep us in

perpetual motion. Yet, the goal of this motion was still to become satisfied and be at

peace, essentially to have no more needs (Wallace, 1983). The goal of life, Freud

postulated, was death. Freud began to believe that "under" and "beside" the life instincts

there was a death instinct. He began to believe that every person has an unconscious wish

to die. These two instincts were later named, "Eros" for life instinct and "Thanatos" for

death instinct (Sulloway, 1979). These two components formed the central elements of

Freud's motivational instinct theory. Simply put, Freud believed motivation stems from a









desire to pursue or avoid behaviors depending upon which of these two instincts is

stronger in manipulating our primary consciousness (Sulloway, 1979).

Within Freud's theory, all behavior was stimulated from two main drives, Eros

and Thanatos. However, the id was the primary stimulus for these drives. The id, in its

constant quest for gratification or pleasure, promoted these drives to induce behavior, in

turn reducing the drive. From this perspective, all motivated behavior is based upon

external drives and motives only. There is no allowance for internal influence on

behavior and drive reduction from internal sources. Hence, from Freud's theory,

explaining exploratory behavior would be difficult. Neither Eros nor Thanatos drives

could sufficiently explain random exploratory behavior (White, 1963). Essentially, Freud

contended that motivation results from purely external manipulation and promotes

behavior as needed.

Clark Hull

In the early 1940's, motivation research moved forward with the introduction of

Clark Hull's work. Hull introduced a new concept of motivation called Drive Theory

(Hull, 1943). Drive Theory was an expansion of Freud's thinking, yet Hull expanded

Freud's two drives of sex and aggression into sex, hunger, thirst and pain avoidance.

According to Hull's theory, behaviors are derived from one of these four drives (Hull,

1943). This theory, often called Hullian Drive Theory, changed the motivation

perspective from Freud's pleasure seeking to a more complex structure.

Hull classified motivation as a singular physiological dimension he called drives

(Hull, 1943). Since drives were specific, motivated behavior needed to be specific.

According to Hullian Drive Theory, a drive occurs and provides energy for action (e.g.,









hunger). Any behavior successful in reducing the drive is reinforced for future reference,

(e.g., eating). This creates an association between drive and behavior, so the drive

reduction process is, in essence, the guide for ones actions (Miller & Dollard, 1941).

Simply put, as physiological drives occur, one becomes motivated to reduce these drives

and return the system to a state of neutrality. According to Hull's theory, drives are

aversive, hence motivating all organisms to reduce their drive level to zero (Hull, 1943).

Simply put, this is the first connection to what later was termed extrinsic motivation.

Hull's Drive theory was the first motivation theory to pull together components of

Freud's philosophizing, an emphasis on behavior, and an empirical basis for support. In

fact, Freud's theory was initially named Drive Theory and was later changed to its

contemporary name, Instinct Theory. Building upon Freud's theorizing, Hull's Drive

Theory took instinct theory and applied it to a behaviorist approach (Schultz & Schultz,

1987).

B.F. Skinner

To have a basic understanding of behaviorism (Skinner, 1938) is important to the

overall evolution of motivation. Behaviorism in its simplest form is the philosophy of

science as it relates to behavior (Skinner 1976). Often behaviorism is misunderstood and

underappreciated in its impact and influence on motivation research. This

misunderstanding is based on preconceived notions and misconceived ideas. Behaviorist

thinking does not restrict individuals as stimulus response beings, nor does it eliminate

cognitive elements from its paradigm. Behaviorism simply recognizes the contribution of

consequences towards behavior as reinforcement. Skinner was the first to recognize the

power of reinforcement on behavior and through his research a shift in psychology









occurred away from classical conditioning principles and onto operant conditioning

principles. Moreover, this shift led to the study of how reinforcements can change or

influence the future probability of behavior. This concept is a key aspect towards

understanding motivation.

According to B. F. Skinner, behaviorism is based on operant conditioning

(Skinner, 1976). As such, people essentially operate on the environment or interact with

the world. During this "operating" encounter, a kind of stimulus, called a reinforcing

stimulus, or simply, a reinforcer occurs. The reinforcer stimulus has the effect of

increasing behaviors that occur just before the reinforcer, often called the operant: "the

behavior is followed by a consequence, and the nature of the consequence modifies the

organisms tendency to repeat the behavior in the future" (Boeree, 1998; Skinner, 1976).

To reiterate, this process does not deny the power of the unconscious or

introspection. Although our behavior stems from specific reinforcers, the style of

reinforcer, and the reinforcer's respective influence for each person can be internal or

external and can influence all aspects of our environmental interaction.

For example, we can look at those features of behavior
which have led people to speak of an act of will, or a
sense of purpose, of experience as distinct from reality,
of innate or acquired ideas, of memories, meanings, and
the personal knowledge of the scientist, and of hundreds
of other mentalistic things or events. Some can be
"translated into behavior," others discarded as
unnecessary or meaningless. (p. 18)

According to Skinner, behavior can be strengthened via reinforcement delivered

either intrinsically or extrinsically. Having behavior linked to internal reinforcers is often

seen as contradictory in behaviorism. The above quote refers to the inadequacy of this

thinking. An important link between behaviorist theory and internal reinforcers comes









from the postulation of covert behaviors. Covert behaviors offer a "private condition

associated with public behavior but not necessarily generated by it (p. 52)." Essentially,

different reinforcers, including internal reinforcers, can affect various behavior, drives,

incentives, inhibitors, training, and more. When behavior can be attributed to the inner

workings of a person, one can start to understand why the behavior occurred. This

internal reinforcer is a direct tie to motivation thinking. Since motivation research

attempts to understand the link between why we do what we do, and the actual behavior

performed, the root or foundation of motivation theory is inherently linked to elements of

the behaviorist's paradigm.

The pervasiveness of reinforcement within Self-Determination Theory indicates

the importance reinforcers play in many aspects of motivation and behavior. Since

behaviorism ties reinforcement to such broad aspects of our being, it is important to

develop an understanding of the various reinforcers and reinforcement schedules

postulated by Skinner. The initial reinforcement Skinner presents is called continuous

reinforcement. This refers to a reinforcer being delivered every time a specific behavior is

performed (Skinner, 1976). The fixed ratio schedule of reinforcement indicates a fixed

ratio between behaviors and reinforcers: 3 to 1, 5 to 1, 20 to 1, etc. Afixed interval

schedule uses some sort of timing device in the reinforcing process. If a specific behavior

is implemented during a particular stretch of time, then the reinforcer is delivered. If no

behavior is performed, no reinforcer is given. An important element to this reinforcement

schedule is that only one reinforcer is provided per time session, irrelevant of the number

of proper behaviors performed (Skinner, 1976).









Skinner also looked at variable schedules. Variable ratio means a change in the

number of reinforcers given during each time session. For example, during a basketball

practice, 5 free throws may be required within 30 seconds before a reinforcer is given

(e.g., good work), however, during later practices, 15 free throws may be required, then

maybe 10, and so on. Variable interval also means changing the time period, first 55

seconds, then 35, then 50, then 25 and so on. In both cases, the variable environment

tends to keeps individuals highly vigilant. With a variable schedule, pacing oneself is

inadequate as it is difficult to establish a "rhythm" between behavior and reward

(Skinner, 1976). This is a common technique used in casinos and gambling, as one never

knows when a payoff is coming.

Behaviorist thinking is also very pervasive in influencing current thinking towards

motivation theory. A recent article by Cameron, Banko and Pierce (2001), specify key

points on how rewards influence intrinsic motivation, and provides a key piece of

literature for re-examining current Self-Determination Theory thinking. A crucial aspect

of the article is that reward contingencies do not necessarily have negative effects on

intrinsic motivation. This is contrary to a plethora of motivation research. In this paper,

reinforcers previously analyzed were re-examined from a behaviorist approach. The

researchers examined past investigations where an established negative effect from

rewards occurred. These conditions were reanalyzed using a meta-analysis to isolate

rewards causing negative outcomes. The results clearly show rewards and intrinsic

motivation to not be antagonistic concepts. What did result was that reward style and

activity type were key elements in the reward motivation relationship. These findings are









possible as behaviorist theory looks to examine specific reinforcers, rather than an overall

category or classification.

Modern behavior analysis, a field derived from Skinners work, is somewhat

distinct from current motivation theory i.e., Self-Determination Theory, insofar as the

qualitative difference between intrinsic and extrinsic reinforcement is not viewed as

inherent to the reinforcers intrinsic or extrinsic nature. Since current motivation theories

operationalize themes or styles of motivation to create models to work with, a degree of

arbitrary classification may be perceived from a behavior analysis perspective.

Irrespective of current differences however, behaviorism laid the foundation towards the

formation of current motivation theory.

Using a behaviorist approach, it is easy to see how self-determined motivation is

inherently tied to the concept of reinforcement. When looking at motivational theories

however, it has always been assumed that behavior can be reduced to a limited number of

physical or physiological drives (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Behaviorism attempts to examine

many specific elements, not necessarily broad or overall labels. Yet, in other psychology

domains, researchers attempt to operationalize motivation into simpler means, and hence,

some classification or grouping of reinforcers takes place. Hull's theory is culpable of

such reinforcement/motivation classification.

According to Hull's drive theory, as a physiological drive builds up, we can only

satiate or eliminate the drive by performing behaviors that reduce the drive state (Welker,

1956). Freud, for example, felt that sexual or aggression drives would lead us to play

sports or exercise to eliminate our frustrations, hence reducing the drive state. Yet, as

research with Hullian drive continued, certain holes began to develop. Researchers found









behaviors that seemed to be motivated from scenarios not tying back to any of Hulls' four

drives. For example, exploratory behaviors in animals did not fit nicely into Hull's theory

(Berlyne, 1950).

This criticism of drive theory, where organisms seek out high levels of

stimulation, or engage in reinforcing behaviors that do not reduce drives was problematic

for Hullian theory. For example, drive theory was not able to fully explain normal

developmental patterns, as exploratory behavior in children did not conform to Hull's

Theory principles (Hartmann, 1958). In current research, rats often prefer saccharine-

flavored water to plain water (Myers, 2001), even though saccharine does not satisfy the

hunger drive. We also see an example in humans who seek out high levels of arousal by

riding roller coasters at an amusement park (Myers, 2001). We can conclude then that

organisms seek out an optimal level of arousal as opposed to a complete lack of arousal.

Although Hull's theory helped thrust motivation research onto another level, it

failed to satisfy the question, what caused the initial spark of motivation in the first place?

Simply put, Hull's drive theory stated four drives that explained anything tied to those

four drives, but what about everything else? Shapiro (1981) highlighted this problem by

explaining that drives provide an urge for action but they do not provide any account or

theory for the action, essentially, the core problem was drive theory lacked an energizing

aspect (White, 1959). Both Freud's theory and Hull's theory shared this same weakness,

thus, a new step in motivation was needed to further an understanding of behavioral

scenarios.









James White

In 1959, White provided an in depth criticism of Drive Theory and its theoretical

approach. At the heart of this criticism was the external basis, or external origins of

where drive started. White did not easily accept that the motivation process, thus the

behavior process, was initiated and occurred externally to the self (White, 1959). White

used established research on the exploratory behaviors of animals (Montgomery, 1954) to

demonstrate his point. If behaviors were to reduce drives, exploratory behaviors were a

strange anomaly. Exploration was, and is seen in all animals, and becomes more

pervasive as exploration takes place. Essentially, exploration begets more exploration,

which rather than diminishing drives actually encourages them. This theory runs directly

counter to Hull's theory and therefore, motivation again became redefined.

Ironically, in moving forward in motivation theory, White's research was

stimulated by past ideas. White took an idea from Freud, specifically his "Independent

Ego Energy." This motivational force is based within psychoanalytic theory, referring to

the Ego as its own energy source (White, 1959). This is a major distinction from previous

thinking as the Ego was theorized as a derivative of the ID and only used to mediate

between the ID and environmental pressures. With this new concept of Independent Ego

Energy, the Ego is proposed to hold its own innate energy and is responsible for decisions

regarding exploration, play, and 'open' behavior (White, 1963). Ego energy was the first

non-drive based motivation to be proposed into theory and can also be considered the

origin for what is currently called Intrinsic Motivation. White termed his new theory

Effectance Motivation.









White proposed that an innate force for behavior was better suited to explain the

dilemmas and conflicts experienced in life, thereby tying elements of Freud's research

into his own. Effectance Motivation was considered an internal or innate energy source

that could motivate an assortment of behaviors (White, 1963). Effectance Motivation was

also considered a central component towards a child's development. Furthermore,

White's new theory was not constrained by external cues and reduction of drive energy.

The instigation of one's behavior was said to be innate and formed through the

developmental or pre adolescent years (White, 1960).

Motivation within White's theory took the form of an active process, whereby the

individual was involved in becoming motivated, rather than a passive bystander simply

responding without option. From White's Effectance Motivation theory, the overall

perspective of motivation changed towards an internal ongoing procedure where choice

was important. This view of motivation replaced the previous perspective as White's

motivational concept improved upon drive theory, yet it could also promote exploratory

behavior within motivational theory. We also see a connection to Self-Determination

theory as choice and the opportunity for choice is a key factor.

White's theory of Effectance Motivation explained how motivation within an

individual could be active rather than passive. The opportunity too not only respond to

stimuli or past reinforcement, but also initiate behaviors. For example, for something to

be considered a drive, there must be "a deficit or need in body tissues outside the nervous

system" that "energize behaviors that result in a consummatory response that reduces the

deficit and produces learning" (p. 56) (Deci & Ryan, 1985). From the previous theories,

exploration was not explainable and the established principles of what a drive was









restricted exploration from being its own drive. Within White's theory, exploratory

behaviors were defined differently. White believed living beings were inherently

motivated to be effective in operating within their surroundings. Specifically, White

called Effectance Motivation "the innate urge to actively engage with our environment to

make our influence felt, and to master tasks in a competent fashion" (p. 297). From

White's perspective, the feelings of competence or effectance that follows successful

dealings with the environment is reward enough for those specific behaviors to be

repeated, irrelevant of drive focused reinforcement.

The innate force in effectance motivation was promoted because White felt that

individuals want to 'feel' high efficacy in their interactions with people, places and

situations (White, 1959). This quest for efficacy was interpreted as a psychological need

for competence. The term competence referred to structures that effectance motivation

function within.

Competence is the accumulated result of one's interactions
with the environment, of one's exploration, learning, and
adaptation. In the broad, biological sense, competence refers
to the capacity for effective interactions with the environment
that ensure the organism's maintenance. (p. 31)

Within White's theory, competency provides the major force or energy for

behavior and, specifically, learning. Although competency from a biological perspective

is to promote the survival of the being, the pragmatic reality is to acquire feelings of

competence from effective interaction (Ryan & Deci, 1999). White realized that our

affective state could have an impact upon our motivation and our interaction with the

environment. This realization helped promote White's theory as a landmark piece of

work, but also established the importance of the psychological need, competence,









towards an individual being motivated. More specifically, towards an individual being

intrinsically motivated.

Social and experimental examples involving competence to promote motivation

are abundant. In sport settings anecdotal evidence is plentiful. Empirical evidence for the

psychological need of competence is also easily found. Competence has been shown in

many situations and many different environments as a key element in achieving high

levels of intrinsic motivation (McAuley, & Tammen, 1989; Ommundsen, Roberts, &

Kavussanu, 1998; Sarrazin, Guillet, Cury, 2001; Duda and Treasure, 2001). It is obvious

that White hit a major factor in establishing a key determinant of current intrinsic

motivation.

Simply put, the key element to White's theory was that no reinforcement was

needed to promote motivated behavior while interacting with the environment. One

should note that motivational alternatives to White's Effectance Motivation still relied

upon drives and ensuing drive reduction (Hull, 1943; Isaac, 1962; Montgomery, 1954).

Alternatives like optimal arousal theory (Hebb, 1955), or dissonance theory (Festinger,

1957), were externally reinforced theories similar to most motivation perspectives at the

time. Although this is a generalization (e.g., dissonance theory is cognitive in nature),

these motivation theories remain limited due to the ever-present function of

reinforcement. As such, little melding of internal motivation forces was possible until

White's theory broke from the normative behaviorist background.

White's proposal that behavior, although influenced by the environment, does not

have to be ruled by it, allows an element of choice in behavior, in turn, allowing

behavior to change and adapt even in repeated situations (White, 1959). By suggesting









that energy intrinsic to the individual can stimulate action, irrelevant of environmental

stimuli, a division in the types of motivation was created. Motivational sources could

now be (a) internal, operating solely from inner energy, (b) external, operating from

energy based upon drives or (c) external reinforced stimuli. These motivation ideals

could be viewed as a synergistic functioning of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Self-

Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

Edward Deci

In the early seventies an emphasis to include an individual's cognitions,

perceptions and emotions into the components determining motivation and human

behavior occurred. Specifically, intrinsic motivation was growing from its origin of

Effectance theory and started to resemble intrinsic motivation as is found in current Self

Determination Theory (Harter, 1978a). The core push during this time emphasized the

power of motivation being psychological, yet influencing behavioral tendencies.

Furthermore, the influence of motivation was innate and no longer required

reinforcement or external influence. This is the current intrinsic motivation used in Self-

Determination Theory.

Intrinsic motivation (IM) was an innate need to promote an organism towards

self-determination and competence (Deci, 1974). This motivational style is considered to

be internal and capable of energizing a large variety of behaviors. Intrinsic motivation

also furthered an understanding of exploratory behaviors because it allows for choice in

behavior by putting the power upon the individual. Although IM is innate like drive

theory, the similarities end there. Intrinsic motivation stipulates that individuals

inherently seek out optimal challenges in life and choose to pursue those opportunities









(Deci, 1971). Specifically, challenges that are neither too easy nor too difficult and which

provide the opportunity to be self-determined and demonstrate competence (Deci, 1974,

Deci & Ryan, 2002).

In 1971, Edward Deci looked at the effects of reward contingencies and other

influences upon intrinsic motivation. This line of research spawned a theory called

Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci, 1971). Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) expanded

our understanding of intrinsic motivation by explaining the effects of incentive based

motivation (Deci, 1976). This theory stated that extrinsic rewards could be interpreted in

two ways, as controlling or informational. If the individual recognized the extrinsic

rewards as informational, then intrinsic motivation would remain high; if rewards were

perceived as controlling however, intrinsic motivation would diminish (Deci, 1978).

This distinction within intrinsic motivation had strong implications on how the

environment was perceived and resulting behavior. Although a particular setting, (e.g.,

math class), may remain fairly stable over time, the interpretation of the feedback in this

setting (e.g., teacher comments, grade awarded) may influence the level of motivation for

the future (Deci, 1974, Treasure, 2003). However, this theory does not account for an

individual's sense of choice in activity or choice of actions. To accommodate for choice

in CET, cognitive interpretation soon became linked to the concept of autonomy (Deci,

1978). The factor of "choice" created new elements that Cognitive Evaluation Theory did

not seem capable of explaining. Instead the theory expanded and evolved into another

motivation perspective called Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985).









Edward Deci and Rich Ryan

As previously mentioned, an advancement of motivation theory arose in the

1980's called Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Self-Determination

Theory originated from Cognitive Evaluation Theory since understanding the relative

influence of intrinsic interests and extrinsic rewards on human behavior was important

(Carron, Hausenblas, Estabrooks, 2003)

According to Deci and Ryan (1985), self-determination was a human quality that

involved the experience of choice, having choices and making choices (Deci & Ryan,

1985). This is directly different from drives, reinforcement ideals, or any other pressures

or forces that may instigate behavior. As Deci and Ryan explain (1976, 1985, 1987) self-

determined action is key to intrinsic motivation, yet, is also part of certain extrinsic

motivations,

Self-Determination is more than a capacity; it is also a need.
We have posited a basic, innate propensity to be self-determining
that leads organisms to engage in interesting behaviors, which
typically has the benefit of developing competencies, and of
working toward a flexible accommodation with the social
environment. (p. 31)

As quoted, according to Self-Determination Theory, one may be acting self-determined

and one of two different motivational styles may result. Herein lies the key element, SDT

accommodates for the expansion of motivation into two parts, intrinsic motivation and

extrinsic motivation.

Self-determination theory.

Motivation in Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is a collection of ideas and

hypotheses, which includes intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, and the perception of

competence, autonomy, and relatedness within the environment. Self-Determination









Theory proposes that psychological needs and the social environment will determine one

of many potential motivations. Each different motivation can have varied effects on our

thoughts, behaviors and feelings. These motivations are believed to fall along a single

continuum and are all connected with each other (Deci & Ryan, 1985). According to

SDT, seven different motivations may be classified under three main categories.

The first motivation style, motivation, actually refers to a lacking of any

motivation and is the first and lowest category on the continuum (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

The next category is called extrinsic motivation, and it has four points along the

continuum. Extrinsic motivation is when one's drive or action are externally based. The

last category on the continuum is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is considered

the ideal motivation as one is said to be operating in a self-determined fashion or,

internally centered (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

Motivation shifts along a theoretical continuum by the satisfaction of the three

psychological needs, autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The higher the degree of

perceived satisfaction for these three needs, the higher the level of intrinsic motivation

experienced (Treasure, 2003). In any given scenario, our environment may provide a

different amount of need satisfaction. These differences have a close connection with the

type and style of motivation adopted along the continuum. This is the core idea that

defines SDT (Ryan, 1999).

Motivation styles.

A major element of SDT is the postulation that motivation can take several

different styles (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Each of the 3 main categories on the continuum can

be broken down into further subcategories. As one becomes less self-determined, one's









motivation orientation is assumed to move towards extrinsic motivation finally becoming

motivated. This movement along the continuum is based on the simplex assumption.

This assumption means, as we increase our need satisfaction, we move away from

extrinsic motivators towards intrinsic motivators. Conversely, as needs are less satisfied,

movement occurs in the opposite direction (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

The lowest form of motivation is motivation. Amotivation actually consists of

four different types (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The first motivation is referred to as one's

capacity-ability beliefs and results from a perceived lack of ability to perform a behavior.

The second motivation type, strategy-beliefs, focuses on the person's conviction that

any given strategy will not produce the desired outcome. The third motivation type

centers on capacity-effort beliefs. Specifically, the belief that the behavior is too

demanding and the individual does not want to expend the necessary energy to engage in

it. Lastly are helplessness beliefs. Here the perception is that one's efforts are moot

considering the enormity of the task to be accomplished (Vallerand, 1997; Vallerand,

2001).

Extrinsic motivation is defined as motivation contingent upon external reward,

threat, or outside pressures, (e.g., trophies, coaches or parents, financial considerations)

(Deci, & Ryan, 1987), extrinsic motivation can also be classified into four sections.

Starting from the most extrinsic to the least: 1) external motivation, this is when behavior

is regulated through rewards and constraints. 2) Introjected regulation is reflective of an

individual's initial step toward internalizing the reasons for one's actions. This process of

internalization however, is not truly self-determined due to a lack of true perceived

autonomy, (e.g., practicing only to show off one's skill). 3) Identified regulation is the









first type of extrinsic motivation orientation where behavior is engaged in due to choice.

Here, the behavior in question is highly valued and judged as important by the individual.

The behavior is therefore performed freely even if the activity itself is not pleasant. 4)

Lastly, integrated regulation is a choice driven motivation that represents a harmonious

part of the self (Vallerand, 2001). This motivation style although still classified as

extrinsic, is considered to be almost intrinsic and highly self-determined.

The last category of motivation on the continuum is intrinsic motivation. This

style of motivation has three subsections within it. Intrinsic motivation represents a state

of involvement in which activities are engaged in for the inherent pleasure or enjoyment

they bring (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Intrinsic motivation has also been proposed to have

three types, namely IM for knowledge, IM for accomplishment and IM for stimulation

(Vallerand, 2001). Intrinsic motivation to know is when activities are engaged in for the

satisfaction one experiences while learning, exploring, or trying to understand something.

Intrinsic motivation for accomplishment is focused on participating in activities for the

pleasure and satisfaction experienced while one is attempting to accomplish or create

something. Lastly, intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation is when the activity is

pursued to experience pleasant sensations associated mainly with the senses (Vallerand,

2001). Most people consider intrinsic motivation as the ideal style of motivation,

producing higher enjoyment levels and greater self-regulation of behavior (McAuley &

Tammen, 1989; Reeve & Deci, 1996; Vallerand & Losier, 1999; Williams, Rodin, Ryan,

Grolnick, & Deci, 1998).









Psychological needs.

According to Deci and Ryan (1985), people inherently desire to be intrinsically

motivated. This desire engenders individuals to seek out activities that promote this style

of motivated behavior. They also argue that the social conditions can facilitate or obstruct

ones participation, in turn, influencing the choice of activity as well as the motivation

orientation adopted in the activity. Specifically, if intrinsic motivation is to develop, the

environment must support the athlete's innate psychological needs (i.e., competence,

autonomy, relatedness). Simply put, motivation styles are, assumedly, determined by

whether or not ones psychological needs are satisfied.

The first need, competence, is the level of mastery one perceives or a sense of

being effective in one's interactions with the environment (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Satisfaction of competency can vary depending upon several antecedents, one being

social contextual events. These environmental cues can foster or diminish feelings of

competence within an individual. Autonomy is the degree to which one is in control of

one's actions or the opportunity for choice in participation. According to Self-

Determination Theory, people must not only experience competence to foster intrinsic

motivation, but they must also believe or perceive that their behavior is self-determined.

This psychological need plays a key role in facilitating intrinsic motivation. Because

competence will not foster intrinsic motivation without a sense of autonomy

accompanying it, autonomy is proposed to be the true element in achieving intrinsic

motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000, Model et al., 2002). Relatedness is defined as the degree

to which one feels a sense of"belongingness and connectedness with others" (Ryan &

Deci, 2000). Relatedness is also conceptualized as behaviors promoted, modeled, or









valued by significant others to whom one feels (or wants to feel) attached (Deci & Ryan

1985; Kimiecik & Harris, 1996).

Integration and internalization.

A major component of the SDT continuum is that movement upon the model is

largely from the psychological need of autonomy. The autonomy need can best be

understood by understanding the elements that determine the level of autonomy

perceived from an environment. These two elements are integration and internalization.

To explain, ones motivation orientation is closely tied to the level of internalization and

integration that occurs, intrinsic motivation representing the highest level of integration

and internalization (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, as the value of a given activity

increases, the internalization and integration of that practice experience also increases.

Internalization refers to taking in a value or guideline from the environment, (e.g.,

participating in sports is beneficial), while integration refers to a further transformation of

that value or guideline into one's own belief system (i.e., sport is an important part of my

life), subsequently allowing it to emanate from the individuals own sense of self (Ryan &

Deci, 2000). If the activity (value) is deemed positive, the tendency may be to have the

activity become internalized and integrated into one's sense of self. Activities that hold

negative value beliefs, however, may still be assimilated into our self construct due to

perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness that accompany them (Deci &

Ryan, 1985).

Outcomes states.

Once motivation orientation is established, it then has the power to influence our

cognitions, affect and behavior. Cognitions, which are thoughts or a process of knowing,









have a top down influence on behavior. It is these psychological or cognitive processes

that must first be satisfied to achieve self-determined behavior. Thus, once one is

behaving in an intrinsic fashion, more choice is perceived in ongoing behavior, a higher

sense of enjoyment in actions is common and a greater interest in potential performance

is ordinary.

Affective states are states of feeling or temporary emotion. These "feel" states can

influence behavior in multiple ways. First, as affect increases with ones level of intrinsic

motivation, interest would also improve (Treasure, 2003). Increased interest should

inherently promote increased dedication and persistence towards further performance

(Vallerand, 1997). A second potential affective influence for improving behavioral

outcomes could come from the increase the affective state may cause on arousal.

Increased arousal could cause increased energization towards the behavior leading to

improved performance (McAuley & Tammen, 1989).

Putting all these elements together, we start to get a picture of how the theory

works. The key element is the motivational differences that may be established within an

individual. These different motivations are then proposed in SDT to fall on one

continuum (Figure 2-1).

The continuum model is proposed by Deci and Ryan to be influenced by the

psychological need of autonomy, competence and relatedness. As autonomy is key,

increased thoughts and beliefs regarding choice of participation and actions will promote

increased competence and overall need satisfaction. By fostering autonomy and intrinsic

motivation, we are able to promote higher levels of performance, physical education,










medication adherence and academic achievement (McAuley & Tammen, 1989; Reeve &

Deci, 1996; Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, & Deci, 1998).



Behavior Nonself-determined Self-deermined



Motivation Amrnotivation Extrinsic Motivation ( Intrinsic Motivation


Regulatory Non-Regulation Ext Introjeed Idecntified Integrated Intrinsic Regulation
Styles Regulation Regulation Regulation Regulation




Perceived Impersonal External Somewhat Somewhat Internal Internal
Locus of External Internal
Causality

Relevant Non-intentional, Compliance, Self-control, Pcrsonal Congruence, Interest,
Regulatory Non-valaing, External Ego-involvement, importance. Awareness, Enjoyment,
Processes Incompetence. rewards and Internal rewards Conscious Synthesis Inherent
Lack of control punishments and punishments valuing with self satisfaction


Figure 2-1. Deci & Ryan's Self-Determination Continuum

Robert Vallerand

In 2000, Vallerand expanded Self-Determination Theory into the Hierarchical

Model of Motivation. Although SDT is still a dominant force in today's research, this

evolution of SDT allowed motivation to operate on several new levels. Vallerand (1997)

took the basic continuum of the SDT model and successfully expanded it into his

Hierarchical Model of Motivation. This model defined motivation along the same SDT

continuum, but posited that motivation operated at three levels. These were the global

level, the contextual level and the situational level (Vallerand, 2000).

Motivation levels.

Global motivation is similar to a personality trait. It refers to a general

motivational orientation the individual carries (i.e., intrinsic, extrinsic), when dealing









with the environment. It can be thought of as a relatively stable characteristic operating

within each individual's personality. Contextual motivation is representative of a specific

life domain (e.g., sports, education). It is the second or middle level in the hierarchy and

refers to one's usual motivational orientation in a specific context. Contextual motivation

assists in our understanding of the variation in people's behaviors in different

context/areas of life (Vallerand, 1997, 2000). Situational motivation represents the lowest

level in Vallerand's hierarchy. It refers to the direct state, or right now level, where the

motivation experienced is due to the immediate activity engaged in (e.g., shooting free

throws at 2:15 pm).

Five postulates of the hierarchical model.

Vallerand (2000) further proposes five postulates, which are key to the

hierarchical model. The first postulate indicates that all three motivation types, 1)

intrinsic motivation, 2) extrinsic motivation, and 3) motivation should be examined

when measuring motivation. He proposes that all three of these motivations play a crucial

role in an individual's underlying psychological processes. By examining all three

motivation types, one can develop a more complete understanding of human behavior.

The second postulate states that intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and

motivation exist in each individual at the global, contextual, and situational levels.

Vallerand argues that examination of the influences of each motivation type at each level

allows greater precision and refinement towards understanding of motivation.

The third postulate states that motivation at any level results from two potential

sources. The first are social factors such as parents, coaches, and environmental

conditions (e.g., crowds), while the second is motivation being transferred from a higher









level in the model. Simply put, global motivation can affect contextual motivation, and

contextual motivation can influence situational motivation. It is also assumed that the

impact of social factors are mediated at each level by perceptions of competence,

autonomy, and relatedness (Vallerand, 2001). If one is lower in any of these perceptions,

motivation at that level is predicted to be less self-determined.

Vallerand's fourth postulate indicates that there is a recursive or bottom up effect

in the model. Specifically, lower levels in the hierarchy can influence the level

immediately above in the model. Vallerand also includes the specificity effect in his

fourth postulate. This refers to situational motivation at a precise point in time.

Motivation occurring toward this specific activity should mainly be affected by

contextual motivation and situational factors occurring at that very moment.

The fifth and final postulate states that motivation leads to important behavioral,

cognitive, and affective consequences (Vallerand, 2001). At the elite sport level, a most

important consequence is performance. However, little research has been conducted to

examine the impact of motivation styles/orientation on athletic performance.

Conclusion

Through each researcher's assumptions and hypotheses on motivation, a more

refined perspective in theory has emerged. However, recent thinking and research

(Model, 2002) has postulated an alternative theory that allows for multiple motivations

and a motivation profile. This new theory of motivation, called The Duality Model of

Motivation, may offer new insights into our behavior, motivation theory, and promoting

behavior. The essential step for exploring the dynamics of the Duality Model of

Motivation is through the formation of a new scale, designed to demonstrate an






40


individual's motivation profile. The potential research and application this scale could

offer, extends to sport teams performance, team cohesion, exercise maintenance, health

choices, coaching techniques, and even elite sports athlete recruiting.














CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FORMULATION OF THE DUAL MOTIVATION PROFILE SCALE

Evolving Motivation

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) began by examining

environmental effects on intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1974), and expanded into a broad

motivational theory of motivation. This may be due to the difficulty in operationalizing

the motivation concept (Heckhauser, 1991). Motivation involves energy, direction and

persistence. However, the concept of motivation can be understood in many different

ways. For example, one's passion for participation or drive, the effort involved,

continuing persistence, overcoming adversity, dedication, and many more terms could all

be involved in motivation (Carron, Hausenblas, Eastabrooks, 2003). As such, it is easy to

understand why it is difficult to fully explain motivation from any one line of thinking.

Although motivation can be viewed from multiple theoretical perspectives, Self-

Determination Theory provides an immensely comprehensive view of motivation in

almost any context. Self-Determination Theory can be applied to work, sport, education,

health, and many other achievement contexts. The theory accommodates individual

differences, the environment, and perceptions from the surroundings (Vallerand, 1997). It

is flexible enough to accommodate various personal differences through differing

psychological needs and is accommodating in its motivation classification system. Few

other theories can offer this type of widespread flexibility. SDT has therefore become one

of the primary theories used in sport and exercise motivation literature, as well as many

other life domains.









Previous Research

Until recently, past research has labeled one distinct motivation force as ideal for

behavior, ignoring the potential forces other orientations offer (Koestner & Losier, 2002).

Since intrinsic motivation has been viewed as the ideal motivation style (Deci & Ryan,

1985; Treasure, 2001) and extrinsic as a lower level of self-determined motivation,

extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are essentially antagonistic, or competing sources of

influence. This is sometimes called the simplex assumption, whereby, if one source of

motivation was promoting behavior another could not be (Deci, 1974). In fact, a recent

meta-analysis (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) examined the influence of extrinsic

influences on intrinsic motivation and results indicated a negative trend between the two.

Research has repeatedly found intrinsic motivation to promote more adaptive and

beneficial behavior towards sport enjoyment (Reeve & Deci, 1996), medication

adherence (Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, & Deci, 1998), and educational

achievement (Grolnick, & Ryan, 1987). Previous research has also shown intrinsic

motivation to provide a higher degree of activity dedication and persistence in activities

(Deci, 1981, Vallerand & Losier, 1999).

Despite the past support for the SDT continuum, the evidence seems contradictory

to "anecdotal" and current research. A review by Koestner and Losier (2002), explored

SDT motivations to distinguish the various intrinsic and extrinsic motivators we may

experience. In this review, the researchers attempt to modernize the view of extrinsic

orientations, introjection and identified regulation, with a non-antagonistic of intrinsic

orientations. The review further attempts to promote both intrinsic and extrinsic

orientations as beneficial towards outcome behaviors. Other recent research by Cameron









et al. (2001) has also supported this idea, whereby rewards may have a positive influence

on performance, or at minimum, not detract from intrinsic motivation. This study

provides empirical power towards re-examining the SDT continuum and evaluating the

potential for multiple influences of motivation. To date however, only one study has

occurred to challenge existing theory and the single continuum classification.

Research conducted by Model et al. (2004) attempted to promote a dual

motivation idea into mainstream literature. The study attempted to show multiple

motivations are active in promoting achievement behaviors. One hundred and fourteen

university students enrolled in sport classes (e.g., flag football) at a large southeastern

university completed the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS)(Pelletier et al., 1995) to assess

contextual sports motivation. Data were also collected on each student's self-appraisal of

his/her course satisfaction. The sub-scales of the Sport Motivation Scale were calculated

individually to determine specific motivational orientation scores. Stepwise regression

analyses were utilized to predict course satisfaction from the specific motivation

orientations. Results specifically supported intrinsic and extrinsic continuums as

independently predicting course satisfaction at the beginning and end of the course.

Further, the correlation relationship between motivation style and course satisfaction was

positive across all SMS subscales. These results support the notion that multiple

motivations are active in sports and both should be assessed independently.

Further anecdotal evidence has also supported this study. At the professional

level, athletes are paid to perform in their particular sport. An intrinsic ideal is often

demonstrated by their desire to play and their love of the game. Yet, these athletes also

demonstrate a large extrinsic incentive to perform from pressure or rewards. Further,









monetary contracts are often incentive based upon performance and the very nature of

playing for pay is extrinsically slanted.

Daily examples come from the recreational athlete. Although recreational athletes

do not get paid and participate largely from intrinsic enjoyment, extrinsic motivators are

still present in this environment. For example, competition and the experience of winning

is an extrinsic influence, even the achievement associated with participation is extrinsic.

Obviously sport contains many inherently extrinsic properties, however, the success or

failure to meet these extrinsic demands does not necessarily diminish an athlete's

intrinsic motivation less they cease competing. The idea presented is not that extrinsic

motivation is more dominant than intrinsic, simply that both motivations pervasively

influence behavior.

Design and Application

A second key reason why one SDT continuum score has pervaded motivation

research comes from the design and application of the theory. To understand this

limitation one must look at two primary components of SDT, the principles of

internalization and integration and the satisfaction of the psychological needs. As

discussed, the level of internalization and integration of ones psychological needs and the

environment are key elements in SDT. These components are fundamental in the

formation of the SDT continuum as they synthesize the different components determining

motivational orientation (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Since these processes essentially combine

any source that may be an influence, e.g., psychological needs, environment, etc., this is

the funnel point in determining different motivation classifications. Although multiple

motivations may exist prior to this point, the theory fuses them into one motivation









orientation output, thus eliminating all but the predominant motivation. Again, this part

of the theory is often referred to as the simplex assumption. Hence, if one is highly

intrinsically motivated, being highly extrinsically motivated is not concurrently possible.

This idea has recently been challenged in the motivation research (Model et al., 2002,

Model, 2004).

The second design and application limitation comes from the interpretation of

need satisfaction. When examining SDT, a key element comes from the satisfaction of

the three psychological needs. As these needs are further satisfied, greater intrinsic

motivation results. Comparatively, greater need satisfaction does not produce greater

extrinsic motivation. To explain, need satisfaction increases ones motivation to become

self-determined. Because extrinsic motivation is not considered truly self-determined,

extrinsic motivation only results when needs are not fully self-determined. This fact is

defined by the proposed simplex assumption. This existing interpretation limits extrinsic

forces to be secondary to intrinsic motivations. Koestner and Losier (2002), Cameron and

Banko (2001), and Model (2004) have shown and argued that extrinsic motivation can be

independently beneficial towards behavior. Since the two motivations are seen as polar

opposites rather than beneficially parallel, the current theory fails to allow for the benefits

extrinsic motivation may provide.

Motivation Scales

A final limiting influence currently restricting a multiple motivation perspective

are the scales utilized in the research. There are several excellent motivation scales

currently in the research that evaluate motivation in sport and society. The Perceived

Autonomy-Supportive Climate Questionnaire(s), the Self-Regulation Questionnaire(s),









the Treatment Motivation Questionnaire, the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, and the Self-

Determination Scale to name a few. One predominant scale used in conjunction with

SDT is the Sports Motivation Scale (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Brier, & Blais,

1995). The Sport Motivation Scale is specifically important towards this research as it

was designed to measure contextual sports motivation and it is the predominant tool

when determining ones sport motivation. The questionnaire contains seven motivations

fashioned after the SDT continuum. Three of the constructs are intrinsic (i.e., to know, to

accomplish, to experience), three are extrinsic (i.e., external, introjected, identified

regulation), and the last is motivation.

The validity of this scale is not in question; it is the method of calculating and

reporting motivation that is problematic. Each subscale score for the SMS is obtained by

calculating the mean score for that subscale. This is the first step in calculating an overall

measure of motivation for all seven subscales, also known as the Relative Autonomy

Index (RAI) score. The RAI is based on Pelletier et al.'s guidelines (1995) for reporting

self-determined motivation. Higher positive scores on the RAI reflect a more self-

determined motivation, while lower or negative scores indicate less self-determined

motivation. By collapsing all subscales to one score, motivation is limited to one

classification or point on the continuum and one level of analysis. Hence, each individual

is limited to one motivation orientation in each sports context. The potential alternative to

a single continuum scoring system is having dual continuums operate independently. An

example of this dual system can be seen in other motivation literature of Achievement

Goal Theory (Nicholl's, 1984).









Achievement Goal Theory

Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) makes the contention that in achievement

contexts such as sports, education, and other, people participate to demonstrate

competence or ability (Nicholls, 1984). Nicholls theorizes that there are two main goal

states, task and ego, operating in achievement contexts. These two achievement styles in

turn determine how individuals interpret their ability and define success.

A task-involved individual uses an undifferentiated conception of ability to

determine ability. This means that the individual chooses not to differentiate ability, luck,

and effort as leading to success. Instead success is defined through effort and the

individual's comparison to previous performances and personal reference points. In

contrast, and ego involved individual bases ability upon a differentiated viewpoint,

whereby a norm-referenced perception of ability is utilized. Perceptions of success are

attributed to ability-focused attributions. Simply put, ego involved people typically view

participation as opportunities to demonstrate high ability in reference to others, that is

participating to outperform others (Nicholls, 1984).

These achievement contexts will vary across each person. People can adopt

different goals based on the combination influences of their dispositional goal orientation

and their personal perception of the environment. One's dispositional tendencies are said

to be either ego or task orientations. Although Achievement Goal Theory provides a

rationale for motivated behavior different from Self-Determination Theory, it has

elements that may contribute towards furthering SDT.

AGT utilizes dual orientations to explain behavior in various environments.

Although debated, Achievement Goal Theory stipulates that one receives two scores, a









task score and an ego score for each scenario (Figure 3-2). This means in sports, one

could be highly ego and low task oriented, yet in school, high task and low ego. Again

this idea is debated, but the dual scores do explain many potential situations. SDT has

never had this luxury of dual scores because all motivational styles are reduced to one

motivation.


High High

Primary Score Types:
High Ego : High Task
High Ego : Low Task
Low Ego : High Task
Low Ego : Low Task

Low Low

Task Ego

Figure 3-2. Nicholl's Task / Ego Perspectives

Dual Continuum Perspective

Clearly a strong foundation supports Self-Determination Theory for

understanding motivation in one's life. Yet, every theory has room for improvement.

When applying SDT principles across multiple environments, it seems that alternative

possibilities may be washed over, compressed, and/or reformatted to fit the existing

theory. Simply put, whichever type of force, intrinsic or extrinsic is greater becomes

labeled as the single motivation orientation for an individual.

The alternative to a single classification of motivation is having both intrinsic and

extrinsic continuums separate during the entire theoretical model. Essentially, intrinsic

and extrinsic forces would be expressed concurrently and independently of each other.

Simply put, a person could be highly extrinsic and highly intrinsic in motivation, each









motivation being reported along two separate continuums. With a dual motivation

perspective, many possible combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are

possible, hence creating a motivation profile.

This new motivation perspective is still subject to the guiding framework of Self-

Determination Theory; yet, the forces that promote cognition, affect and behavior are

now antecedents upon dual continuums. Essentially, our satisfaction of perceived needs

will influence the level of internalization and integration for two styles of motivation,

intrinsic and extrinsic. These dual motivations will range from low to high and will not be

dependent upon the other. Each motivation will then have equal potential to influence our

outcome states (Figure 3-3).

High High High Low Low High Low Low






IM EM IM EM IM EM IM EM Amotivation

Primary Expected Profiles

Middle High High Middle Middle Middle Middle Low






IM EM IM EM IM EM IM EM

Potential Alternative Profiles

Figure 3-3. Potential Dual Continuum Motivation Profiles









Within the various combinations of motivation profiles, one is particularly

important and should be addressed. When someone is low in both intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation it would appear that both internal and external influences are irrelevant for

that environment. This profile is actually being proposed as a state of motivation within

this theoretical design. Amotivation is currently on the bottom end of the SDT continuum

and is defined as the lack of any motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When a dual profile is

low, a lack of motivation is assumed for this model. This Low Low profile is why a third

continuum of motivation is not necessary in the proposed dual continuums.

Duality Model of Motivation 2004

Motivation within Self-Determination Theory seems to inherently operate on

multiple levels. In fact, SDT states multiple different motivations may operate in

promoting behavior, yet, limits one motivation style as active in any given environment

(Deci & Ryan, 2002). The purpose of further research is to redefine self-determined

motivation as a dual construct, allowing dual motivations to be active. This new

perspective will be called the Duality Model of Motivation (DMM) (Figure 3-4). To

support the limited research that has proposed this idea, the formulation of the Dual

Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS) was constructed. This scale helps clarify the

relationship between multiple motivation forces in a single context and promote greater

understanding of motivation characteristics that influence achievement behaviors.

As the DMPS needs to provide adequate information to describe each motivation

profile, six planned types of motivation are expected from any athlete and are labeled

based on existing SDT theory. This specificity in profiling is the key to understanding the

true reinforcement promoting an athlete's motivation and potential behavior. In order to









understand the potential profiles, it is important to operationalize each subscale along its

respective motivation continuum.

Psychological Needs Dual Continuums Profile

S Competence Intrinsic
i IM Cognition
I -IM
S- Autonomy Low Hi gh Affect
] -_ DEM 0
^ .Behavior
Relatedness Extrinsic Behavior

Figure 3-4. Duality Model of Motivation

The top level of extrinsic motivation is operationalized as "Driven to Win." This

subscale indicates an individual whose primary purpose for sports participation is to

achieve victory. Winning is a highly extrinsic motivation and is often a powerful

influence on behavior. The middle level of extrinsic motivation is "Sports Skill." This

level refers to individuals who are most concerned with demonstrating their own skill

level and enjoying the opportunity to show ability during play. The bottom level of

extrinsic motivation is termed "Forced Behavior." This subscale indicates someone who

is solely participating because they feel a responsibility to an external influence, e.g.,

coach, parents, friends etc.

On the intrinsic continuum, the top-level subscale is operationalized as "Love of

Game." This classification refers to someone who plays for pure passion and desire of the

sport and the inner drive for the game. The middle level of the intrinsic subscales is

categorized as "Sense of Self." In this subscale, individuals participate due to their sense

of self being intertwined with sports participation. In other words, the person and the

athlete are not easily separated. The last and bottom category on the intrinsic continuum










is called, "Game Sensation." This category indicates someone who enjoys the sensations

and emotions associated with participation and potential sport involvement e.g., physical,

emotion, psychological experiences. The following figure depicts each profile type and

its relation to motivation subscale category (Figure 3-5).


Highest
Extrinsic






Middle
Extrinsic





Lowest
Extrinsic


Motivation Profiles
Highest
Intrinsic
Driven Love of
to Win Game





Sports Sense of middle
Skill Self Intrinsic




Forced Game
Behavior Sensation Lowest
Intrinsic


Figure 3-5. Profile Categories

Purposes

The purpose of this dissertation was two fold. The initial purpose was to develop the

Dual Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS) by establishing content validity, construct

validity, criterion validity, subscale reliability, and test-retest reliability. The second

purpose was to determine the relationship between various motivational profiles and

performance behaviors in elite level athletes.






53


Hypotheses

Purpose 1: Development of the Dual Motivation Profile Scale

The Dual Motivation Profile Scale was expected to have satisfactory validity and

reliability in all necessary elements for scale validation.

Purpose 2: Motivation Profiling

Highly successful elite athletes were predicted to demonstrate a motivation profile

utilizing the highest degree of motivation from both intrinsic and extrinsic influences.














CHAPTER 4
STUDY 1

Similar to the Sport Motivation Scale, the DMPS operationalized motivation as

the "why" of behavior (Deci & Ryan, 1985) by assessing individuals' professed reasons

for sport competition engagement. Each scale response was reported on a Likert scale

with the answers representing possible motivation styles.

Method

Participants

Of the 500 athletes recruited for participation, a total of 473 completed the study.

However, an additional 21 athletes were eliminated from the data pool due to incomplete,

inadequate or unusable data. This provided a sample of 452 athletes with the following

sport breakdown; Flag Football 67, Football 11, Baseball 6, Basketball 95, Handball

- 18, Racquetball 20, Volleyball 72, Soccer 102, Softball 39, Track and Field 12,

and Swimming 10. All athletes were from a large southeastern university and athletes

ranged in ability from recreational to NCAA Division I varsity.

Confidentiality was stressed to all students prior to any data collection via verbal

instruction. After obtaining written consent from each athlete, a brief introduction of the

study was presented and all questionnaires were then distributed. The DMPS and SMS

were administered only to athletes actively participating in a sport season, sports class, or

sport specific practices. All athletes were informed that participation was voluntary and

that they could withdraw from the study at any time. Questions were encouraged and

answered prior to data collection. To ensure full attention was given to the questionnaire









and practice/time issues did not confound the collection process, all participants reported

data prior to engaging in any activity.

Purpose 1

To develop the Dual Motivation Profile Scale, a five-stage process of validation

was conducted. The first stage involved a panel of experts, three pilot studies on the

scale, and a focus group. Each of these stages ensured that the DMPS had content validity

for each following validation stage.

Panel of Experts

A panel of five experts had the primary purpose of formatting and determining the

content of the DMPS (appendices A, B, C). The participants involved in this process

were Sport and Exercise Psychology specialists, knowledgeable of the research. Experts

were given specific information towards each sub theme of the DMPS as well as a

description of the study purpose. Experts independently reviewed and scrutinized the

content for any errors or subscale problems and provided feedback accordingly.

Suggestions were implemented and each revised questionnaire was given to another

expert to repeat the process. This overall sequence was repeated 3 times for each expert.

All of the experts were Ph.D. level students or professors.

Pilot Study

The Dual Motivation Profile Scale was administered three times on separate

occasions to 10 active sports participants. The Scale was administered to each athlete

during his or her sport-specific season. An exploratory factor analysis was utilized after

each pilot session to reduce the data, establish subscale validity, and confirm acceptable









content validity. Each version of the questionnaire was subsequently be revised from

previous feedback during pilot testing (appendices D, E, F, G).

The final piloted scale was predicted to consist of 24 total questions

encompassing six preplanned subscales, three indicating extrinsic motives and three

indicating intrinsic motives. Subscales were broken down evenly to four questions per

each subscale. Participants responded to the stem, "When I compete in sports....". The

scale questions were presented along a Likert scale of 1-5 per normative Likert format

allowing for adequate variance in responding. The Likert score of 1 represented, "Does

not correspond," 5 representing, "Highly corresponds." The pilot participants also

completed open-ended questions after completing the DMPS, to ensure wording style

was appropriate. Lastly, participants were asked if any phrase of the scale were confusing

or needed to be changed. An independent professor ensured the final version of the scale

had no other errors previously missed during the pilot study process.

Focus Group

The purpose of the focus group was to finalize the content validity of the DMPS. Five

graduate students completed the DMPS and then had the opportunity to write comments

or suggestions regarding the scale. The graduate students completed the scale

independently to avoid any "group think" and had open opportunities to provide

feedback. They were also specifically asked, "Is there anything you feel is needed for this

scale," and, "do you think this scale accurately assessed your sports motivation

perspective?" Any applicable suggestions were addressed and/or corrected as necessary

(appendix H).









Construct Validation

After the DMPS was verified for content validity, it was then authenticated for

construct validity. Although 240 individuals accommodated a significant statistical result

based on a small effect size and an alpha of .05 (Statistical Product and Service Solutions,

2001), the researchers collected data from 452 participants, or roughly 20 individuals per

scale item.

All scales (Dual Motivation Profile Scale, Sport Motivation Scale) (appendices I,

J) were administered to sports participants enrolled at a Southeast Division 1A

University. Eligible participants were required to be currently competing in recreational

sports, intramural sports, sports classes, or varsity level sports teams. The DMPS was

administered only during in season times, or during off-season sport-specific

competitions. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was utilized to assess the collected

data for the two primary sections of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the respective

subscales.

DMPS scale scoring occurred as follows. Subscale specific scores were added

together to create a total subscale score and total subscale scores were then divided by 4

to produce a reduced score out of five. This process was repeated for each subscale, thus

producing three intrinsic scores and three extrinsic scores. The top tier subscales (see

Figure 5 above) in each category were multiplied by 3, the middle level subscales were

be multiplied by 2, and the bottom level subscales multiplied by 1. The intrinsic subscales

were then added together creating a total intrinsic score, with the same process occurring

for the extrinsic subscales creating a separate extrinsic score. The following scoring










system indicated the motivations most representative of the individual or their motivation

profile (Figure 4-6).


Scoring Motivation Profiles Scoring
Range Range
Driven Love of
to Win Game
23-30 23-30

Sports Sense of
Skill Self
11-22 ss s o 11-22


Forced Game
1 -10 Behavior Sensation 1-10


Figure 4-6. Scoring Range per Profile

Criterion Validation

Criterion validity of the DMPS was confirmed by correlation analyses of the

individual DMPS subscales, and the appropriate subscale from The Sport Motivation

Scale (SMS). The Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) is a 28-item measure of

contextual motivation in the context of sport. This self-report questionnaire contains

seven motivational constructs and is designed to measure three intrinsic types of

motivation (i.e., to know, to accomplish, to experience), three extrinsic types of

motivation (i.e., external, introjected, and identified regulation), and motivation.

Participants respond to the stem "I take part in sport..." on a seven-point Likert scale

ranging from 1, "does not correspond," to 7, "corresponds exactly." The SMS has been

shown to be valid and reliable in previous sport research (Pelletier et al., 1995). A

correlation meeting or exceeding an alpha level of .05 will be acceptable for criterion

validation.









Subscale Reliability

To ensure true internal validity of the scale, means, standard deviations, and alpha

coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) for all subscales was performed for all six DMPS

subscales. An alpha level of .70 for internal consistency was deemed acceptable for

subscale validation.

Test-Retest Reliability

Lastly, to ensure the DMPS had strong temporal stability, a seven-day test-retest

reliability of the scale was performed. Roughly ten percent of the total sample population

was deemed acceptable for test-retest reliability (Statistical Product and Service

Solutions, 2001) hence a subset population of 50 was utilized. Participants were

randomly chosen from the original participant pool and again completed the DMPS

Scale. Subscale correlations again met or exceeded an alpha of .05 significance for

acceptable test-retest reliability (Statistical Product and Service Solutions, 2001).

Results

DMPS Scale Validation

Step 1 Content Validation

Results from each round from the panel of experts produced several changes in

the overall scale. Most notably, after round two of content evaluation, an additional 27

questions were added to the DMPS. Each subscale now comprised of a minimum of 8

questions for an overall scale of fifty-one questions. The panel of experts and

independent professor then approved all content for this stage of validation.

Each round of piloted results improved the overall data reduction and scale

refinement process. The initial exploratory factor analysis was performed with a varimax










rotation to examine the factor structure of the 51-item Dual Motivation Profile Scale.

Based on Comrey and Lee's (1992) criterion, a minimum factor weight of 0.45 (20%

overlapping variance) was required before an item was deemed to load on a factor, while

a factor had to have an eigenvalue > 1 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Since this was

exploratory, several factors with weight between .40 to 0.45 were also deemed

acceptable.

After eliminating twenty-one items that loaded significantly on more than one

factor, failed to load significantly, or loaded on inappropriate factors, seven factors were

extracted accounting for 94.5% of the variance (Table 4-3). Although seven variables

were extracted instead of the pre-planned six, three of the planned subscales had

imperfect loadings and required reworking. As such, further data reduction was not

possible at this point as the scale would fail to rotate appropriately.

Table 4-3. Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 1
Factor
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
I am most concerned with beating my opponent .782 .177 -.377 .144 .323 -.088 -.030

It is not enough to just participate, I want to win .898 -.006 .170 .191 .263 -.151 -.099

Achieving victory is important to me .984 -.047 .107 .068 -.015 -.032 -.095

I hate to lose .916 -.130 -.229 -.137 -.127 .137 -.004

It's not just about participating I want to win .816 -.053 .085 .066 .437 -.335 .081

If I don't win, it's a waste of my energy .742 .302 .150 .004 .256 -.175 -.412

I love playing and giving everything I have .161 .650 -.273 -.198 -.435 .440 -.194

I am always ready to contribute in any way I can -.254 .811 -.128 -.445 -.096 -.086 .160

If I (we) are winning or losing, I always want to
play hard. -.202 .904 -.056 .281 .078 -.200 .098

I always give it my all .079 .894 .109 .286 -.274 -.135 -.007

I play because I love to .131 .825 -.204 .364 -.248 .153 -.188










Table 4-3. Continued
Factora
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7

I am excited about doing my best -.218 .800 .181 .070 .342 .213 .254

I enjoy the opportunity to show my skill .265 -.105 .166 .063 .912 -.019 -.058

Demonstrating my abilities to friends, teammates,
others is fun -.131 -.084 .786 .124 .431 .053 -.162

I like to look good when any people are around .044 -.159 .750 -.140 .398 .129 .046

It's the real me who comes out -.779 .137 -.118 .529 .106 -.058 -.004

I am the person I want to be .031 -.065 .343 .893 -.109 .584 .192

I am my true self -.176 .418 -.024 .840 .124 .064 .137

My participation style represents my personality -.779 .137 -.118 .529 .106 -.058 -.004

The feelings I get make participating more
enjoyable -.034 -.387 .662 .033 .146 .404 .364

Whether I win or lose, I feel physically better -.581 .403 .230 .025 .172 .443 .215

I love the sensations of participating -.166 -.250 -.032 .239 -.219 .835 -.101

I love how my body and mind come together -.073 .191 .022 -.091 .069 .945 .120

I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to -.171 .075 .171 .072 .180 -.151 .932

I often play because a friend made me go .241 .157 -.008 .277 -.245 .298 .824

Eigenvalue 7.97 5.62 4.92 2.94 2.83 2.23 1.83
% of Variance 26.5 18.7 16.4 9.8 9.4 7.4 6.1
a Fl= Driven to Win; F2= Love of the Game; F3= Sports Skill; F4= Sense of Self; F6= Game Sensation;
F7= Forced Behavior.

The second exploratory factor analysis followed all previous guidelines to

examine the new 30-item Dual Motivation Profile Scale. A minimum factor weight of

0.45 (20% overlapping variance) was again required before an item was deemed to load

on a factor, and again an eigenvalue > 1 was required. After eliminating 12 items that

failed to load significantly, loaded on more than one factor, or loaded on an inappropriate

factor, five factors were extracted accounting for 90.7% of the variance (Table 4-4).











Table 4-4. Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 2
Factor
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5


It's the real me who comes out

I feel the most myself

I am the person I want to be

I am my true self

I enjoy playing and giving everything I have

If I (we) are winning or losing, I always want to play hard

I play because I love to

I am excited about doing my best

I am most concerned with beating my opponents)

It is not enough to just participate I want to win

Winning is key to my participation

The feelings I get make participating more enjoyable

Whether I win or lose, I feel physically better

I love the sensations of participating

I love how my body and mind come together

I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to

I often play because a friend made me go

I find myself wishing I did not have too

Eigenvalue
% of Variance
a Fl= Sense of Self; F2= Love of Game; F3= Driven to Win; F4=
F5= Forced Behavior; Sports Skill = Did not load.


.920 -.108

.895 .371

.813 .490

.799 .207

.179 .930

.223 .885

-.091 .715

.478 .741

-.356 -.141

.174 .439

-.007 .044

-.181 -.072

-.089 -.034

-.518 -.052

.265 -.142

-.156 .071

.098 .296

.123 .052

5.70 4.10
31.6 22.7
Game Sensation;


During this factor analysis, the sixth factor, Sports Skill, was not consistent in

loading and caused interference with the now established alternate five factors.

Accordingly, it was removed from the analysis and completely reworded for round three


.271

-.048

-.165

-.457

.105

-.001

.051

-.011

.862

.769

.948

-.248

-.587

.363

-.152

.008

-.578

.064

2.71
15.1


-.156

-.091

-.068

-.020

-.267

-.123

.451

-.078

-.086

-.306

-.014

.932

.523

.719

.882

-.203

.091

-.026

2.30
12.8


.039

-.093

-.090

.041

.102

.187

-.329

.281

.134

.167

-.155

-.126

.395

-.073

-.070

.897

.682

.928

1.50
8.3











of pilot testing. This factor was restructuring by re-utilizing the panel of experts to re-

establish content validity.

The final exploratory factor analysis repeated all previous procedures to examine

the new 27-item Dual Motivation Profile Scale. Previous standards still applied for all

statistical measures and analysis. After eliminating 6 questions that were insufficient to

the scale, failed to load significantly, or were excessive for a specific factor, six factors

were extracted, accounting for 94.51% of the variance (Table 4-5).

Table 4-5. Exploratory Factor Analysis with Varimax Rotation for the DMPS Pilot 3
Factor
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to .806 .385 -.088 -.185 .323 .005


I find myself wishing I did not have to

I feel others pressure me to continue participating

I often play because a friend/teammate made me go

Showing my talent is fun

It's nice to exhibit my skills

Its fun when I show some difficult skills

I like showing what I can do

I enjoy playing and giving everything I have

If I (we) are winning or losing, I still love to play

I play because I love to

I am excited about doing my best

I am most concerned with beating my opponents)

It is not enough to just participate I want to win

Achieving victory is important to me

I play to win and want to win


.821

.898

.889

.404

.130

.219

-.503

.042

-.448

-.367

.180

-.182

-.069

-.097

.090


-.303

.111

.238

.776

.961

.952

.770

-.121

-.202

.018

.005

-.032

.049

.023

.385


.393

-.035

-.147

-.064

.019

.061

-.141

.954

.447

.809

.935

.044

.300

.279

.357


.070

-.112

.146

.347

-.075

.139

.100

.225

-.648

.174

.139

.812

.939

.457

.758


-.112 -004

-.062 .080

.016 -.004

.137 .245

-.194 -.041

.012 -.005

.202 .171

-.095 -.024

.030 .306

.389 -.127

.246 -.095

-.451 -.100

.086 .113

-.796 .071

-.203 .176










Table 4-5. Continued
Factor
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

The participation itself makes me feel better .077 -.089 .204 -.055 .878 .205

I love the sensations of participating -.253 .190 .449 .009 .774 -.192

I feel most like myself -.009 .289 .434 -.080 -.264 .592

I am the person I want to be -.013 -.109 -.165 -.062 -.013 .961

I love how my body and mind come together .128 .448 .015 .291 .214 .779

Eigenvalue 5.14 4.43 3.42 3.17 2.10 1.56
% of Variance 24.5 21.1 16.3 15.1 10.0 7.47

a Fl= Forced Behavior; F2=Sports Ability; F3= Love of Game; F4=Driven to Win; F5=Game Sensation;
F6=Sense of Self

From this factor analysis the final version of the DMPS was created and utilized

for all future stages of validation. Accordingly, the results from this EFA produced a 21

question Dual Motivation Profile Scale maintaining three intrinsic and three extrinsic

subscales overall.

Step 2 Construct Validation

Missing data on any form resulted in the survey being eliminated from the overall

data pool. A confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to determine subscale and overall

scale validity for construct validation. The confirmatory factor analysis was performed

with a varimax rotation and akin to the EFA, factor levels were based on Comrey and

Lee's (1992) criterion of 0.45 minimum factor weight (20% overlapping variance) with

an eigenvalue > 1 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996).

Results from the CFA found 5 subscales, three extrinsic and two intrinsic, which

loaded significantly. The non-significant subscale of Game Sensation, considered in the

DMPS to be the least intrinsic, cross loaded on an extrinsic subscale and is thus invalid.










As such, it was removed from the DMPS and not included in further analyses. Of the

remaining 5 significant factors, a total variance of 62.05% was extracted (Table 4-6).

Table 4-6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Construct Validation
Factor
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
I enjoy playing and giving everything I have .684 .148 .139 -.231 -.132

If I (we) are winning or losing, I still love to play .584 -.015 -.248 -.084 .273

I play because I love to 624 .138 .118 -.295 .262

I am excited about doing my best .681 .291 .219 -.176 .093

Showing my talent is fun .103 .844 .217 -.012 .076

It's nice to exhibit my skills .108 .852 .269 .023 .136

Its fun when I show some difficult skills .289 .778 .223 -.047 -.020

I like showing what I can do .356 .764 .267 .049 .090

I am most concerned with beating my opponents) -.044 .306 .657 -.011 042

It is not enough to just participate I want to win -.094 .167 .881 -.007 .068

Achieving victory is important to me .147 .168 .813 -.028 .110

I play to win and want to win. .147 .231 .800 .031 .019

I often play because a friend/teammate made me go -.112 .149 .005 .629 .247

I sometimes want to quit but I would be embarrassed to .109 -.118 .136 .557 -.512

I feel others pressure me to continue participating -.130 .067 -.081 .713 -.132

I find myself wishing I did not have to -.070 -.121 .026 .669 -.056

I feel most like myself .308 .162 .181 .077 .602

I am the person I want to be .269 .017 .284 -.071 .652

To feel my body and mind come together .143 .220 .120 .053 .683

Eigenvalue 6.04 2.94 1.72 1.31 1.01
% of Variance 28.7 14.0 8.22 6.24 4.79
a Fl= Love of Game; F2=Sports Skill; F3= Driven to Win; F4=Forced Behavior; F5=Sense of Self

In this CFA analysis, Factor 1 referred to Love of the Game, Factor 2 was Sports

Skill, Factor 3 was Driven to Win, Factor 4 was Forced Behavior and Factor 5 was Sense










of Self. At this point, construct validation has been established as 5 factors have met all

requirements to verify and establish the DMPS. The one inadequate construct of Game

Sensation, results in the DMPS having only two subscales confirmed within the intrinsic

continuum, however the scoring for the overall scale will be modified so the profile

scores remain equal (See Profile Scoring in study two).

Step 3 Criterion Validation

Results from the criterion testing can be seen in Table 4-7. The DMPS subscales

correlated significantly with the main corresponding SMS subscales, as well as other

appropriate corresponding SMS subscales. This result substantiates the CFA results and

the content validation of the DMPS, as the fitting SMS and DMPS subscale themes

correlated appropriately. This was despite the fact the DMPS does not format its extrinsic

subscales in a negative fashion. Simply put, similar sub themes between the two scales

were significantly correlated in a positive direction, while the appropriate inverse themes

were significantly correlated in a negative direction (Table 4-7).

Table 4-7. Criterion Validation Between the SMS and the DMPS

MTK MTA MTE ID INT EXT
LG .464** .473** .578** .377** .160** .150**
SS .452** .460** .472** .435** .296** .290**
DW .178** .273** .242** .195** .222** .418**
SS .341** .454** .397** .293** .220** .450**
FB -.092* -.101* -.189** -.033 .171** .154**
* = aat.05 **= a at.01
Note. Scale subscales are indicated below.
DMPS: LG = Love of the Game, SS = Sense of Self, DW = Driven to Win, SS = Sports Skills,
FB = Forced Behavior
SMS: MTK = Motivation to Know, MTA = Motivation to Accomplish, MTE = Motivation To Experience,
ID = Identified Regulation, INT = Integrated Regulation, EXT = External Regulation

Step 4 Subscale Reliability

Means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients (Cronbach, 1951) for all

subscales were computed and are presented in Table 8. Internal consistencies matched or










exceeded Nunnally's (1978) criterion level of a = 0.70 for the psychological domain of

all subscales (Table 4-8).

Table 4-8. Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS

Measures M SDa

Dual Motivation Profile Scale

Love of the Game 4.41 .563 0.76

Sense of Self 4.05 .683 0.70

Driven to Win 3.70 .818 0.83

Sports Ability 4.04 .796 0.90

Forced Behavior 1.68 .598 0.73

Sport Motivation Scale

IM to Know 4.94 1.21 0.83

IM to Accomplish 5.14 1.22 0.85

IM to Experience/Stimulation 5.13 1.16 0.79

Identified Regulation 4.38 1.27 0.76

Introjected Regulation 3.79 1.21 0.70

External Regulation 3.63 1.29 0.74

Amotivation 1.69 0.92 0.76


Step 5 Test-Retest Reliability

Final validation is provided from the test-retest results. Of the projected 41-subset

population, a total retest sample of 46 was collected. Retesting of the DMPS took place

between 7-10 days after the initial test. Athlete sport breakdown was as follows; Football

- 9, soccer 12, volleyball 11, basketball 12, racquetball 2 (Table 9). All subscales

were significantly correlated at the .01 level for retest validation.









Table 4-9. Test-Retest Correlation Scores for the DMPS

Subscales R

Love of the Game .93**

Sense of Self .85**

Driven to Win .91**

Sports Ability .88**

Forced Behavior .87**

** = a at.01

Discussion

The objective of the validation study was to verify all 5 stages necessary to

authenticate the Dual Motivation Profile Scale. In contrast to previous research, (Deci &

Ryan, 1985; Pelletier et al., 1995), the DMPS was proposed to accommodate dual

motivation orientations to be assessed simultaneously, allowing multiple motivations to

be accounted for during sports competition. This hypothesis stemmed from the idea that

both self-determined and specific types of less self-determined motivations are active

during sports, each potentially promoting behavior.

According to Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987), intrinsic

motivation represents the ideal motivation for achievement environments (Ryan & Deci,

2000). Recent research (Model, 2002) suggests this may not be true in sports, due to the

inherent emphasis on extrinsic motives, particularly winning and the associated outcome

rewards (Chantal el al., 1996). From this study's results, we can now determine the

distinct levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation each athlete utilizes when they

compete.









During the overall validation process, several interesting results were revealed

and will be reviewed. First, the Game Sensations subcategory failed to achieve construct

validation leading to the subscale being eliminated from the DMPS. Second, with Game

Sensation eliminated from the DMPS, the intrinsic continuum was limited to two intrinsic

subscales and not three, causing uneven profiles within the DMPS. Lastly, the cross

correlations between the DMPS and the SMS subscales were indicative of multiple

motivation relationships and could have a mixture of interpretations. Each topic will be

reviewed in sequence.

The failure to validate Game Sensation (or the bottom level of the intrinsic

motivation profile) although disappointing, is not overly detrimental to the scale results.

In fact, this result provides good feedback if the DMPS is refined at a future date. This

result is interesting for two reasons, first, it posses the potential that the Game Sensation

orientation is extrinsic not intrinsic in nature. As the data for this theme cross-loaded

during the CFA onto two extrinsic subscales, specifically, Driven to Win and Sports

Skill, the potential for this theme to be extrinsically based should be considered. To

explain, athletes may be driven by external forces to experience specific body sensations

during sports. Although this explanation is possible, I would then have to believe athletes

are not in touch with how their body feels during sports, and this does not make inherent

sense given all the kinesthetic research done (Thacker et al., 1999). Second, this subscale

was based off the SMS subscale of Intrinsic Motivation to Experience, which has been

verified and validated in previous research (Pelletier, 1995). I would thus conclude this

DMPS subscale needs to be modified to accurately assess the desired orientation.









Next is the limitation of having two intrinsic subscales not three. Since the

subscale of Game Sensation was removed from further validation beyond construct

validation, the DMPS was left with 5 subscales rather than the pre-planned 6. Although

this is a limitation of the study, it does not remove the current adequacy of the scale. The

purpose of the DMPS was to determine if two motivation orientations exist

simultaneously, second, to provide a profile of these orientations that can be utilized by

an athlete, coach, or appropriate other. Again, the current version of the DMPS still meets

each of these requirements. Although intrinsic motivation has a smaller continuum to

display, the true importance of the DMPS is the positive orientations displayed by the

extrinsic subscales. A profile of motivation is now possible, with the ability to reference

specific extrinsic themes pertinent towards promoting greater potential in competition

motivation.

Third, the results from the DMPS and the SMS subscale correlations provided a

mixture of positive results. Although multiple subscales correlated with one another

reducing the strictness of criterion validation, I feel the subscale correlations show an

accurate picture of the DMPS scales. To explain, the DMPS subscale Love of the Game,

correlated most highly with the SMS subscale Intrinsic Motivation to Experience, then

correlated with the other two SMS intrinsic subscales. Although multiple correlations

exist, the strength of the correlations was not equal and the sequence/order of these

relationships did match established relationship requirements (i.e., positive with positive,

negative with negative). The strength and direction of these correlation results were

found across all subscales of both the DMPS and the SMS, whereby, intrinsic

correlations were highest within the intrinsic subscales, and lower when crossing between









intrinsic and extrinsic. To emphasize this point, the DMPS subscale, Driven to Win,

correlated most strongly with the SMS subscale External Regulation, then Intrinsic

Motivation to Accomplish. As the DMPS subscale Driven to Win should include positive

elements from an intrinsic and extrinsic perspective, this is exactly the combination

expected from this subscale.

A last example comes from the DMPS subscale of Forced Behavior and its

correlations with each SMS subscale. The correlations between Forced Behavior and the

SMS extrinsic subscales are positive in relationship indicating a good fit. While the

correlations among the intrinsic subscales and Forced Behavior all had negative

associations, indicating an inverse relationship. This accurate assessment of the correct

motivation qualities between the SMS and the DMPS, confirms the criterion validity to

be correct. Although the overall matrix has multiple correlations among the scales, all

motivation styles have a common theme, hence, the criterion validation shows evidence

that the desired DMPS themes were adequately represented within the subscales and are

thus valid for future use.

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the validation study, the proposed duality model of

motivation and the fundamental tenets of self-determination theory, these results confirm

the creation and validation of a new scale, the DMPS. The overall scale has passed all 5

accountability processes and should be deemed worthy of function within Self-

Determination sports literature. In this light, it is important to note that winning and

losing in sport is a very basic concept, and specific environments and populations outside

of sport competition have not been tested. Simply put, extrinsic motivators may not









operate in the same fashion as in sport and continued study will be necessary to further

validate the DMPS in alternate environments.

Lastly, the influence of rewards and pressures are obviously more influential at

the elite or professional levels of sport. Hence, this athlete sub population provides a

unique opportunity to utilize the DMPS and assess profiles not expected from the

recreational athlete. During the validation process, recreational, intramural, club, elite,

and ultra elite athletes were utilized. It is possible that when only examining athletes most

influenced by external pressures, more refinement of the DMPS could be needed. Further

study of the scale with elite athletes only is warranted to confirm or deny this possibility.














CHAPTER 5
STUDY 2

To test the direct application of the DMPS towards performance behaviors, the

researcher hypothesized that successful elite athletes would demonstrate a unique

motivation profile. Specifically, I speculated that successful elite athletes would have

equally high motivation from both intrinsic and extrinsic forces (e.g., intrinsic, passion to

play, and extrinsic forces, desire to win).

Athlete Study

Participants

A total sample of 57 athletes both male and female, from a large Southeastern

University provided viable data from the study. Age ranged from 18-26 years old and

sport breakdown and descriptive statistics were as follows, 9 football, 1 softball, 22

soccer, 6 track and field, 10 swimming, and 9 volleyball players. Year in school was as

follows, 15 freshmen, 12 sophomore, 10 juniors, and 11 seniors. Thirty-six of these

athletes were team starters while 21 were not, further, 26 athletes were on full

scholarship, 27 were on partial scholarship, and 4 had no scholarship assistance.

Measures

The Dual Motivation Profile Scale (DMPS). The 21-item DMPS (Model, 2005) is

a measure of two contextual motivations in the context of sport. This self-report

questionnaire contains five motivational constructs and is designed to measure two levels

of intrinsic motivation, and three extrinsic motivations. When a profile constitutes the

bottom of both intrinsic and extrinsic continuums (i.e., low and low) the individual is said









to display an motivation profile. Participants responded to the stem "I compete in

sports..."on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1, "does not correspond," to 5,

"corresponds exactly." The DMPS has been shown to be valid and reliable in previous

research (Model, 2005).

The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS). The SMS (Pelletier et al., 1995) is a 28-item

measure of contextual motivation in sports. This self-report questionnaire contains seven

motivational constructs and is designed to measure three intrinsic types of motivation

(i.e., to know, to accomplish, to experience), three extrinsic types of motivation (i.e.,

external, introjected, and identified regulation), and motivation. Participants respond to

the stem "I take part in sport..." on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1, "does not

correspond," to 7, "corresponds exactly." The SMS has been shown to be valid and

reliable in previous sport research (Pelletier et al., 1995).

Performance demographics were assessed by two means. First, sport specific

statistics recorded on each active athlete by official NCAA record keeping staff. Second,

performance and past performance characteristics collected through a demographic

questionnaire (e.g., team starter, full scholarship, all SEC team) (Appendix K).

Procedure

Confidentiality was stressed to all athletes and coaches prior to any data

collection. After obtaining informed consent, a brief introduction of the study was

presented and the questionnaires distributed. Athletes were also informed that

participation was voluntary and they could stop at any time. Questions were encouraged

and addressed prior to any data collection. The questionnaires were administered to all

athletes during in season times, or during off-season sport-specific competitions.









Individual performance information was collected from the demographic

questionnaire, while performance statistics were collected from the official statistics page

for each athlete's sport. Performance level was determined by the satisfaction of 10

distinct performance categories (e.g., scholarship level, performance statistics (position

specific), past level of achievement). Each athlete was then grouped into an ultra high,

high, medium, or low performance category according to the following criteria. A high

performer meet 7 of 10 performance accomplishments, a middle level performer satisfied

4 of the 10 accomplishments and a low performer satisfied only 1 requirement (Appendix

K). Any athlete meeting all 10 criteria was classified as an ultra high performer and any

athlete not meeting the minimum requirement was not considered elite and was

subsequently dropped from further analysis. All demographics and statistics were utilized

from a season perspective to get a contextual performance perspective and not a

situational specific reference.

Data Analysis

To determine the motivation profiles of the performance groups, simple

descriptive statistics were utilized (e.g., mean scores per continuum). Scores for each

level of group were averaged then compared to determine the differences in profiles

between performance levels. To determine the motivation profile between the

performance groups as significantly different, two separate one-way analyses of variance

were used to compare the levels of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation across the four

groups of interest. The SMS was also used as a means of comparison to demonstrate

scoring differences between a single motivation score and a dual profile score. To









determine any significant differences across group profiles, Tukey Post hoc tests were

planned.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

DMPS descriptive means, standard deviations, and alpha coefficients (Cronbach,

1951) for all subscales were computed and are presented in Table 5-10. Internal

consistencies matched or exceeded Nunnally's (1978) criterion level of a = 0.70 for the

psychological domain for all subscales.

After reviewing the demographic data sheets, the breakdown of athletes was as

follows. An initial 14 athletes fell into the top elite category, 6 fell into the middle elite

category and 38 were classified simply as an elite varsity athlete (bottom category). Upon

further review 11 of the bottom level athletes were eliminated due to failing to meet the

minimum criteria for classification. This left 27 athletes in the bottom performance

category. 4 athletes from the high performance group were then reclassified as the ultra

elite group as each had achieved a world record in their sport and met every requirement

from the demographics sheet. Profile mean scores are presented below for each level of

the athletes (Table 5-11).

Table 5-10. Means, Standard Deviations and Alpha Coefficients for the DMPS

DMPS Measures M SD ca

Love of the Game 4.46 .522 0.73

Sense of Self 4.23 .697 0.75

Driven to Win 4.44 .649 0.72

Sports Ability 4.35 .730 0.88

Forced Behavior 1.83 .675 0.70







77


Table 5-11. Profile Means for Athlete Levels


Athlete Level

Ultra Elite Performers

Top Performers

Middle Performers

Bottom Performers


Mean Score
IM EM

25.6 25.7

27.4 24.9

26.7 23.9

25.5 23.1


Study Analyses

Results from the descriptive analysis found that at each level of athlete performance

an increase in both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation occurred. The exception to this trend

was found with the ultra elite athletes. These individuals had less intrinsic motivation

than both top elite and middle performers, yet the profile shows intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation were almost the same (Figure 5-7).

30 L


Group Score


01


Ultra


High
Group


Middle


IM
EM


Bottom


Figure 5-7. Group Motivation Profiles









To determine if the motivation profile between the performance groups were

significantly different, whereby the highly successful performers profile was unique,

separate one-way ANOVA's were used to compare levels of IM and EM across the four

groups. Results from this analysis showed no significant differences among groups for

intrinsic motivation [F(3,43) = 1.837, p = 0.155], or extrinsic motivation, [F(3,43) =

0.450, p = 0.719]. As significant differences in profiles were not observed, follow up

tests were not performed.

Discussion

The objective of the present study was three fold. First, I tested the direct

application of the DMPS within an elite athlete setting. Second, I examined the potential

motivation profiles that occur across various levels ofNCAA athlete performers. Thirdly,

I determined if the motivation profiles of ultra elite athlete performers were distinctly

different from the less accomplished athletes. Results show this study is again in contrast

to previous theory and research in the field (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000;

Vallerand et al., 1999) and provides further support for the Duality Model of Motivation

and the benefit and direct application of the DMPS within a sports environment.

Four ranges of profiles were discovered within one small athlete population,

whereby the competitors were all high in skill level. Hence, the capacity of the DMPS to

distinguish these differences given the minimal variance is encouraging. According to the

DMPS scoring system, all levels of athletes fall into the top section for intrinsic and

extrinsic profiling, i.e., intrinsic Love of the Game, and extrinsic Driven to Win.

Profiles within these categories showed differences between the achievement levels,

hence, the study achieved the first goal of real world applicability.










The second purpose of this study was to distinguish the potential profiles

exhibited by different levels of performers, with the assumption that ultra elite athletes

would show a) the highest intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and b) both motivations as

equal in force. Results confirmed only part of this hypothesis, as the ultra elite athletes

did not exhibit the highest levels of intrinsic motivation. To explain this result a

breakdown of the profiles is beneficial. First, the lowest level of performers had the

lowest intrinsic, "Love of the Game," and extrinsic, "Driven to Win," scores. As

performance accomplishments increased, both motivation styles also increased. This

trend held true for each category of performer except the ultra elite. These athletes

displayed a profile with a decrease in intrinsic motivation, yet an increase in extrinsic

motivation. This group did however display an equal profile of motivations between the

two orientations (Figure 5-7), hence supporting the notion that high achieving athletes are

equally influenced from extrinsic and intrinsic motivation forces. This group also

consisted of the fewest individuals, as few people were able to meet all performance

demographic criteria. In fact, 3 of the 4 ultra elite athletes held a world record in their

respective sport, so this profile is obviously limited to specific performers.

Scoring Elite Profiles Scoring
Range Range
Driven Love of
to Win Game
23-30 23-30

Sports Sense of
Skill Self
11-22 ss, ens of 11-22

Forced Game
1-10 Behavior Sensation 1-10


Figure 5-8 Scoring Range per Elite Profile










The third hypothesis speculated that this ultra elite profile would be significantly

different from the other profiles. Unfortunately, the profiles were not significantly diverse

from one another, yet this does not discount the meaningfulness of the profiles toward

future research. One key element in these findings is the capacity for athletes to have dual

motivations. Previous Self-determination research (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987, Ryan &

Deci, 2000), has consistently labeled intrinsic motivation as the ideal force within

achievement environments, hence reducing the role of extrinsic motivators. This

argument has been exacerbated by the theoretical stance that self-determined influences

are distinct from non self-determined aspects, causing a single continuum of motivation.

For example, when athletes were measured through the SMS, the elite group (not

the ultra elite) demonstrated an ideal motivation profile. To explain, the SMS is based off

a single continuum of motivation, hence, it subtracts the extrinsic influences from the

intrinsic to produce one motivation score (Figure 5-9). As the DMPS shows, SMS

scoring was inadequate in determining the true motivation promoting top athlete

behavior.
30

25

20

15
Group Score
10 Example SMS

05 IM
EM

-5 _
Ultra High Middle Bottom
Group
Figure 5-9. Example SMS Scoring Style











While the data and results from the athlete study are somewhat limited by the

failure to find statistical significance between the groups, this does not diminish the

distinct profiles found for the athlete levels, and a general profile theme distinct to each

category of athlete. As argued throughout this paper and as displayed from these results,

having a strong emphasis on extrinsic motives, particularly winning and the associated

rewards, can be distinct from intrinsic motives. Further, both motivations can be positive

toward achievement, both occur simultaneously, and extrinsic factors should not be tied

to intrinsic elements. Consistent with ideas presented by Koestner and Losier (2002), and

Model (2004), each motivation style has separate influence upon an athlete's perspective,

hence both should be assessed independently.

This point of independence between continuums is key to distinguishing the

DMPS from other scales. As confirmed from this study, the two continuums are

independent in their influence. Specifically, as the extrinsic continuum increased the

intrinsic continuum did not decrease, as the SMS would dictate. Interestingly, elite

athletes showed high levels of intrinsic motivation despite the desire and focus upon

winning and outcome. Further, the DMPS allowed both continuums to fluctuate

separately as evidenced by both continuums increasing across three athlete levels, yet,

extrinsic motivation increased for ultra elite performers while intrinsic motivation

decreased. These independent profiles directly contradict the current single continuum

theory.

The dual profile perspective explains how behaviors not inherently enjoyable

(e.g., training regimes) yet, are within an enjoyable context (e.g. sports), are performed






82


for other reasons, (i.e., desire for victory or potential incentives). This study also takes the

first step towards supporting previous anecdotal evidence that athletes do want to win,

and this external motivator does not conflict with an intrinsic passion and love to play.














CHAPTER 6
GENERAL DISCUSSION

Theoretical Considerations

In the scale construction and validation study, 5 levels of validation provided

substantial evidence that two independent continuums should be utilized when assessing

motivation in sports. In the athlete study, intrinsic motivation or being self-determined

was a strong motivation style for each athlete, yet, extrinsic motivation also provided

equal motivation for ultra elite athletes. The findings from the two studies ultimately

suggest that motivation is not a single construct and the SDT subsections of intrinsic and

extrinsic do reside on separate continuums. By allowing these two motivations to be

evaluated independently, a greater capacity to understand motivation, apply

recommendations, and evaluate the perceptions of the environment is possible. As the

goals of each athlete can range from internal to external, a motivation profile is needed to

allow these differing perspectives to be understood and explored. Understanding

motivation is a quest to understand why. These studies offer insight and opportunity to

help answer this question, and provide a first step towards the acceptance of the Duality

Model of Motivation.

Practical Implications

The duality in motivation (or dual profiles) helps explain how rewards and

incentives are influential in professional sports, yet athletes love competing. Based on the

findings of the present studies, elite collegiate coaches should attempt to place an

emphasis on creating an autonomous and competency rich environment for their athletes.









Specifically, boosting effective interactions athletes experience during sports, with the

intention of promoting intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. An intrinsically rich interaction

can be promoted through positive verbal feedback and the development of task and social

cohesion (Carron & Dennis, 2001). Further, intrinsic interactions can be built by

promoting skill improvement and achievement of team and individual goals.

Comparatively, an extrinsic interaction will emphasize the external value an athlete may

assign to the interaction. For example, extrinsic athlete interactions should include valued

rewards where failure to achieve the outcome is meaningful towards each person. The

desire for each athlete to achieve will promote competency, and will also enable extrinsic

forces (e.g., winning) to promote greater potential achievement.

Coaches however, should avoid an over-emphasis on extrinsic interactions or

failing to promote internal incentives concurrently to each external enticement as this

could hinder competency if failures were to occur. When determining what elements to

include/exclude towards an athlete's environment, one should consider two things. First,

losing is part of sport and creating an environment that shields an athlete from poor

outcomes is not necessarily beneficial in the long term. Second, an extrinsic interaction

should not to refute an athlete's competence, it should promote the inherent desire to play

well, achieve victory, and/or demonstrate the skills they have acquired during practice.

These interactions should be carefully planned to promote the positive elements of

extrinsic motivation and avoid any potential pitfalls. An example of this interaction can

be seen from NCAA basketball programs across the country, where midnight madness

games of mock competition start off the season. This style of interaction is a perfect









example of promoting extrinsic motivation where the environment still has value for the

athlete.

Coaches able to promote intrinsic and extrinsic interactions while emphasizing the

potential for success should enable the development of motivation profiles conducive

towards achievement behaviors in their athletes. To carry this effect into competition,

accentuating the factors that athlete's value (i.e., pride, dedication, desire to win), as well

as promoting factors relevant to that environment (i.e., ability, effort, opportunity for

victory), coaches will allow athletes to draw upon motivation from each continuum and

have the best opportunity for a successful experience.

Limitations

One of the primary limitations of this study was the reduced variability in skill

level across all the sports athletes. Only 4 athletes were classified as ultra elite and

overall, most athletes fell into the bottom elite category. Upon further analysis, many of

these bottom elite athletes were in their first year of eligibility and had not accrued

enough recognition in their college careers to meet the achievement demographic

requirements this study utilized. Hence, variability between top and bottom athletes may

have been closer than the results show and slightly skewed the results to the top. Future

research should approach this limitation by comparing upper level elite athletes towards a

moderate or recreational sports population.

The second limitation within the athlete study was the lack of statistical

significance across motivation continuums of the athlete levels. Although the graphed

findings do show a difference and change at each performance level (Figure 5-7), these

findings were not strong enough to warrant statistical confirmation. This limitation could









be linked to the previous limitation (i.e., lack of true athlete variability), however, it could

also be linked to a potential flaw in the DMPS instrument, or the DMPS's inability to

differentiate enough within the given sample.

I tend to discount this second argument as the DMPS passed all 5 stages of

validation and the DMPS and SMS scores from the athletes during the validation process

were consistent with the final findings. As such, I suggest further review of the DMPS to

continue to refine the continuums, yet also feel an increase in the variety of athlete level

would enhance future research.

Future Research

The studies presented build upon the theoretical perspective that multiple

motivation orientations are beneficial in promoting potential achievement behavior.

Although the influence of rewards and pressures may be more influential at the elite or

professional sport levels, winning and losing is a very elementary concept, such is love of

the game and a desire to win. These core concepts allow sport to be a unique environment

to assess for dual motivations. To further the potential of dual motivation profiles, several

potential studies would be beneficial.

First, a study determining the initiation point of dual continuums in children

would be helpful in promoting positive experiences for this age group. Simply put, at

what point in a child or youth's life does a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic

incentives occur, thus increasing the extrinsic influences children acknowledge? From

Achievement Goal Theory, one knows that little distinction between Task and Ego

orientations occurs until age 8 (Nicholls, 1984) however, because winning and losing is









always active within sports, is this age range representative for an extrinsic profile of

motivations to occur, or do we only establish an extrinsic continuum as we become older.

Second, research examining athletes who participate for exercise and not sports

competition (i.e., jogging, swimming, weight lifting) may produce profiles not found in

the current studies, while also contributing to an understanding of dual motivation in an

alternative environment. Exercise cannot be considered the same style of activity as sport,

as the rational behind the behaviors are completely different. Seeing as dual motivation in

sport relies upon the inherent intrinsic and extrinsic forces present during competition,

exercisers should provide totally different profiles to be examined. Further, exercise

motivation environments will offer a new opportunity to test the DMPS and expand its

potential usage in alternate environments.

Thirdly, reformatting the DMPS for usage in health and medical environments

would be a key study to undertake. Future research examining the dual motivations of

individuals attempting to stop smoking, lose weight, or perform medical rehabilitation

would provide new insights into the motivational mechanisms that eventually manifest

these important behaviors. Current SDT research in these environments states results

similar to those found in sports (i.e., intrinsic motivation is ideal and extrinsic motivation

is insignificant). Again however, anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Often people

state a reason to lose weight is to look better as well as feel better, hence a dual profile of

influence. The opportunity to understand the potential dual forces promoting one to stop

smoking could obviously benefit health organization, educational programs and

techniques used to overcome the addiction.









Lastly, two small changes to the DMPS may yield interesting results for the

future. Due to the stem in the current study being "when I compete in sport" an emphasis

was placed on competition. An interesting series of studies could come from changing the

stem to more neutral or more extreme adjective, e.g., when I am involved in sports, when

I prepare for sports, when I dominate my sport. This variation could provide totally

different profiles and thus totally new scale applications. Further, the opportunity to

create additional specific subscales e.g., negative sports reinforcement, within the current

continuums of motivation, could boost explanatory power as well as provide a new

perspective of profiles.

Conclusion

The DMPS was created to determine a level of satisfaction derived from the

psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness. Thus, it is evident that

intrinsic and extrinsic DMPS subscales require elements of competency, autonomy and

relatedness. In other words, although ones actions may be drawn from a less self-

determined motivation, (i.e., Driven to Win), the needs to feel competent and

autonomous remain important parts of wanting to achieve victory. The presence of

competence and autonomy does not diminish the extrinsic forces one may show, it

merely confirms multiple motivation forces to be equally influenced by one's

psychological needs (Figure 3-4). Simply put, these findings establish extrinsic

motivation as an independent motivation, with virtually no chance of it becoming another

type of motivation (namely intrinsic), due to high perceptions of autonomy.

This single point is the crux of the Duality Model of Motivation, the DMPS, and

the potential future of where SDT research should proceed. Based upon these findings, I






89


feel confident that the dual profile approach offers greater insight towards understanding

sports motivation and SDT motivation research. I also believe that the dual profile

approach demonstrates encouraging advantages over the single continuum approach

through the validation of the DMPS, as well as the variable profiles exhibited from the

athlete study