Self-Determination and Goal Orientation in Track and Field

This study investigated gender, age group and locality differences in adolescent athletes' self-determination motivation and goal orientations in track and field. It also examined the relationship between the self-determination theory and achievement goal theory. A total of 632 (349 boys, 283 g...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of human kinetics 2012-06, Vol.33 (2012), p.151-161
Hauptverfasser: Chin, Ngien-Siong, Khoo, Selina, Low, Wah-Yun
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study investigated gender, age group and locality differences in adolescent athletes' self-determination motivation and goal orientations in track and field. It also examined the relationship between the self-determination theory and achievement goal theory. A total of 632 (349 boys, 283 girls) adolescent athletes (aged 13-18 years) completed the Sports Motivation Scale and Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. Results indicated significant differences between gender on intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation (t(630) = 4.10, p < 0.05) and ego orientation (t(630) = 2.48, p < 0.05). Male students reported higher intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amotivation and ego orientation. A significant difference was found between age groups on task orientation (t(630) = 1.94, p < 0.05) and locality on ego orientation (t(630) = 1.94, p < 0.05). Older athletes showed significantly higher task orientation. Rural athletes had higher ego orientation whereas urban athletes have higher intrinsic motivation. Task orientation was related to intrinsic motivation (r = 0.55, p < 0.01), extrinsic motivation (r = 0.55, p < 0.01), but weakly related to amotivation (r = 0.10, p < 0.01). Ego orientation was related to intrinsic motivation (r = 0.30, p < 0.01), extrinsic motivation (r = 0.36, p < 0.01) and amotivaion (r = 0.36, p < 0.01). Task orientation was related to ego orientation (r = 0.29, p < 0.01). Multiple regression analysis showed intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation accounted for 30.5% of the variances in task orientation.
ISSN:1640-5544
1899-7562
DOI:10.2478/v10078-012-0054-0