Cargando…
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 girls)...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Akademia Wychowania Fizycznego w Katowicach
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3588670/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23486244 http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10078-012-0054-0 |
Sumario: | 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. |
---|