Motivation and Self-regulation in Sport and Exercise

Chris Englert, Ian Taylor

• Verlag: Routledge
• Jahr: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000393873
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Psicología
• Thema: Psicología del deporte

The ability to effectively use one's thoughts, emotions and motivation to enhance performance and well-being is one of the most important skills in sport and exercise contexts. Motivation and Self-Regulation in Sport and Exercise explores the theories, research and processes that underpin these self-regulatory and motivational processes. A deeper understanding of motivation and self-regulation has far-reaching implications, from helping individuals to begin an active lifestyle, to seasoned athletes looking for a competitive edge. For the first time, the globally leading researchers in this research field come together to provide their unique, cutting-edge insight into how to exercise or perform more effectively. In doing so, the book provides new insight into established theories of motivation and self-regulation, but also breaks new ground by inspecting lesser-known or emerging paradigms.

This book is intended for all scholars interested in self-regulation and motivation, from undergraduate students to experienced researchers, as well as practicing sport and exercise psychologists, coaches and athletes.

1
INTRODUCTION TO MOTIVATION AND SELF-REGULATION IN SPORT AND EXERCISE

Chris Englert and Ian M. Taylor

Introduction

Motivation and self-regulation are two of the most important psychological aspects in sport and exercise settings. An athlete or exerciser who is optimally motivated and possesses the necessary self-regulatory resources and skills is not only more likely to persistently strive toward goal achievement, but is also likely to psychologically and physically thrive during his or her endeavors. Given this significance, self-regulation and motivation are two key concepts in sport and exercise research, with a cursory internet search revealing over 18,000 publications on self-regulation and over 21,000 publications on motivation since 2000. The main goal of this textbook is to provide a single source of information that highlights the importance of motivational and self-regulatory processes in sport and exercise contexts. The chapters provide a comprehensive overview of recent theoretical developments in the field and discuss possible approaches to improve motivational and self-regulatory processes, which, in turn, can influence sport and exercise performance, engagement, and well-being. While this textbook is not an exhaustive compendium of the different theoretical perspectives that describe motivation and self-regulation, the chapters represent state-of-the-art developments that build on, or provide counterpoints to, more historically grounded theories of motivation and self-regulation. The aim of this opening chapter is to introduce the terms motivation and self-regulation and their relationship. Each concept will be described, and a brief history of the construct’s development will contextualize the structure and content of the remaining chapters in the textbook.

Motivation in Sport and Exercise

Motivation is at the core of human psychology and essential to understanding all human behavior. It is unsurprising, therefore, that motivation plays a central role in participation, performance, and well-being in sport and exercise contexts. The proliferation of theoretical perspectives each provides a unique definition of motivation; however, motivation can be broadly described as the forces that drive and direct behavior (Dweck, 2017). These forces range from basic physiological needs, such as thirst and hunger, to materialistic desires, such as trophies and prizes. In between exists a range of explicit and implicit motives that can be approach-oriented, such as the seeking of pleasure or value, or avoidance-oriented, such as the desire to prevent guilt or anxiety (Elliot, 1997). Due to this vast array of potential motives, there is often little empirical value in asking “what motivates?” because there are infinite specific phenomena that can energize or forestall action. In the same way as stressors are only one facet of the broader stress process (Fletcher & Arnold, 2017), motivational stimuli are one component of broader motivational processes that explain how intrapsychic mechanisms shape human thought and behavior. Several chapters in this book use these motivational processes to describe and explain diverse phenomena, such as exercise participation, consequences of engagement in exercise and sport, and persistence in endurance sport contexts. Sport and exercise settings represent ideal scenarios to examine human motivation because the full range of motivational processes can be observed, from the young child excited but nervous about participating in sport for the first time, to the sedentary adult with negative attitudes to exercise, to the elite athlete striving for a competitive advantage.

Although motivation drives behavior, it does not mean that motivation can be comprehensively assessed through behavior alone. Doing so would fail to capture the complexities of human motivation. For example, two young sport participants may similarly engage in basketball sessions with identical attendance and physical intensity during matches. A naïve conclusion would be that the two participants were identically motivated. But this scenario does not tell us that one child might be anxious about attending and believed that she would be letting her mother down if she did not attend. In contrast, the second attendee may love basketball and cannot wait to attend the coaching sessions. As these examples imply, motivation has significant consequences beyond behavior; our affect and cognition are also the products of motivational processes. This is particularly important to consider because sport and exercise contexts can often emphasize behavioral outcomes, such as performing well or working hard in the gym, at the expense of psychological consequences.

The investigation of motivation in sport and exercise has a considerable history. Norman Triplett’s (1898) social facilitation experiment investigated how the presence of others could motivate superior performance. However, the late 1970s witnessed a growth in motivation as an important topic in sport and exercise settings, largely due to the birth of the Journal of Sport Psychology (later the Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology). Several theories were being developed in psychology, such as attribution theory (Weiner, 1974) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977), which were applied to sport and exercise settings (Roberts & Pascuzzi, 1979; Weinberg, Gould, & Jackson, 1979). The subsequent decades saw the growth of many important motivation theories for sport and exercise psychology. Three theories stand out from the crowd and still hold much influence today: Achievement goal theory (Duda & Nicholls, 1992), self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991).

Achievement goal theory has been largely investigated in sport contexts, particularly youth sport participation. The theory focuses on the need to demonstrate competence by emphasizing self-referenced improvement or possessing a task-goal orientation (e.g. “am I better than I was?”) versus normatively referenced improvement or possessing an ego-goal orientation (e.g. “am I better than others?”; Duda, 1992). A task-goal orientation typically leads to favorable cognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes, whereas an ego-orientation enhances the risk of negative outcomes, especially when perceived competence is low (Nicholls, 1989). Over the years, this dual goal orientation approach has been gradually expanded to 2 × 2 (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), and 3 × 2 frameworks (Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011). This latest incarnation includes task-, ego-, and social-goal orientations, with each dimension containing an approach or avoidance motivational valence. The approach versus avoidance distinction may be particularly important for sport performance, compared to the task versus ego distinction (Van Yperen, Blaga, & Postmes, 2014). However, these extensions to the original dual goal orientation approach have been criticized and suggested to be unwarranted (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001; Roberts & Nerstad, 2020).

Self-determination theory is commonly described as a theory of motivation, but perhaps more accurately should be described as a meta-theory that adopts a motivational perspective to cover much broader phenomena, including personality, development, and well-being. A central component of the theory is that individuals possess fundamental needs for autonomy (the experience of volition and internal locus of causality), competence (the experience of effectiveness), and relatedness (the experience of socio-emotional connectedness; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Consistent satisfaction of these three psychological needs facilitates several adaptive growth and developmental processes, including (i) a tendency to engage in activities for intrinsically motivated reasons, (ii) effective integration into one’s sense of self of activities that are not inherently intrinsically motivating (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and (iii) the development of an autonomous causality orientation, in which individuals seek out activities that provide opportunities for psychological need satisfaction (Hagger & Hamilton, 2020). Overall, these three psychological needs are deemed essential for psychological and physical well-being (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013) and the growth tendencies have been shown to facilitate a myriad of positive outcomes in sport and exercise contexts (Taylor, 2015; Teixeira; Carraça, Markland, Silva & Ryan, 2012).

The theory of planned behavior describes how favorable personal attitudes, social norms, and perceived control over behavioral execution are the necessary ingredients for developing an intention to act, which then energizes engagement in the focal behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Perceived behavioral control also moderates the relationship between intentions and behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Meta-analysis of the theory in exercise contexts generally supports these relationships (Hausenblas, Carron, & Mack, 1997). Nonetheless, this theory has evolved into the reasoned action approach, which separates attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioral control into two subcomponents each (experiential and instrumental attitudes, injunctive and descriptive norms, capacity and autonomy control beliefs; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). This more detailed specification has been shown to be useful in health contexts (McEachan et al., 2016). The theory of planned behavior has been largely used to explain behavior in exercise and health contexts; however, constructs from the theory have been shown to be helpful in predicting doping intentions and behavior in sport (Ntoumanis, Ng, Barkoukis, & Backhouse, 2014).

The popularity of these theories continued in the 1990s and 2000s. As Chapters 3 and 4 in this book detail, this was the era of cognitivism, in which reflective, conscious processes were at the heart of motivation research. Textbooks on motivation were published that provided a compendium of insights into motivation from a cognitivist perspective (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2007; Roberts & Treasure, 2012). However, we are currently witnessing an increase in critical perspectives and investigation into new areas of motivation. In recent times, the theory of planned behavior, in particular, has attracted criticism (Sniehotta, Presseau, & Araújo-Soares, 2014). One of the most interesting criticisms is the gap between intention and behavior. That is, why do people who hold an intention to engage in an activity commonly fail to do so (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998)? This question is the foundation for several chapters in this book.

Other criticisms of the theory of planned behavior, which can also be aimed at many other motivation theories, include the failure to account for automatic influences on behavior (Sheeran, Gollwitzer, & Bargh, 2013) and the role of emotions in the motivational process (Conner, Godin, Sheeran, & Germain, 2013). Especially in performance settings, emotion has been viewed as the enemy of effective performance and athletes have been encouraged to regulate emotion to such an extent that emotion becomes devalued. In exercise contexts, affect has also been neglected in favor of cognitive processes (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2019). Yet, one of the most basic principles of motivation is that individuals typically veer toward activities that they find pleasurable and away from activities that they do not (Epstein, 2013). This tenet has not received sufficient attention in motivational models in sport and exercise, but there is a growing trend to rectify this issue. Rather than viewing emotion as the enemy of goal-driven rational choices or performance, we are beginning to see emotion as a fully integrated component of adaptive motivational processes (Inzlicht, Werner, Briskin, & Robert, 2021). These related limitations represent further stimuli for several chapters in this book.

The Relationship between Motivation and Self-Regulation in Sport and Exercise

One of the most important consequences of motivation in sport and exercise contexts is that it provides the foundation for the initiation and maintenance of self-regulation strategies. As such, motivation and self-regulation can be viewed as complementary processes that are inextricably linked. For example, the Rubicon model of action phases was one of the first comprehensive theoretical models which included motivational as well as self-regulatory process to explain goal-directed behavior (Gollwitzer, 1990; Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987). The Rubicon is a river in northern Italy and legend has it that Julius Cesar contemplated for days whether he and his army should cross it, as he was well aware that the crossing would lead to a civil war. In the end, Cesar crossed the Rubicon which led to his famous words, alea iacta est or “the die has been cast” (Heckhausen, Gollwitzer, & Weinert, 1987). The model broadly assumes that motivational processes support the formation of intentions (i.e. goal setting) at which the individual crosses the hypothetical “Rubicon” and self-regulatory processes (i.e. volitional processes) are initiated to persistently pursue these goals (i.e. goal striving), especially in the presence of tempting alternative behaviors or currently experienced barriers (e.g. increased levels of fatigue; Achtziger & Gollwitzer, 2009, 2010; Kuhl & Beckmann, 1994). In a similar fashion, the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA; Schwarzer, 2008; Schwarzer, Lippke, & Luszczynska, 2011) also stresses the importance of motivational processes, which support intention formation, and volitional processes, which enable one to strive for these intentions (see also Luszczynska & Schwarzer, 2003). The HAPA and Rubicon model of action phases, as well as related models, are explained in more detail in Chapter 12 of this book.

Self-Regulation in Sport and Exercise

Self-regulation is one of the most important predictors of goal achievement (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 1998) and takes center stage of psychological research (Duckworth & Seligman, 2017). Self-regulation describes the ability to volitionally control or alter predominant impulses and response tendencies to achieve future benefits (Baumeister, Heatherton, & Tice, 1994). For example, an athlete has to regulate current thoughts or emotions in a given situation in order to secure future benefits (Englert, 2016, 2017). While the first studies on self-regulation and volition have been conducted in the early 20th century by Narcissus Ach (1935), self-regulation as well as related, overlapping psychological constructs (e.g. delay of gratification, willpower) have only been extensively studied since the 1970s. Social cognitive theory was one of the first psychological models which stressed the importance of cognitive processes like goal-monitoring and self-regulation to achieve a desired end-state (Bandura, 1977). Since then, many self-regulation models have been developed to explain self-regulatory behaviors (for an overview, see De Ridder & De Wit, 2006). All these models agree that self-regulatory processes enable us to resist immediate gratifications and to instead keep striving for more desirable and oftentimes delayed gratifications (Hagger, 2010). In general, research has reliably shown that individuals who are more adept at regulating their impulses are more likely to achieve their long-term goals (De Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). On the contrary, lower self-regulatory abilities are associated with several maladaptive behaviors (e.g. procrastination, substance abuse) and lower academic as well as sports-related achievement (Tangney et al., 2004).

In one of the earliest studies on self-regulation – often referred to as the Marshmallow Test – children were informed that they could either receive an immediate reward (i.e. a delicious piece of candy) or a delayed reward (i.e. two delicious pieces of candy; Mischel, 1961). This situation created a goal conflict, as most children were aware that delaying immediate gratification would subsequently lead to a larger but delayed gratification. To deal with this goal conflict and to keep striving for the long-term reward, the children applied different types of self-regulatory strategies (e.g. distraction). The results from numerous longitudinal studies revealed that being able to resist the immediate reward was related to several positive health-related and academic outcomes several years later (Davis, Patte, Curtis, & Reid, 2010; Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989; Schlam, Wilson, Shoda, Mischel, & Ayduk, 2013). These early results demonstrated the importance of self-regulation for a successful and healthy life (for a critical discussion, see Watts, Duncan, & Quan, 2018; see also Duckworth, Tsukayama, & Kirby, 2013).

Self-regulation has also been extensively studied in sport and exercise contexts, which is hardly surprising as there are several potential goal conflicts in these domains which need to be solved in order to achieve a desirable long-term goal (Englert, 2016, 2017; Hagger, Wood, Stiff, & Chatzisarantis, 2009). Imagine a recreational athlete who wants to participate in a marathon which takes place in three months. The athlete has to practice on a regular basis; however, there might be several temptations along the way: On an evening where he ori...