Journal of Applied Sport psychology

ISSN: 1041-3200 (Print) 1533-1571 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uasp20

Perceived Coaching Behaviors and College

Athletes' Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Self-
Determination Theory

Jill Hollembeak & Anthony J. Amorose

To cite this article: Jill Hollembeak & Anthony J. Amorose (2005) Perceived Coaching Behaviors
and College Athletes' Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Self-Determination Theory, Journal of
Applied Sport psychology, 17:1, 20-36, DOI: 10.1080/10413200590907540

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200590907540

Published online: 23 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 16805

View related articles

Citing articles: 37 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uasp20
JOURNAL OF APPLIED SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 17: 20–36, 2005
Copyright © Association for Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology
ISSN: 1041-3200 print / 1533-1571 online
DOI: 10.1080/10413200590907540

Perceived Coaching Behaviors and College Athletes’

Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Self-Determination Theory

JILL HOLLEMBEAK AND ANTHONY J. AMOROSE

Illinois State University

Using self-determination theory (SDT) as a framework, this study tested whether perceived
competence, autonomy and relatedness mediated the relationships between perceived coaching
behaviors and athletes’ intrinsic motivation (IM). Male and female college athletes (N = 280)
completed questionnaires assessing perceived coaching behaviors (i.e., training and instruction,
positive feedback, social support, and autocratic and democratic behavior), as well as their IM,
perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Structural equation modeling revealed
support for a mediational effect. Specifically, results indicated that all of the coaching behaviors,
with the exception of social support, significantly predicted perceived competence, autonomy
and/or relatedness, which, in turn, predicted IM. Only perceived autocratic and democratic
behaviors had a significant indirect effect on IM. Results are discussed in relation to SDT and
coaching effectiveness.

Understanding the motivation of athletes is an important topic for researchers and practi-
tioners alike. While there is a host of personal and situational determinants of motivation, in
sport the role of the coach seems particularly important (see Horn, 2002; Weiss & Ferrer Caja,
2002). The general purpose of this study is to examine this relationship, with a specific focus
on the link between athletes’ perceptions of their coach’s behaviors and the athletes’ level of
intrinsic motivation for sport.
Motivation has been defined as the intensity and direction of effort (Weiss & Ferrer Caja,
2002). People will engage in activities for different reasons with varying degrees of energy,
effort and persistence. According to Deci and Ryan’s (1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002) self-
determination theory (SDT), the reasons why individuals choose to participate, exert effort,
and persist in an activity can be classified along a continuum of self-determined behavior.
The most non-self-determined form of motivation has been labeled amotivation (AM) and
reflects a lack of motivation. The next major classification involves extrinsic motivation (EM).
EM involves doing an activity for instrumental reasons (e.g., receiving rewards, avoiding
punishment). According to the theory, there are four types of EM that range on a continuum
from lower to higher levels of self-determined behavior. These include external regulation,
introjected regulation, identified regulation, and integrated regulation, respectively. Intrinsic
motivation (IM) is the final and most self-determined type of motivation identified by SDT. IM
can generally be described as engaging in an activity for the pleasure and satisfaction derived
from the activity itself.

Received 14 May 2003; accepted 15 January 2004.

Address correspondence to Anthony J. Amorose, School of Kinesiology and Recreation, Illinois State
University, 227L Horton Fieldhouse, Normal, IL 61790-5120. E-mail: ajamoro@ilstu.edu

20
 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS 21

People may engage in an activity for multiple reasons, including a combination of intrinsic
and extrinsic motives (Weiss & Ferrer Caja, 2002). However, there are a number of benefits
accrued by individuals who participate primarily for more self-determined reasons, and in
particular intrinsic motives. For example, intrinsically motivated individuals are more likely
to choose to participate and work hard when extrinsic rewards and reinforcements are not
available, experience lower levels of performance-related anxiety, and exhibit greater levels of
skill learning relative to those with a more extrinsic motivational orientation (see Vallerand,
1997; Vallerand & Losier, 1999; Weiss & Ferrer Caja, 2002). Given the benefits of engag-
ing in activities for more intrinsic reasons, identifying factors related to the facilitation and
development of intrinsically motivated behavior is an important research goal.
SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002) specifies that the needs for competence,
autonomy, and relatedness are fundamental to humans. The need for competence reflects
the need to perceive our behavior as effective. The need for autonomy represents the need
to perceive behaviors and thoughts as freely chosen. In other words, an individual needs
to experience a sense of self-determination. The need for relatedness represents the need to
perceive we are connected to those around us. According to SDT, individuals will choose
activities and experiences to fulfill these three fundamental needs. If an activity fulfills an
individual’s needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness, the activity will be inherently
pleasurable or enjoyable, and will be freely chosen. In other words, the individual will be
intrinsically motivated to participate. Conversely, if participation in an activity does not fulfill
these needs, engagement in the activity will not be for intrinsic reasons. An individual may
still engage in the activity, but the motive would be less self-determined (e.g., participating
to keep a scholarship or to please one’s parents). Therefore, SDT suggests that anything that
impacts the needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness can ultimately impact IM.
One factor that appears particularly relevant in sport is the behavior of the coach. There
have been a handful of studies examining the influence of various coaching behaviors on
athletes’ motivational orientation (see Vallerand & Losier, 1999). Much of this research has
taken place under the umbrella of cognitive evaluation theory (CET), a mini-theory within
SDT, which focuses specifically on social factors affecting IM (see Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002).
CET focuses primarily on the needs for competence and autonomy, and suggests that IM for
an activity is maximized when individuals feel competent and self-determining in that activity.
Consequently, the theory would argue that a coach’s actions that affect the athlete’s perceptions
of competence or autonomy can ultimately impact the athlete’s IM.
While numerous coaching behaviors influence an athlete’s motivational orientation, the
majority of published research has focused on the feedback patterns and general leadership
styles of coaches. Early studies examined the effects of positive and negative feedback on IM
(e.g., Vallerand & Reid, 1984; Whitehead & Corbin, 1991). These studies consistently revealed
an association between positive feedback and high perceptions of competence and IM, whereas,
negative feedback demonstrated the opposite effect. Further, consistent with CET, perceived
competence was found to mediate the relationship between feedback and IM.
More recent research has examined the relationships between multiple coaching behaviors
and athletes’ IM (Amorose & Horn, 2000, 2001). For example, Amorose and Horn (2000)
had male and female college athletes from a variety of sports report their perceptions of
their coaches’ feedback patterns and general leadership styles, as well as indices of their IM.
Although there were slight gender differences in the pattern of relationships, in general high
levels of IM were associated with athletes who perceived their coaches to exhibit a leadership
style that emphasized training and instruction and was high in democratic behavior and low in
autocratic behavior. Further, high levels of IM were associated with the perception that coaches
provided frequent positive and informationally-based feedback (i.e., technical instruction) and
22 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

low frequencies of punishment-oriented feedback and ignoring behaviors. Amorose and Horn
explained these results using CET, suggesting that high frequencies of training and instruction
and positive and informational feedback, and low frequencies of punishment-oriented feedback
and ignoring behaviors would lead to more positive perceptions of competence, which, in turn,
would facilitate IM. Further, they suggested that coaches who exhibited high frequencies
of democratic behavior and low frequencies of autocratic behavior would lead to enhanced
feelings of autonomy on the part of the athletes, which, in turn, would positively affect IM.
While the existing research on coaching behaviors and athletes’ motivation has provided us
with valuable information, there are a number of significant limitations. First, the mechanisms
by which coaching behaviors influence IM are unknown, given that none of the studies in this
area have provided an adequate test of CET or SDT. While the coaching behavior studies have
used CET to explain their results, none of the research has specifically tested whether perceived
competence and autonomy actually mediate the relationship between coaching behavior and
IM. In other words, studies have not generally tested the extent to which perceptions of com-
petence and autonomy account for the relationship between various coaching behaviors and
IM (see Baron & Kenny, 1986, for a detailed explanation of mediation). The lone exceptions
are the few lab based studies examining positive and negative feedback (Vallerand & Reid,
1984; Whitehead & Corbin, 1991); however, these studies only tested the mediating effect
of perceived competence and ignored the effect of autonomy. Secondly, CET is actually a
sub-theory embedded in Deci and Ryan’s (1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002) larger and more
comprehensive SDT. According to SDT, IM is not only influenced by perceived competence
and autonomy, but also by perceptions of relatedness (see Ryan & Deci, 2002). Unfortunately,
this potential determinant of IM has generally been ignored in the coaching literature, despite
the fact that the behavior of a coach might have a significant influence on athletes’ feelings of
relatedness. Finally, there is some concern with the measurement of IM in previous coaching
behavior studies. The existing literature has relied primarily on the IMI (McAuley, Duncan,
& Tammen, 1989). Recent advances in the theory and measurement of IM cast doubt on the
validity of this scale, resulting in questions regarding these findings (see Vallerand & Fortier,
1998).
In summary, a variety of issues remain unresolved in the literature on coaching behav-
iors and athletes’ IM. The purpose of this project was to tackle these issues by: (a) testing
whether perceived competence, autonomy, and feelings of relatedness mediate the relationship
between athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ behavior and their IM for sport, and (b) to
determine the specific coaching behaviors that are positively or negatively related to athletes’
motivation.
To address these issues, we tested and compared a series of structural models (see Figure 1).
Ultimately, based on SDT, we expected that the athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ lead-
ership style will indirectly associate with the athletes’ IM through their perceptions of com-
petence, autonomy, and relatedness. In other words, we expected the models specifying a
mediational effect (Figures 1b and 1c) to provide a better and more parsimonious representa-
tion of the data relative to a model specifying that the various coaching behaviors have both
direct and indirect effects on IM (see Figure 1a). However, we did not necessarily believe that
all of the coaching behaviors would be significantly related to each of the three mediating
variables. As illustrated in Figure 1c (i.e., the Hypothesized Mediational Model), we expected
that training and instruction and positive feedback will demonstrate a positive relationship with
IM through perceived competence. The coaches decision making style will have an impact
on the athletes’ IM through autonomy, with an autocratic leadership style (i.e., a style where
the coach asserts sole authority over decisions) demonstrating a negative relationship, and a
democratic style (i.e., a style where the coach involves athletes in the decision-making process)
 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS 23

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. (a) Non-Mediational Model (b) Full Mediational Model (c) Hypothesized Mediational
Model.
24 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

having a positive relationship. Finally, positive feedback and social support from the coach are
predicted to positively associate with the athletes’ IM through their sense of relatedness.

METHOD
Participants
The participant sample (N = 280) was comprised of male (n = 146) and female (n = 134)
student athletes from a Midwest university. The athletes ranged in age from 17 to 25 years
(M = 19.73, SD = 1.36), and represented a variety of NCAA Division I sports including
football (n = 76), tennis (n = 11), gymnastics (n = 18), softball (n = 15), volleyball (n = 11),
basketball (n = 22), track and field (n = 42), golf (n = 19), baseball (n = 25), swimming
(n = 16), diving (n = 5), and soccer (n = 20). The average number of years of participation
in a respective sport was 10.19 (SD = 1.36). The average number of years with their coach
was 1.44 (SD = 1.42). Most of the athletes identified themselves as Caucasian (80.0%), with
the rest identifying themselves as African American (14.6%), Native American (1.1%), Asian
(0.7%), Hispanic (0.7%), or other (6.0%). Many of the athletes reported being on a full athletic
scholarship (n = 136), with the rest stating that they were on a partial scholarship (n = 94) or
no scholarship (n = 50).
Measures
Coaching Behavior
Athletes completed the Leadership Scale for Sports (LSS), which was developed by
Chelladurai and Saleh (1980) to assess various coaching behaviors. The LSS is made up of five
subscales, two of which assess the coach’s decision making style (democratic and autocratic),
two of which assess the coach’s motivational tendencies (social support and positive feedback),
and one which assesses the coach’s instructional tendencies (training and instruction). Ath-
letes were instructed to read each of the 40 items and to indicate how frequently they perceived
their coach to exhibit this type of behavior. The response options were scored on a five-point
scale: 1 (never), 2 (seldom; about 25% of the time), 3 (occasionally; about 50% of the time),
4 (often; about 75% of the time), to 5 (always). Scored this way, a high score on the autocratic
behavior subscale describes a coach who displays a rigid decision making style and demands
stringent obedience from the athletes in regards to those decisions. On the other hand, a high
score on the democratic behavior subscale reflects a coach whose leadership style includes
and encourages athletes’ opinions in regards to goals, decisions and tactics. High scores on the
social support subscale refer to a coach who establishes positive interpersonal relationships
with his or her players. High scores on the positive feedback subscale pertain to a coach who
frequently praises and reinforces athletes’ performances. Finally, high scores on the training
and instruction subscale describe a coach whose style of leadership places great emphasis on
teaching. In general, the LSS has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties in samples
of college athletes (see Chelladurai & Reimer, 1998).

Intrinsic Motivation
IM was assessed using the corresponding subscales from the Sport Motivation Scale
(Pelletier et al., 1995). Specifically, participants responded to the items assessing IM to know
(4 items), IM to accomplish (4 items), and IM to experience stimulation (4 items). The scale
asks the athletes to indicate why they are presently practicing their sport (e.g., “For the ex-
citement I feel when I am really involved in the activity”). Response options range from:
 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS 25

1 (does not correspond at all ) to 7 (corresponds exactly). Higher scores reflect greater IM.
The average score of the 12 items was used as the indicator of the athletes’ overall IM for their
sport. The measure has demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity with college athletes
(see Vallerand & Fortier, 1998), and support for combining the 3 forms of IM into a single
construct has been reported by Li and Harmer (1996).

Perceptions of Competence
Perceived competence was assessed using 3 items developed by Amorose (2003). The items
included the following: (a) “How good do you think you are at your sport?”; (b) “When it comes
to your sport, how much ability do you think you have?”; and (c) “How skilled do you think
you are at your sport?” Directions asked the athletes to respond to the items by “Circling the
response that best reflects how you feel about your ability in your current sport.” Response
options for the three items ranged from not good at all to very good, not much ability at all
to a whole lot of ability, and not skilled at all to very skilled, respectively. Each response was
scored on a 5-point scale, with higher scores reflecting higher or more positive perceptions of
competence. Amorose (2003) reported initial evidence of reliability and validity with a sample
of male and female college athletes.

Autonomy
The participants’ sense of autonomy was assessed using a 6-item scale developed specifically
for this study. Consistent with Deci and Ryan (1985), autonomy was specified as the degree
to which the respondents perceive they have a choice in their behavior. The measure asks
respondents to, “Please mark the response that best reflects how you feel about the amount of
choice or control you have when it comes to participating in your sport.” The specific items
are: (a) “I have a say in what I do when participating in my sport”; (b) “I feel forced to do
things in my sport, even when I don’t really want to do them”; (c) “I help decide what I do when
participating in my sport”; (d) “I get to do the things I want to do when participating in my
sport”; (e) “I do not have a say in what I do when participating in my sport”; and (f) “I do not
get to make decisions about what I do when I am participating in my sport.” Response options
for each item ranged from not at all true for me to completely true for me, and are scored on
a 5-point scale. After reverse scoring items b, e, and f, the mean of the 6 items is calculated
and used as an indicator of autonomy, with higher scores reflecting greater autonomy. The
scale was developed and reviewed by two scholars with experience in the area of motivation.
The items possess strong face validity and the scale has demonstrated an acceptable level of
internal consistency (α > .70) in a separate pilot study with college athletes.

Relatedness
The athletes’ sense of relatedness was assessed using a modified version of Richer and
Vallerand’s (1998) Feelings of Relatedness Scale. This scale, originally designed to assess
perceived relatedness in work settings, asked participants to indicate the extent to which they
agreed with a series of statements about their personal relationships. The orginal scale was
modified by changing the relational context to sport. Specifically, they responded to the state-
ment, “In my relationships with the members of my sport team, (i.e., coaches, teammates),
I feel . . .” The 10 descriptors included: 1) “supported,” 2) “close to them,” 3) “understood,”
4) “attached to them,” 5) “listened to,” 6) “bonded to them,” 7) “valued,” 8) “close-knit,”
9) “safe,” and 10) “as a friend.” The response options ranged from do not agree at all to very
strongly agree, and were scored on a 7-point scale with higher scores reflecting a greater sense
of relatedness. Initial reliability and validity information for the work setting version of the
measure are reported in Richer and Vallerand (1998).
26 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

Procedures
All data were collected during a series of team orientation meetings at the university’s athletic
study center. At these meeting, athletes were given a verbal and written explanation of the study
by the principal investigator. Athletes who agreed to participate were given the survey and told
that completing the questionnaires indicated their consent to participate. Coaches were asked
to leave the room while questionnaires were being completed, and the athletes were reassured
that their forms would remain anonymous and confidential.
The data collection occurred during the fall academic semester of 2001. Approximately
half of the athletes (n = 137) were at least 4 weeks into their official competitive season,
while the remaining athletes were technically not “in-season” during the data collection. Given
that first year students and those with a new coach who had not begun their competitive
season (n = 80) would have had limited contact with their new coaches, we instructed these
athletes to answer the questions based on the coach from their most recent full season of
participation.

Data Analyses
A series of data analyses were conducted. Preliminary analyses included an examination
of the basic psychometric properties of the measures. Descriptive statistics and correlations
among the study variables were also explored. The primary research questions were tested using
structural equation modeling (SEM). Specifically, LISREL 8.3 (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1996)
was used to test a series of structural models to determine whether perceived competence,
autonomy, and relatedness mediate the relationship between perceived coaching behaviors and
athletes’ IM, and to determine which coaching behaviors are positively or negatively associated
with the athletes’ IM. Finally, a series of multi-group analyses were conducted to determine
whether the pattern of relationships was invariant across various groups of athletes.

RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Psychometric Properties of the Study Measures
Given the relatively large number of parameters that would be needed to test the measure-
ment properties using SEM, we decided to use subscale scores as observed variables in the
main analyses. As a way to provide evidence of subscale reliability, alpha coefficients were
computed for all measures. All coefficients were above the minimum criterion of .70 (Nunnally,
1978), indicating that the measures reliability assessed the constructs of interest, with the lone
exception of the autocratic behavior subscale of the LSS (α = .60). Based on a low squared
multiple correlation and inter-item correlation, one of the five items of the autocratic behavior
subscale was removed (i.e., “My coach plans relatively independently of the athletes”), improv-
ing the alpha coefficient to .66. The slightly low internal consistency estimate for this subscale
is relatively common in research with athletes (Chelladurai & Riemer, 1998). Acknowledging
the importance of this measure to the current study, and that others have identified an alpha
coefficient greater than .60 as acceptable for scales with relatively few items (see Amorose &
Horn, 2000), the of autocratic behavior scale was retained. The alpha coefficients for all study
variables are reported along the diagonal of Table 1.
Given that the autonomy scale was newly developed for this study, we tested the factorial
validity of the measure using an exploratory factor analysis. Results revealed initial support
for the structure of the measures. Specifically, a principal axis factor analysis with an oblique
 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS 27

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Entire Sample (N = 280)
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Training and Instruction .91

2. Democratic Behavior .34 .85
3. Autocratic Behavior −.11 −.14 .66
4. Social Support .56 .56 −.07 .78
5. Positive Feedback .53 .51 −.25 .52 .86
6. Autonomy .03 .43 −.45 .17 .29 .78
7. Perceived Competence .05 .02 −.07 −.01 −.07 .16 .74
8. Relatedness .17 .12 −.19 .17 .26 .16 .08 .96
9. Intrinsic Motivation .06 .21 −.32 .11 .13 .38 .18 .32 .92
M 3.98 3.16 2.69 3.27 3.86 3.28 4.06 5.32 4.91
SD .64 .76 .77 .69 .77 .70 .52 1.21 1.13

Notes. Alpha coefficients are presented along the diagonal. Correlations are presented in the lower diagonal. All
correlations > ±.11 are significant at p < .05.

rotation resulted in a single factor (eigenvalue = 2.81), which explained 56.13% of the variance
in the items. The factor loadings for the items ranged from .61 to .73.

Descriptive Statistics
The descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables for the full sample of ath-
letes (N = 280) are presented in Table 1. In an absolute sense, the athletes reported moderate
to high scores on all study variables. Further, the correlations between athletes’ IM and the
rest of the study variables were generally in the expected direction. For instance, there were
significant positive relationships between IM and the athletes’ Perceived Competence, Auton-
omy, and Relatedness. Additionally, all five coaching behaviors were positively related to IM
with the exception of Autocratic Behavior, which, as expected, had a negative relationship with
IM. Although not presented in Table 1, estimates of the skewness and kurtosis values suggest
that the responses for each of the variables were reasonably normally distributed, with scores
ranging from −.77 to .39 and −.40 to .74, respectively.
In an attempt to further describe the data, three MANOVAs were conducted to explore
group differences in terms of Gender, Scholarship Status, and Type of Sport (team vs. indi-
vidual sport). The dependent variables in each of these analyses included the five perceived
coaching behaviors, as well as the athletes’ perceptions of Competence, Autonomy, feelings
of Relatedness, and IM. Each group difference variable was examined in a separate analysis,
as the existence of small cell sizes precluded testing for differences across grouping variables.
The first MANOVA compared males (n = 146) and females (n = 134) on the set of study
variables, and the results revealed a significant gender effect, Wilk’s λ (9, 266) = .78, p < .05,
η2 = .22. Univariate F values indicated that male and female participants differed on perceived
Democratic Behavior, F(1, 279) = 8.26, p < .05, η2 = .03; Autocratic Behavior, F(1, 279) =
26.25, p < .05, η2 = .09; Autonomy, F(1, 279) = 9.39, p < .05, η2 = .03; Relatedness, F(1,
279) = 16.46, p < .05, η2 = .06; and IM, F(1, 279) = 11.16, p < .05, η2 = .04. Specifically,
compared to females, the male athletes were found to report a lower sense of Autonomy
(M = 3.12 vs. 3.46), Relatedness (M = 5.02 vs. 5.64), and IM (M = 4.66 vs. 5.19). Further,
males were more likely than the female athletes to perceive their coach as exhibiting a higher
frequency of Autocratic Behavior (M = 2.90 vs. 2.45) and a lower frequency of Democratic
Behavior (M = 3.03 vs. 3.31). All other gender differences were non-significant.
28 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

The second comparison was made between athletes who received a full athletic scholarship
(n = 136), those who received a partial scholarship (n = 94), and those with no athletic schol-
arship (n = 50). Once again, the overall results of the MANOVA indicated that there were
significant differences on the set of study variables between the various scholarship groups,
Wilk’s λ(18, 532) = .86, p < .05, η2 = .07. Univariate F values indicated that the scholar-
ship groups significantly differed on Percepeived Competence, F(2, 279) = 8.59, p < .05,
η2 = .06, and the athletes’ perception of the degree of Training and Instruction provided by
their coach, F(2, 279) = 4.80, p < .05, η2 = .03, although the effect sizes for these differ-
ences were relatively small. Student-Newman-Keuls post-hoc comparisons were conducted
to determine which of the three scholarship groups differed on these variables. Results indi-
cated that the Non-Scholarship athletes reported lower Percepeived Competence relative to the
Partial Scholarship and Full Scholarship athletes (M = 3.86 vs. 4.08 vs. 4.13, respectively).
Additionally, the Partial Scholarship athletes perceived they received less Training and Instruc-
tion relative to the Non-Scholarship and Full Scholarship athletes (M = 3.77 vs. 4.00 vs. 4.12,
respectively). All other scholarship status group differences were non-significant.
The final comparison was made between athletes participating in Individual Sports (n =
100) and those in Team Sports (n = 180). The overall results of the MANOVA indicated
that there were significant differences on the set of study variables between the various groups,
Wilk’s λ(9, 270) = .75, p < .05, η2 = .25. Univariate F values indicated that the groups signif-
icantly differed on IM, F(1, 279) = 7.31, p < .05, η2 = .03; Autonomy, F(1, 279) = 44.55,
p < .05, η2 = .14; Relatedness, F(1, 279) = 7.29, p < .05, η2 = .03; Training and In-
struction, F(1, 279) = 16.06, p < .05, η2 = .06; Democratic Behavior, F(1, 279) = 6.09,
p < .05, η2 = .02; and Autocratic Behavior, F(1, 279) = 12.064, p < .05, η2 = .04. Specif-
ically, Individual Sport athletes reported significantly greater IM (M = 5.16 vs. 4.78); Au-
tonomy (M = 3.63 vs. 3.09); Relatedness (M = 5.78 vs. 5.17); and perceived their coaches
to engage in greater Democratic Behavior (M = 3.31 vs. 3.08), relative to the Team Sport
athletes. Conversely, the athletes from the Team Sports reported that their coaches were more
likely to engage in Training and Instruction (M = 4.09 vs. 3.78) and Autocratic Behavior
(M = 2.80 vs. 2.48) in comparison to the Individual Sport athletes. All other Type of Sport
group differences were non-significant.

Main Analyses
The main research questions were tested through SEM using LISREL 8.3 (Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 1996). All constructs included in the models are represented as observed score vari-
ables. The data was input using the covariance matrix, and maximum likelihood estimation
procedures were used for all model testing. Multiple fit indices were employed to evaluate the
adequacy of the estimated models. Specifically, the significance of χ 2 , the root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), the non-normed fit index (NNFI), the goodness of fit index
(GFI), the incremental fit index (IFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI), were all used to
evaluate the fit of the model. A non-significant ( p > .05) χ 2 value indicates a good fit of the
model to the data, as does a RMSEA <.05. For all other fit indices, a value >.90 indicates a
good fit of the model. When directly comparing two competing models, the difference in χ 2
relative to the change in degrees of freedom (df ) was examined. Ideally, a model will have
high df and a low χ 2 value. As such, a more restrictive model (i.e., one with greater df ) that
does not result in a significant change in χ 2 is considered a more appropriate representation
of the data.
A summary of fit associated with the series of structural models tested and compared is
presented in Table 2. In all cases, the five perceived coaching behaviors were allowed to correlate
 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS 29

Table 2
Summary of Fit Indices for Structural Equation Models
Model df χ2 p < χ2difference RMSEA NNFI GFI IFI CFI

1. Non-Mediational Model 0 0.00 1.00 –a – – – – –

2. Full Mediational Model 5 9.25 .10 9.25a .06 .96 .99 .99 .99
3. Hypothesized Mediational Model 14 30.63 .01 21.53b .07 .94 .98 .98 .98
4. Modified Mediational Model 12 15.72 .20 14.91a .03 .99 .99 1.00 1.00

Notes. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; NNFI = non-normed fit index; GFI = goodness
of fit index; IFI = incremental fit index; CFI = comparative fit index. Non-similar superscripts indicates a
significant ( p < .05) difference in χ 2 between models.

with each other, as were the athletes’ Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness.
Furthermore, all models specified that the athletes’ Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and
Relatedness directly predicted the athletes’ IM.
The comparison of the first two models tested (see Figure 1a and 1b) was designed to
determine whether the relationships between the various coaching behaviors and IM were
mediated by the athletes’ Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and feelings of Relatedness. The
first model (Non-Mediational Model, see Figure 1a) specified that each of the five coaching
behaviors not only predicted the athletes’ Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and feelings of
Relatedness, but also directly predicted IM. This model is essentially analogous to a multiple
regression analysis with eight correlated predictors of IM. As such, this model fit the data
perfectly. The second model (Full Mediational Model, see Figure 1b) also specified that each
of the five coaching behaviors predicted the athletes’ Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and
feelings of Relatedness. However, the model specified that the coaching behaviors had no direct
effect on IM. Instead, the only effect of the coaching behaviors on IM was indirect through
the mediating variables of Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and feelings of relatedness. The
deletion of these direct effects freed 5 df and resulted in a change in χ 2 of 9.25. As this is a non-
significant difference in χ 2 , the Full Mediational Model was deemed as a more parsimonious
and appropriate representation of the data.
The next step was to determine which of the coaching behaviors were linked to the various
motivational variables. As illustrated in Figure 1c (Hypothesized Mediational Model), not all of
the perceived coaching behaviors were expected to affect the athletes’ Perceived Competence,
Autonomy, and feelings of Relatedness. Training and instruction was only expected to influence
Perceived Competence, whereas positive feedback was expected to predict both Perceived
Competence and Relatedness. Further, autocratic and democratic behaviors were expected
to have an effect on Autonomy while Social Support was predicted to influence feelings of
Relatedness. This model resulted in 9 additional df, however the change in χ 2 relative to
2
the Full Mediational Model (χdifference = 21.53) was significant ( p < .05). Thus, while more
parsimonious, the decrease in fit indicated that the Hypothesized Mediational Model was not a
significant improvement over the Full Mediational Model. An examination of the modification
indices, however, indicated that estimating a path from Training and Instruction to Autonomy
and a path from Autocratic Behavior to feelings of Relatedness would substantially improve the
fit of the model. As these relationships are conceptually reasonable, a fourth model (Modified
Mediational Model), containing the two new parameters, was estimated. Although 2 df were
lost relative to the Hypothesized Mediational Model, there was a significant reduction in
χ 2 (χdifference
2
= 14.91). Further, while adding 7 df relative to the Full Mediational Model,
the Modified Mediational Model only increased in χ 2 by 5.66, which is a non-significant
30 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

change. Consequently, the Modified Mediational Model was deemed the most parsimonious
representation of the data. The adequacy of the overall model is also evidenced by the various
fit indices reported in Table 2 (i.e., non-significant χ 2 ; RMSEA <.05; NNFI, GFI, IFI, CFI
>.90).
The complete results of the Modified Mediational Model are illustrated in Figure 2. All
parameter estimates are presented in standardized form. The curved arrows reflect correlations
between variables, whereas straight lines represent the direct effect of a predictor variable on
a criterion variable. All relationships are significant ( p < .05) with the exception of those
identified by a dashed line. Values presented in the small circles represent the residual or error
variance.
The specified model accounted for 22% of the variance in IM (1-residual variance), and 2%,
36%, and 8% of the variance in Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and feelings of Relatedness,
respectively. As expected, Perceived Competence, Autonomy, and feelings of Relatedness had a
significant positive effect on the athletes’ IM. The athletes’ Autonomy was positively predicted
by perceived Democratic Behavior and negatively predicted by Autocratic Behavior. Further,
Positive Feedback had a positive effect on feelings of Relatedness. Contrary to expectations,
however, a significant negative relationship between Positive Feedback and Perceived Compe-
tence and between Training and Instruction and Autonomy emerged. Additionally, Autocratic
Behavior was found to have a significant negative effect on feelings of Relatedness, whereas
Social Support had a non-significant effect on this variable.
With the exception of Social Support, each coaching behavior significantly predicted Per-
ceived Competence, Autonomy, and/or feelings of Relatedness. Interestingly, however, only
perceived Autocratic Behaviors and Democratic Behaviors were found to have a significant
indirect effect on the athletes’ IM. Specifically, the standardized indirect effects and t-values
for Training and Instruction, Democratic Behavior, Autocratic Behavior, Social Support, and
Positive Feedback were −.04 (t = −1.65), .14 (t = 4.84), −.16 (t = −5.22), .02 (t = .89),
and .03 (t = 1.29), respectively.
Although not a primary focus of this study, a series of additional multi-group structural
models were examined to determine whether the pattern of results found in the Modified
Mediational Model were similar for both male and female athletes, for the three different
groups of scholarship athletes (i.e., Full, Partial, No Scholarship), and for the individual and
team sport athletes. All models tested specified that the path coefficients among the coaching
behaviors, the three needs and IM, the error variances of the needs and IM, and correlations
among the three needs were invariant across groups. While each model produced a significant
χ 2 value, the additional fit indices suggested that the pattern of relationships was similar for
males and females (χ 2 = 64.46, d f = 42, p = .02, RMSEA = .05, NNFI = .96, GFI = .94,
IFI = .98, CFI = .97), for athletes across the three scholarship groups (χ 2 = 105.47, d f = 72,
p = .01, RMSEA = .06, NNFI = .94, GFI = .96, IFI = .96, CFI = .96), and for Team and
Individual sports (χ 2 = 73.04, d f = 22, p = .002, RMSEA = .06, NNFI = .94, GFI = .92,
IFI = .97, CFI = .97).
Two additional multi-group structural analyses were performed to examine whether the
timing of the data affected the pattern of results. First, we compared athletes who were officially
in season (n = 137) versus those who were out of season (n = 143) during the data collection.
As with the previous multi-group analyses, the model tested specified that the path coefficients
among the coaching behaviors, the three needs and IM, the error variances of the needs and IM,
and correlations among the three needs were invariant across groups. Based on the fit indices,
the pattern of relationships was not substantially different between the groups (χ 2 = 69.94,
d f = 42, p = .004, RMSEA = .06, NNFI = .95, GFI = .95, IFI = .97, CFI = .97). Next,
we compared the first year athletes and those with new coaches (n = 80), who were asked to
 Figure 2. Standardized relationships for the Modified Mediational Model. All paths significant at p < .05, except those identified by a dashed line.

31
32 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

respond to the measures thinking about their previous coach, versus those athletes (n = 200)
who had at least one season experience with their current coach. Results of this analysis provided
strong evidence that the pattern of relationships were invariant (χ 2 = 37.83, d f = 42, p = .65,
RMSEA = .01, NNFI = 1.00, GFI = .95, IFI = 1.00, CFI = 1.00).

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this project was to test whether perceived competence, autonomy, and
feelings of relatedness mediate the relationships between perceived coaching behaviors and
athletes’ IM, and to determine the specific coaching behaviors that are positively or negatively
related to athletes’ motivation. In general, the findings confirm that coaching behaviors are
associated with athletes’ motivation, and in most cases, there was support for the hypotheses.
The initial purpose of this study was to test the mediating effect of the three fundamental
needs identified by Deci and Ryan (1985). The results of the structural equation modeling
provide strong support for this pattern of relationships. Consistent with SDT (Deci & Ryan,
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2002), as well as Vallerand’s (1997) hierarchical model of IM and
EM, Perceived Competence, Autonomy and Relatedness mediated the relationships between
the behaviors of the coach and the athlete’s IM. Results indicated that the coaching behaviors
of Training and Instruction, Positive Feedback, Autocratic Behavior and Democratic Behavior
all impacted the fundamental needs, explaining 2%, 36%, and 8% of the variance in Perceived
Competence, Autonomy, and Relatedness, respectively. In turn, each of the needs significantly
predicted IM, accounting for 22% of the variance in the athletes’ IM.
This study adds to the few studies that have tested mediational effects of the fundamental
needs on the relationship between social factors and IM in the physical domain (e.g., Ferrer
Caja & Weiss, 2000; Whitehead & Corbin, 1991). The results of the current study add to
the previous literature given that this study examined a variety of coaching behaviors rather
than looking at one specific behavior such as Positive Feedback (e.g., Vallerand & Reid, 1984;
Whitehead & Corbin, 1991) or social factors such as motivational climate (e.g., Ferrer Caja &
Weiss, 2000). Further, the results add to the literature in that all three needs were examined and
were found to be significant predictors of IM (see also Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier,
& Curry, 2002).
The second purpose of this study was to determine which specific coaching behaviors are
positively or negatively related to athletes’ motivation. Although a few unexpected findings
emerged, in general there was support for the predicted relationships. For instance, democratic
behavior positively impacted Autonomy, and thus IM, whereas Autocratic Behavior had the
opposite effect. These findings are similar to those in the academic domain which have found
elevated levels of IM in students who have an autonomy-supportive instructor relative to
teachers who exhibit a more controlling leadership style (see Reeve, 2002). Autocratic and
democratic styles are somewhat different than controlling or autonomy supportive behaviors
in that they are limited to the coaches’ decision-making style. Nevertheless, these styles contain
similar characteristics; in particular the amount of choice provided to the student.
Although not expected, this study also found Autocratic Behavior had a significant nega-
tive relationship with feelings of Relatedness. This relationship seems reasonable given that
autocratic behaviors are characterized by authoritarian, unidirectional behavior, which leaves
little room for feelings of connectedness. For example, authoritarian coaches typically present
themselves as a dictatorial leader, distancing themselves emotionally from their players while
conducting comprehensive and stringent training sessions operating in one direction only; from
the coach to the athlete. As a result, athletes participating with these coaches may be less likely
to feel a strong sense of connectedness or belongingness with their coaches.
 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS 33

The predictions regarding the effect of Positive Feedback were partially supported. As
expected, Positive Feedback was a significant predictor of both Relatedness and Perceived
Competence. Interestingly, however, the relationship between Positive Feedback and Perceived
Competence was negative. These results are dissimilar to previous studies that have found
Positive Feedback to have a positive impact on Perceived Competence (e.g., Amorose & Horn,
2001; Whitehead & Corbin, 1991). Nevertheless, there is research to suggest positive feedback
can result in low perceived competence if given non-contingently and inappropriately (see
Horn, 2002). Thus, perhaps the athletes in this sample felt that the high frequencies of praise
they were receiving were inappropriate, and thus they interpreted this feedback as a sign that
their coach did not think they were competent at their sport. Future studies should attempt
to assess both the quantity and quality of the feedback to better understand its effects on
motivation.
Based on the results, the specific hypotheses regarding the effects of Training and Instruction
and Social Support were not confirmed. First, Social Support was not found to predict the
athletes’ feelings of Relatedness. While unexpected, the effect of social support on motivation
has been somewhat inconsistent in the literature. For example, Amorose and Horn (2000) found
higher levels of social support were positively associated with indices of IM. Amorose and Horn
(2001), on the other hand, found high frequencies of social support from coaches was linked
to decreases in IM over the course of collegiate athletes’ first season. Future research should
explore this relationship more closely, perhaps examining social support from a more detailed
perspective. Research and theory suggest that social support is a multidimensional construct
(Rees & Hardy, 2000). Specifically, social support may take various forms such as emotional
support (i.e., comfort and security), esteem support (i.e., reinforcing confidence and belief),
informational support (i.e., advice and direction) or tangible support (i.e., resources such as
financial aid). Perhaps examining social support from this perspective will help to further
explain how coaches influence athletes’ motivation. For example, esteem support may provide
athletes with a sense of relatedness while informational support may impact perceptions of
competence.
The relationships uncovered between Training and Instruction and the fundamental needs of
Perceived Competence and Autonomy were unexpected, as well. For instance, the relationship
between Training and Instruction and Perceived Competence was non-significant. Research
indicates that athletes use a variety of cues to determine their ability, such as performance
outcomes, personal statistics, learning, goal achievement, and so on (Horn & Amorose, 1998).
Despite previous research that has found that training and instruction is positively related to
indices of IM (Amorose & Horn, 2000, 2001), perhaps the athletes’ in this sample were relying
more heavily on other sources of information to determine their competence.
Another unanticipated finding was that Training and Instruction had a significant neg-
ative effect on Autonomy. Although this was not originally expected, it seems reasonable.
For example, a coach that is utilizing a great deal of training and instruction may not be
allowing for any input from the athletes. In other words, the coach may be planning very
detailed, skill driven assignments, while leaving the athlete without any choice or say in the
workout.
Results indicated that, with the exception of Social Support, the various coaching behaviors
were significantly related to the athletes’ Perceived Competence, Autonomy and/or feelings
of Relatedness. However, only Autocratic Behaviors and Democratic behaviors were found to
have a significant indirect impact on athletes’ IM. The indirect effect of positive feedback and
training and instruction approached significance, but the findings suggest that the coaches’
decision making styles have the strongest relationship with IM. As such, coaches would do
well to try to incorporate athletes into the decision making process.
34 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

Aside from these relationships, a few other elements of the results are worthy of discussion.
First, little of the variance in the athletes’ Perceived Competence was explained by the coaching
behaviors in the model. Perhaps this is because athletes use many sources of competence
information, with the coach being only one of many sources available (Horn & Amorose,
1998). Further, the specific coaching behaviors examined in this study were limited in scope.
As such, other elements of coaching behavior that might have an impact on athletes’ motivation
should continue to be examined.
Results of the modified model indicated that coaching behaviors were significant predictors
of Relatedness and, in turn, Relatedness was found to be a significant predictor of IM. This is
interesting because relatedness has been left out of much of the prior research in the physical
domain, although there are a few exceptions (e.g., Sarrazin et al., 2002). Ryan and Deci (2002)
have suggested that relatedness may be a more distal determinate of IM relative to Perceived
Competence and Autonomy, however, the results of this study indicate that Relatedness is a
significant and positive predictor of IM along with the other needs. In fact, the relationship
between relatedness and IM was stronger than the relationship between Perceived Competence
and IM. These results suggest that relatedness should be incorporated into future research,
with a particular goal of uncovering the coaching behaviors that might facilitate feelings of
relatedness.
Although not a primary focus of the current study, the preliminary analyses indicated that
there were some Gender, Scholarship Status, and Type of Sport differences in a few of the
study variables. For instance, consistent with some previous studies (e.g., Amorose & Horn,
2000; Pelletier et al., 1995) female athletes, those on scholarship, and Individual Sport athletes
tended to report more positive motivational profiles. There were also a few group differences
in terms of perceived coaching behaviors. As Horn (2002) has suggested, a variety of personal
and situational factors might influence how coaches treat different athletes and how these
athletes perceive their coaches treat them. Future studies should continue to explore these
differences as they may help add to our understanding of coaching effectiveness. Despite
these group differences, however, the results of the multi-group analyses in this study suggest
that the pattern of relationships between the coaching behaviors, athletes’ perceptions of
competence, autonomy and relatedness and IM were similar across all groups of athletes.
Thus, the predictions of self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000,
2002), as well as Vallerand’s (1997) hierarchical model of IM and EM, appear robust.
While the results of this study add to the relatively limited research on coaching behaviors
and IM, a few issues should be noted. First, as mentioned, the data were collected at the
beginning of the fall semester. Many of the athletes surveyed had not yet begun their competitive
seasons, and thus had to recall the previous season’s activities. While this was not an ideal
situation, the multi-group analyses indicated that there were no differences in the pattern of
relations between the athletes in-season during the actual data collection versus those out of
season. In other words, there is no statistical evidence that the timing of the data collection
affected the results. While these results are encouraging, future studies may want to standardize
the time of assessment as a way to address this possible confounding factor.
Based on the multi-group analyses we also found no statistical evidence that the results
were influenced by the specific coach the athletes were referring to during the data collection.
As mentioned, given the limited amount of direct contact with their current coaches, first
year athletes and those with new coaches who had not begun their competitive seasons were
instructed to think about their coach from the previous season. For the first year athletes this
meant thinking about their high school coach. While significant contextual differences between
high school and college athletics are likely, the results clearly indicated that the pattern of
relationships between the coaching behaviors and motivational variables was invariant for
 PERCEIVED COACHING BEHAVIORS 35

those responding in reference to different coaches. This is really not all that surprising given
that the measures are relatively general in nature and neither SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan
& Deci, 2000, 2002) or Vallerand’s (1997) hierarchical model of IM and EM would necessarily
predict differences in the relationships across contexts. The key, according to these theories, is
that social factors will influence perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, which
will then influence IM, which is precisely what we found in this study. Future studies, however,
may want to sample athletes with consistent degrees of experience with their coaches as a way
to avoid contextual differences as a possible confound.
A few study limitations should also be noted. For instance, the data were collected from
athletes at a single mid-western university. Despite the fact that the teams and the athletes
varied considerably on a number of levels (e.g., type of sport, level of motivation, perceptions
of coaching behaviors), we should be careful not to suggest that these findings are representative
of all college athletes. We should also acknowledge that the LSS as an assessment of coaching
behavior certainly has some limitations (e.g., the measure focuses on a relatively limited
number of coaching behaviors and focuses exclusively on the frequency of behaviors). We
would encourage future studies to examine additional behaviors as well as attempting to tap
the quality not just quantity of the behaviors. Finally, this study focused specifically on IM
rather than considering all forms of motivation identified by SDT (i.e., IM, EM, AM). By
looking more specifically at the various types of self-determined behavior in combination, we
may be able to delve deeper into the link between coaching behaviors and motivation (see
Vallerand, 1997).
This research contributes to the growing literature on the coach/athlete relationship (see
Horn, 2002) and may offer some practical suggestions for coaches and leaders. Given that the
significant sources of coaching behaviors impacting IM in this study were decision making
styles, it seems relevant to suggest to coaches to focus on this area. By developing a more
democratic coaching style, where athletes’ choices and suggestions are heard and implemented,
coaches may develop more intrinsically motivated athletes. Knowing the benefits of engaging in
activities for more intrinsic reasons (Weiss & Ferrer Caja, 2002), coaches’ may find it valuable
to apply a more egalitarian approach. Certainly there are times when autocratic behaviors
may be more favorable but, generally speaking, athletes’ motivation seems more positively
influenced by a democratic leadership style. Clearly other coaching behaviors are likely to
affect athletes’ motivation, and it is our hope that additional research will help to uncover
the specific behaviors that will be the most effective for facilitating motivation and positive
experiences in athletes.

REFERENCES
Amorose, A. J. (2003). Reflected appraisals and perceived importance of significant others’ appraisals
as predictors of college athletes’ self-perceptions of competence. Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 74, 60–70.
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes’ gen-
der, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches behavior. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 22, 63–84.
Amorose, A. J., & Horn, T. S. (2001). Pre- to post-season changes in the intrinsic motivation of first year
college athletes: Relationships with coaching behavior and scholarship status. Journal of Applied
Sport Psychology, 13, 355–373.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
36 J. HOLLEMBEAK AND A. J. AMOROSE

Chelladurai, P., & Reimer, H. A. (1998). Measurement of leadership in sport. In J. L. Duda (Ed.),
Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 227–253). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Chelladurai, P., & Saleh, S. D. (1980). Dimensions of leader behavior in sports: Development of a
leadership scale. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 34–45.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New
York: Plenum.
Ferrer Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in
physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 267–279.
Horn, T. S. (2002). Coaching effectiveness in the sport domain. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport
psychology (pp. 309–354). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Horn, T. S., & Amorose, A. J. (1998). Sources of competence information. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advancements
in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 49–63). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Jöreskog. K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: SSI Inc.
Li, F., & Harmer, P. (1996). Testing the simplex assumption underlying the sport motivation scale: A
structural equation modeling analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 396–405.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation
inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pelletier, L., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Tuson, K., Briére, N., & Blais, M. (1995). Toward a new measure
of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivational Scale
(SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 35–53.
Rees, T., & Hardy, L. (2000). An investigation of the social support experiences of high-level sports
performers. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 327–347.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E. L. Deci and R. M.
Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 161–182). Rochester, NY: University of
Rochester Press.
Richer, S. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1998). Construction et validation de l’Échelle du sentiment
d’appartenance sociale [Construction and validation of the relatedness feeling scale]. Revue eu-
ropéenne de psychologie appliquée, 48, 129–137.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical
perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33).
Rochester, NY: The University of Rochester Press.
Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female
handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395–418.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J., & Fortier, M. S. (1998). Measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and phys-
ical activity: A review and critique. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology
measurement (pp. 81–101). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in
sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 142–169.
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the casual effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation:
A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 94–102.
Weiss, M. R., & Ferrer Caja, E. (2002). Motivational orientations and sport behavior. In T. S. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 101–184). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Whitehead, J., & Corbin, C. (1991). Youth fitness testing: The effect of percentile-based evaluative
feedback on intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 225–231.