Research update: creating motivational climates: how to make the most out of your recreation environment.

What is it that brings people through the gates of our parks and the doors of our recreation centers, and what is it that keeps them there? In reality it is many things, but self-determination theory suggests that a wide variety of motivators might be grouped based on an individual's desire to satisfy the psychological needs of competence, autonomy and relatedness.

While a variety of theories exist regarding the motivation of human behavior, research using self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002) suggests that people are physically active, exercise and participate in sports based on opportunities to satisfy basic psychological needs.

These needs include a) competence--the personal evaluation that one is good at a given task or activity, b) autonomy--experiencing a sense of freedom in choosing such activity, and c) relatedness--feeling a sense of connectedness with others. Self-determination theory considers competence, autonomy and relatedness to be the essential psychological components of what motivates human behavior.

Motivational Climate

According to the self-determination perspective, environmental or social influences are considered the motivational climate (Gagne, Ryan & Bargmann, 2003) and are important factors in facilitating or inhibiting the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. The motivational climate most typically consists of interactions between authority figures and participants. In a sport setting, the motivational climate will be most influenced by the coach; in an exercise class it might be the instructor, or in a recreation facility it might be a supervisor. The way in which these authority figures manage interactions, information, assignments, instruction, or any item related to the individual in the environment, creates the motivational climate.

Autonomy-supportive Environments and Motivation

Research has shown that the degree of autonomy or freedom in the environment will directly impact the motivational climate and the satisfaction of psychological needs. Developing an autonomy-supportive environment is critical to the satisfaction of psychological needs and the development of self-determined behavior in physical activity and sports environments. Ntoumanis (2005) found that autonomy-supportive physical education teachers had a positive impact on students' satisfaction of psychological needs and higher levels of self-determination.

The study also indicated that students experiencing higher levels of self-determination were more likely to enroll in an optional physical education class the following year. Research in physical education also indicated that students participating in an autonomy-supportive physical education class were more likely to be intrinsically motivated towards physically activity in their leisure time (Hagger, Barkoukis, Chatzisarantis & Wang, 2005).

Autonomy-supportive environments have also been studied in sports participation. Gagne, Ryan & Bargmann (2003) found that autonomy-supportive coaching practices not only demonstrated an increase in gymnasts' level of self-determination and satisfaction of psychological needs, but were also related to the gymnast's consistency in attending practice.

A study of competitive adolescent swimmers during two seasons found that perceptions of autonomy from coaches led to increases in self-determination and increased chances of continuation in the sport (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Briere, 2001).

Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier and Cury (2002) found strong support for a motivational model (Vallerand, 1997) of sport drop-outs among female handball players. Results indicated that the coaches' behavior, when perceived as autonomy-supportive, led to satisfaction of basic needs, higher levels of self-determination and less drop-out. Research also indicated that autonomy-supportive environments and the satisfaction of psychological needs facilitated exercise adherence, enjoyment and satisfaction with participation (Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle & Karageorghis, 2002; Levy & Bradley, 2004; Vlachopoulos & Karageorghis, 2000; Wilson, 2004).

Creating an autonomy-supportive environment appears to be important for athletes with disabilities as well. Using a qualitative approach, Farrell, Crocker, McDonough and Sedgwick (2004) found that motivation for participation among athletes with disabilities participating in Special Olympics was connected to the supportive behavior of the coach.

Examples of Autonomy-supportive Environments

Research has clearly demonstrated the importance of an autonomy-supportive environment in facilitating self-determined behavior. But what is autonomy support, and how do we facilitate a more autonomy-supportive climate? It is first important to remember that the social climate, typically engineered by the authority figure, is what facilitates or inhibits that satisfaction of psychological needs.

First and foremost, a climate perceived as controlling will inhibit the satisfaction of competence, autonomy and relatedness, thus diminishing the opportunity for self-determined behavior (Gagne, Ryan & Bargmann, 2003). A climate however, that facilitates decision making on the part of the athlete or participant, or that takes into account the individual's perspective, is considered an autonomy-supportive approach.

Other ways to create autonomy include expressing an understanding of the individual's feelings; providing feedback that is directed towards accomplishment of tasks and personal improvement; not focusing too heavily on winning or losing; diminishing external pressures and demands; encouraging initiative; and developing a sense of teamwork and mutual support. These have been shown to lead to the satisfaction of psychological needs and the development of self-determined behavior (Gagne, 2003; Reinboth, Duda & Ntoumanis, 2004).

Several studies have also focused on the differences in climates which are task-involved versus those that are ego-involved. Task-involved climates emphasized the importance of effort, personal improvement and contributions to the team. Ego-involvement climates on the other hand, focus heavily on winning and comparisons among athletes based on ability level.

In a study of British university athletes, Reinboth and Duda (in press) found that task-involved climates were perceived as autonomy-supportive and positively predicted the satisfaction of basic psychological needs.

In contrast, Sarrazin et al. (2002) found in a study of female handball players, ego-involved climates characterized by focusing too heavily on "winning at all costs," punishing poor athletic performance, creating competition within the team or providing attention to players based on ability level, reduced need satisfaction and levels of self-determination. Similar to the task-involved coaching approach, in a study of more than 400 British adolescents, Ntoumanis (2001) observed three specific social factors which contributed to perceptions of an autonomy-supportive physical education class: a) focusing on cooperation as opposed to competition, b) making evaluations based on individual student improvement as opposed to comparisons with other classmates, and c) providing more opportunities for individual choice instead of requiring all students to conform to the same activity expectation.

References

Chatzisarantis, N. L., Hagger, M. S., Biddle, S. J, & Karageorghis, C. (2002). The cognitive processes by which perceived locus of causality predicts participation in physical activity. Journal of Health Psychology, 7(6), 685-699.

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.

Farrell, R. J.; Crocker, P. R., McDonough, M, H.; & Sedgwick, W. A. (2004). The driving force: Motivation in special olympians. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 21(2), 153-166.

Gagne, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199-214.

Gagne, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of gymnasts. Journal of applied sport psychology, 15(4), 372-390.

Hagger, M. S., Barkoukis, V., Chatzisarantis, N. L., & Wang, J. C. (2005). Perceived autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity: A cross-cultural evaluation of the trans-contextual model. Journal of Educational Psychology; 97(3), 376-390.

Levy, S. & Bradley, C. (2004). Effects of a self-determination theory based mail-mediated intervention on adults' exercise behavior. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(5), 345-349.

Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical education using a self-determination theory framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 444-453.

Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Education Psychology, 71, 225-242.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25(4), 279-306.

Reinboth, M. & Duda, J. L. (in press). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 1-18.

Reinboth, M. & Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2004). Dimensions of coaching behavior, need satisfaction, and the psychotogical and physical welfare of young athletes. Motivation and Emotion, 28(3), 297-313.

Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2002). 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 drop out 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). New York: Academic Press.

Vlachopoulos, S. P. & Karageorghis, C. I. (2000). Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theory. Research QuarterLy for Exercise & Sport, 71(4), 387-398.

Wilson, P. M. (2004). The relationship between perceived autonomy support, exercise regulations and behavioral intentions in women. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 5(3), 229-242.

Research into Action: Creating the Right Climate

If you and your coaches, instructors, supervisors, leaders or direct service providers can answer yes to the following questions, you may be well on your way to providing an autonomy-supportive environment. Answering no to the below questions may assist you in identifying areas for improvement.

Do you or your staff do the following:

1. Facilitate decision making by the athlete or participant?

2. Give participants a good rationale when requesting that a task or activity be done a certain way?

3. Try to take the participant's perspective?

4. Express an understanding of the participant's feelings?

5. Provide feedback that is directed towards accomplishment of tasks and personal improvement?

6. Seek to diminish external pressures and demands?

7. Encourage initiative?

8. Provide opportunities for individual choice instead of requiring all participants to conform to the same activity expectation?

9. Develop a sense of teamwork and mutual support?

10. Emphasize the importance of effort over outcome?

11. Focus on personal improvement and contributions to the team?

12. Reduce the focus on "winning at all costs?"

Participants will also be more likely to satisfy psychological needs if authority figures will avoid the following: a) comparisons or evaluations among participants based on ability level, b) punishing or ridiculing poor performance, c) creating competition within teams, and d) providing attention to players based on ability level.

Neil Lundberg is an assistant professor at Brigham Young University in the Department of Recreation Management and Youth Leadership. His research interests include Self-Determination Theory and the therapeutic use of sports for individuals and families. Neil conducts research with sports organizations serving individuals with disabilities. He is a CTRS and a Level III Certified Alpine and Adaptive Ski Instructor. He can be contacted at [phone] or via email at [e-mail].