Sep 10, 1986 - Weiss and Bredemeier (1983) refer to children's motivation in sport as a research area in need of a devel
JOURNAL OF SPORT PSYCHOLOGY, 1987, 9, 130-145
Toward a Developmental Theory of Children's Motivation in Sport Joan L. Duda Purdue University The purpose of this paper is to review Nicholls' developmentally based theory of achievement motivation and apply this perspective to children's sport. Five areas of research are reviewed that support the relevance of Nicholls' theory to the sport domain. Based on Nicholls' framework, several considerations are presented for future research on the development of achievement motivation in sport.
The relationship between sport participation and the psychosocial development of children has been an important and popular area of study in the field of sport psychology. One major area of weakness in this literature is the tendency for researchers to generalize adult-based theories, constructs, and data to children involved in sport (Duda, 1982; Gould, 1982; Weiss & Bredemeier, 1983). A second limitation of research on children in sport is that the majority of studies in this area have been atheoretical in scope. To overcome such limitations, Weiss and Bredemeier (1983) argue for a developmental perspective as a theoretical basis for the study of children in sport contexts. Such a perspective would place an emphasis on determining qualitative differences in psychological and behavioral characteristics among child participants of varying ages. Specifically, according to Weiss and Bredemeier (1983, p. 217), a developmental theoretical approach is focused upon the description and explanation of psychosocial andlor behavioral changes within individuals across their life span, and upon the differences and similarities in the nature of these changes among groups. Furthermore, a cognitive-developmentaltheoretical perspective is focused upon those ontogenetic changes in cognitive abilities which help to describe and explain psychosocial and/or behavioral variations among individuals differentiated by developmental levels.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Joan L. Duda, Department of Physical Education, Health and Recreation Studies, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
Children's Motivation in Sport / 131
Weiss and Bredemeier (1983) refer to children's motivation in sport as a research area in need of a developmentalperspective. Most of the recent developmental sport psychology research on children's motivation has been based on Susan Harter's theory of competence motivation (Feltz & Petlichkoff, 1983; Harter, 1978, 1981; Harter & Comell, 1984; Klint & Weiss, 1987; Roberts, Kleiber, & Duda, 1981; Weiss, 1986; Weiss, Bredemeier, & Shewchuk, 1985, 1986). In general, Harter's theory holds that an individual's judgment of his or her degree of competence influences performance in achievement settings. Harter argues that the competence motive is multidimensional and situationally specific. In her work (Harter, 1978, 1981; Harter & Comell, 1984), she has emphasized the examination of children's competence in social, cognitive, and physical domains. Harter's research has indicated there are important psychological correlates of domain-specific perceived competence, namely the child's locus of control and intrinsic versus extrinsic motivational orientation (i.e., the child's task preference and source of competence information). Specifically, research has suggested that "the child who is intrinsically motivated within a given mastery domain would also perceive himselflherself to be relatively competent in that domain, and to feel in control of hislher successes and failures" (Harter & Comell, 1984, p. 220). Harter's theoretical perspective stresses the developmental changes and individual factors that correspond to a child's perceived competence, sense of control, and motivational orientation. This work has led to the construction of situationally specific measures of these psychological constructs and has considered relevant antecedent variables (e.g., significant other influences, past successlfailure experiences) that could affect a child's competence motivation. Another developmental-based theory of achievement motivation has been proffered by Nicholls (1984a, 1984b). Recently, Roberts (1984a, 1984b) has argued for the relevance of Nicholls' conceptualization to the sport context. Reviewing preliminary evidence from sport research that supported Nicholls' arguments, Roberts (1984b) was the first to hypothesize how Nicholls' theoretical perspective might provide us with insight into the "dropout" from children's sport programs. Extending past work of Roberts (1984a, 1984b), this paper has a threefold purpose. First, it reviews Nicholls' developmental theory of achievement motivation including the most recent extensions and refinements. To illustrate the tenets of Nicholls' theory, examples from the sport context are provided. Second, it highlights recent sport research that directly and indirectly supports Nicholls' theoretical perspective. Third, based on Nicholls' framework, this paper suggests several research areas for future developmental work on children's motivation in sport.
Nicholls' Developmental Theory of Achievement Motivation In Nicholls' developmental theory of achievement motivation (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984), the defining feature of achievement behavior is that the feeling of competence is its major goal. Similar to Harter (1978, 1981; Harter & Connell, 1984), Nicholls holds that perceptions of competence or incompetence are the critical mediators of performance and persistence. In achievement
situations, though, Nicholls argues that people behave in a manner to maximize the demonstration of high ability and minimize the demonstration of low ability. Therefore, perceptions of success and failure are based on the perceived demonstration of high or low competence, respectively. Whereas Harter's theory (1978, 1981; Harter & Connell, 1984) focuses on how much competence one perceives himself/herself to possess and the corresponding relationship to behavior, Nicholls' theory considers the meaning of ability or how ability is constmed in respect to performance and persistence in achievement settings. Critical to Nicholls' developmentalwork (Nicholls & Miller, 1984) is the assumption that the concept of ability has different meanings to individuals at different stages of development. Specifically, Nicholls argues that the criteria individuals use to determine their level of competence vary as a function of age, as well as individual and situational differences. In Nicholls' theory, the development of achievement motivation is intimately linked to the development of the concept of ability. Interrelationships Between Conceptions of Ability, Effort, and Task Dificulty As suggested by Nicholls' research (Nicholls, 1978,1980,1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1983, 1984), the development of the concept of ability involves differen-
tiations of the related concepts of effort and task difficulty from the concept of ability. That is, a child's perception of personal competence relates to his or her understanding of task difficulty and the role of effort in determining the outcome of tasks of varying difficulty. As summarized in Table 1, there are three levels of differentiation between conceptions of difficulty and ability, and four levels of differentiation between the concepts of ability and effort (Nicholls, 1978,1980; Nicholls & Miller, 1983, 1984). According to Nicholls, children 2 through 4 years of age employ an egocentric conception of difficulty, as difficulty is judged in respect to the child's subjective estimates of whether he or she can do the task. Perceptions of high or low ability are mastery-based and linked to successful or unsuccessful outcomes on tasks of varying subjective difficulty. When children are slightly older (approximately 5-6 years of age), perceptions of task difficulty are based on the objective features of the task at hand (e.g., how far one needs to throw a ball; how complex the required movement skill appears to be). Therefore perceptions of high ability result when one is successful on an objectively difficult task. More important, perceptions of competence, demonstrated effort, and performance outcomes are not distinguished at this stage. For example, in baseball, success in hitting the ball (in the objectively difficult task of batting) would indicate that the performer is capable and must also have tried hard. Further, success in batting with maximal effort would indicate higher ability than successful batting without trying hard. Around the ages of 6 or 7, children develop a normative conception of difficulty in which a task is perceived to be more difficult if fewer similar others can succeed at the task; for example, can other children of the same age and sex successfully kick the ball into the soccer goal? Perceptions of high ability are construed from successful outcomes on normatively difficult tasks, regardless of the degree of demonstrated effort.
Children's Motivation in Sport 1 133 Table 1 Levels of Differentiation of the Concept of Ability from those of Difficulty and Effort Age
Difficulty
2-4
Egocentric: Own expectations of success the basis for judging task difficulty and the level of ability indicated by task outcomes.
415-6
Objective: Perceptions of task difficulty based on properties of task (complexity) and the level of ability indicated by task outcomes.
6-7
Normative: Task difficulty and ability judged in relation to the performance of others. Tasks that few can do are hard, and success on those indicates high ability.
7-9
Effort
Effort or outcome is ability. Accomplishment requiring more effort means higher ability. Effort and outcomes not seen as cause and effect.
Effort is the cause of outcomes. Equal effort is expected to lead to equal outcomes. Ability is partially differentiated (as a cause of outcomes) from effort. Complete differentiation: Ability conceived as capacity which limits the effect of effort on performance.
Note: Adapted from Nicholls, Jagacinski, and Miller, 1986.
According to Nicholls (1978), for a child of approximately 7 through 9 years of age, performance outcomes on tasks of varying difficulty are based primarily on effort. In sport, for example, a child at this stage would tend to perceive that anyone who wins a game was successful because helshe tried hard. Such a child would not yet understand that ability can limit the effectiveness of effort on normatively difficult tasks. At around 9 and 10 years of age, children attribute performance outcomes to both ability and effort. Moreover, conceptions of competence and effort are now "partially differentiated" (Nicholls, 1978). That is, although a child at this age may understand that if someone does well in a challenging basketball game without trying hard, that athlete must be very skilled, this reasoning is not used systematically. When a child is 11 or 12 years of age, ability and effort are completely differentiatedand ability is perceived to be a "capacity" (Nicholls, 1978; Nicholls & Miller, 1984). The child can now understand that given two athletes who per-
form similarly in a game (e.g., both scored 20 points in basketball), if one did not try hard on offense then that athlete must be more competent than the second athlete who did give his or her best effort. Furthermore, children at this age realize that if both athletes now tried their best, the one who initially tried less is likely to score higher. Thus, at this level of differentiation, to be judged competent a person must perform better than others with equal effort or do as well as others (i.e., equal performance) without trying as hard. When ability is viewed as a capacity and a child perceives his or her competence to be low, he or she realizes there is only so much that trying hard can do when attempting to succeed at a normatively difficult task. The fact that ability level can limit the effect of trying hard on performance is understood, and challenging tasks are seen as requiring both high ability and maximal effort. Among most 12-year-olds, who hold a highly differentiated conception of ability, improved personal performance is an insufficient basis for perceptions of high competence. Rather, perceiving oneself as able entails the comparison of one's demonstrated effort and performance outcomes with those of relevant others. This perspective, of course, contrasts with the undifferentiated conception of ability held by younger children. In their view, competence is not judged in respect to performance norms or social comparison. For example, to a 5-yearold, high ability would mean better performance than before (Nicholls, 1984a, 1984b). In his research (Nicholls, 1978, 1980; Nicholls & Miller, 1983, 1984), Nicholls provides evidence to support the above developmental changes in the conceptions of ability, effort, and task difficulty through his examination of associated affective and behavioral changes. This evidence, primarily cross-sectional at present, is based largely on extensive interviews with children after they performed or watched others perform academic tasks. A critical component of Nicholls' theory (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984) of achievement motivation is his argument that achievement goals are linked to these different conceptions of ability. Specifically, according to Nicholls (1984b), there are two major achievement goals that involve different conceptions of competence: task-involved and ego-involved goals. In the case of task-involved goals, the subjective experience of improving one's performance or of performing a task better than expected occasions feelings of competence and perceived success. For example, a basketball player who was task involved would focus more on improving offensive skills than on how he or she compared offensively to others. Therefore, perceptions of success when one is oriented to task-involved goals are based on the less differentiated conception of ability. In respect to ego-involved goals, perceptions of success entail a favorable comparison of one's current athletic capacity relative to that of others (a demonstration of the more differentiated conception of ability). Thus, a basketball player who was ego involved would be more concerned with demonstrating that he or she is the best player and would be likely to place importance on hisker standing relative to peers. According to Nicholls (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984), the goals we tend to prefer (i.e., task- vs. ego-involved goals) vary as a function of cognitive maturity, personal disposition, and situational factors. Because of the developmental changes in the way ability is construed, whether goals are defined by the more
Children's Motivation in Sport / 135 or less differentiated conception of ability depends on the age of the child. After the age of 11 or 12, though, a person can employ either conception of competence. In Nicholls' view, whether an adolescent or adult is task or ego involved is dependent on the situation at hand. Specifically, "if situational factors such as presence of an audience, competition, or other evaluative cues induce individuals to focus on their personal competence, a more differentiated conception of ability [will be used]" (Nicholls & Miller, 1984, p. 212). In contrast, situational factors that emphasize mastery or improved performance on moderately challenging tasks would elicit attempts to demonstrate the less differentiated conception of ability. A focus on task- or ego-involved goals is also related to individual differences in preoccupation with improvement versus beating others. According to Nicholls' theory (1984a, 1984b), past involvement in predominantly task- or ego-oriented situations and social group membership (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980) can relate to one's developing a personal disposition toward mastery or social comparison-based goals. A final tenet of Nicholls' theory (1984a, 1984b) concerns hypothesized relationships between goal perspective and the achievement behaviors of task choice, performance, and persistence. In general, Nicholls (1984b, p. 46) holds that any achievement "behavior will be economically directed at the goal of demonstrating high rather than low ability." More specifically, his work suggests that a mastery perspective will more often lead to the exhibiting of maximal effort, enhance the development of perceived ability, and lead to positive achievement behaviors. Nicholls argues that, maladaptive task choices and performance impairment are not found in task involvement. In ego-involvement, . . . individuals with low perceived ability choose unrealistically easy or difficult tasks-tasks that provide little opportunity for the development of competence. Their performance is also impaired when they are ego-involved. (Nicholls & Miller, 1984, p. 213) According to Nicholls' theory (1984a, 1984b), only when an ego-involved individual has high perceived ability will he or she tend to perform well and to choose intermediately difficult tasks. Evidence to support Nicholls' hypothesized relationship between the emphasis on demonstrating task- versus ego-involved conceptions of ability and performance was provided in a recent developmental study by Miller (1985). In this investigation, sixth graders who had a mature conception of ability (i.e., ability as capacity) performed worse on a moderately difficult cognitive task following a failure condition. This performance impairment did not occur among those second- and sixth-grade children who held an immature conception of ability. Nicholls' theory (1984a, 1984b) also suggests a link between goal perspective and persistence in achievement domains. Research (Nicholls, 1984a) has indicated that ego involvement can reduce one's intrinsic interest in an activity or one's desire to engage in the task for its own sake. Moreover, according to Nicholls' theoretical perspective, ego involvement increases the probability that at least some individuals will perceive themselves as incompetent. Thus it can
be argued that the adoption of a task orientation, wherein the exercise and the demonstration of competence is an end in itself, would tend to sustain more continuous participation. Ego involvement, on the other hand, would be more likely to lead to a lack of persistence, especially in situations in which winning and being the best performer seemed unlikely, and to a reduced tendency to exercise skills for their own sake.
Nicholls' Theory and Motivation Research in Sport This section, extending past work of Roberts (1984a), addresses the extent to which Nicholls' theory (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984) might generalize to and have application for the realm of children's sport. It is critical to note that it would be limiting to simply extrapolate from the academic domain when attempting to understand how children engaged in sport tasks process their competence. As Weiss and Bredemeier (1983) point out, when applying a cognitive-developmental perspective such as Nicholls' theory to the world of children's sport, it is essential to validate the psychological constructs entailed among child participants in sport settings. With respect to the application of Nicholls' perspective (Nicholls, 1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984) to youth sport, several distinctions between cognitive and physical tasks seem to imply there would be differences in the development of the concept of ability in sport versus its development in the classroom. First, in the sport context, a distinction seems to be made by participants (Roberts, 1984a; Roberts & Pascuzzi, 1979) between global athletic ability as capacity and sport skill. It has been suggested that skill level in sport is perceived to be more changeable and unstable than natural athletic ability. Second, it could be argued (Roberts & Pascuzzi, 1979) that, when considering sport tasks, the nature of ability, effort, and task difficulty are much more obvious than in cognitive tasks. For example, contrast the ease with which one could deduce that an athlete is trying hard in a tennis match with someone deciding that a student is exerting effort while taking an examination. The demonstration of effort seems much more overt in the former case. Third, the nature of performance seems to differ with academic and sport activities. In particular, sport activities allow us to witness as performers and spectators both the performance outcome and performance process. Finally, although it might be said that social comparison is alive and well in the classroom (Eccles, Midgley, & Adler, 1984), evaluation and competition against others is at the heart of most sporting endeavors. As pointed out by Scanlan (1982), social comparison is implicit in the nature of the game whether at the youth sport or adult participant levels. Thus, it might be argued that the competitive sport context is especially ego involving (Roberts, 1984a). The above points suggest that we should be cautious in generalizing from Nicholls' research (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984) in our attempts to understand the development of motivation and conceptions of competence in sport. However, at the present time there are five areas of investigation that support the application of Nicholls' theory (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984) to the sport domain. Sport research suggests that (a) conceptions of ability vary with age, (b) demonstration of competence lays the basis for subjective perceptions of goal ac-
Children's Motivation in Sport 1 137 complishment, (c) athletes can be oriented to both task- and ego-involved goals, (d) there is a link between orientations to task- and ego-involved goals and behavior in sport, and (e) goal preference seems to vary with respect to individual differences.
Variations in Conceptions of Ability Although focusing specifically on developmental changes in the sources of competence information, the work of Horn and her colleagues (Horn & Hasbrook, 1986; Horn & Weiss, 1986) provides evidence in the physical domain to support Nicholls' contention (Nicholls & Miller, 1984) that the way ability is construed varies with age. In studies of 273 youth soccer players (8-14 years) and 134 children (8-13 years) involved in a summer sport camp, Horn has found that the use of peer comparison (a nonnative conception of ability) as a determining source of perceptions of physical ability increases between middle childhood and early adolescence. Rather than relying on more internal criteria, such as task mastery or rate of improvement, however, the younger children in these studies (Horn & Hasbrook, 1986; Horn & Weiss, 1986) were more likely to emphasize adult feedback. But it is not clear in Horn's determinationof sources of competence whether this adult feedback was mastery-oriented (i.e., the child was improving) or normative (i.e., the child was better than the other children). Interestingly, in congruence with Nicholls' perspective (1984a) as well as Harter's theory (1981), Horn's research has indicated that variations in the criteria used to evaluate competence are also a function of individual differences in levels of perceived competence and locus of control.
The Importance of Demonstrating Competence in Sport Recent sport research has suggested that an examination of perceptions of ability is critical to our understanding of sport motivation (Bukowski & Moore, 1980; Roberts, 1984a, 1984b; Roberts & Duda, 1984; Roberts et al., 1981; Spink & Roberts, 1980). In particular, three studies (Khecik, Allison, & Duda, 1986; Roberts & Duda, 1984; Spink & Roberts, 1980) have indicated that, in line with Nicholls' theory, the perception of demonstrated competence seems to be the most important variable underlying subjective perceptions of success and failure. In an investigation of college students involved in a class racquetball tournament, Spink and Roberts (1980) determined the participants' postgame causal attributions, subjective perceptions of success and failure, and ratings of own and opponent ability. The results indicated that those subjects experiencing a subjective success (whether winners or losers) believed they had demonstrated high ability in the preceding match. Regardless of the objective outcome, those students who experienced a subjective failure perceived they had exhibited low competence. In a similar field study, Roberts and Duda (1984) also found that perceptions of demonstrated ability related to perceptions of success and failureamong college students involved in,a class tournament. In a study of 42 boys (9-12 years old) competing in a one-on-one basketball game, Kimiecik et al. (1986) examined the relationshipbetween perceptions of competence and perceived goal attainment among children. ~ g a i congruent 6
a w a j pw a p ley3 punoj u o m a 'b1p~gy3ad~ wads uy ammuoj~adpw spo8 panlo~q-o%a lo -qsq 03 uoyquauo s,aiaTyle w uaahvaq a3uapuodsauo:, e sy alayl paisa8Sns s q ( ~ 8 6 1uopna ) dq dpnls iua3a.1a 'isqtl. .suo!i?lnayJo po%panloAuy -o%apw -?st?] jo sa3uanbasuo:, pJoyAeqaq aw jo uoyBqn?xaayl q8no.q (qm61 '~9861)hroaw ,slloq3y~pauoddns osp seq q3masa~d8oloq36sd pods '(1861 " p la suaqoa) s3ya~ylauy panlonu! uaaq Janau aneq OYM u a - 1 ~pw ~ 3(£861 ' ~ ~ 0 m 3 g 78 a d2)1ad f9861 'suawly T uotma) slno -doq am wyl a3uaiadwo:, pan!axad q ~ a q 8 gaq 01 slwdy~p~cd @s ylnob punoj aAeq saypws i u a m 'JaWnd '(9861 ' A a p a aas) ~ sysq 3pappe uo lauaq uuoj~ad 01 pual y%qaq 01 blypqv p31sdqd Jyayl aiqaxad o q siued~3yed ~ 1eyl pale~ypuy d seq q3Jeasaa -pa81amaseq vods uy a3uaisyslad pm ' a ~ w m o j ~ a'azmaiadmo3 vods ayl uy awl1 iuasa~dayl iv jo suogdamd uaarnlaq yug B 'a~nie~aiy~ .a3!oq:, ysa pw '(pauaxa pojja jo aa~8ap"a'y) hysualuy 'a3uaisys~ad'axrmr.uoj~adse q ~ n s up8 01 q uoyenyow iuawanag3ejo hoayl b m jo anpdqo s~oynaqaqo ~ i@ysy y auo -ixaluo:,3ggads e uy pnpynypu! m! bq ppq a3ualadwo:, jo aa~8appanla3~ad ayl pun (spo8 paalo~uy-ysaJO -08a) Mpqe jo uoyida3uo:, paie!jua-ragp ssal JO aJow a uo sasn30j pnpyA!puy ue ~ a q a 01 q~ puodsauo:, plnoqs sJoyAeqaq palm 1 'B sIloy3TN f 99861) Maya "3noq3yN U I -!$Om30 uo!l33paJdayl ' ( ~ 6'JaEly slvog
uods u? sAopvqag puv dgsuogvlay a u
U? S U O ~ I V U V ~uaawag
,,-isel uy a m 3 I uaqM SBM amnpd,, ,,'am% ayl UOM I uaqM seM ssamns,, '~uama~-[o~uy o8a pw ,,'8uyiooqs dm uy Jauaq 1Cue la%1,upyp I uaqM seM a m p d , , ,,' a m 8 ayl ul plno3 I isaq ayl p!p I uaqM SBM ssa~ins,,' a l d m -xa loj ' y s q jo sua1 uy bp~1??1d ( b ~ a a ! ~ a d '549.96 s a ~ pue ~ ' 0 8a)m p j pm ssamns vods paugap sluapws ayl ieyl paiexpu! sqnsax .vods uy ainpej jo suo~i -da~~ad a u p x a 01 pasn seM alnpamrd a m s aqA ,,jlnjssa33ns aJaM nob leg M O U ~nob plp MOH,, pw ,,ja3u-s~ s g uy ,ssa3ms, saM lay&,, se q ~ n suoy s -sanb 01 asuodsa~u! ssa33ns 1eyl aqp3sap 01 payse axaM spa!qng '&!nyi3~uods aiyomj e uy 1n~ssa33nsi~ajq3ea uaqM aury B jo yum 01 (sleab2 . ~ 1age H)siua3 -sa-[opeO ~ palsanba~ S (q9861) epna ' i m o j papua-uado w U I .spa% panlonuy -08a pue -ysei ssaJls w3 saiappe lay] uoylysod ayl axojuya1 osp (99861 '1861 'apna)uods ul a3ual~adxaa ~ n ppue j ssm3ns puos~ade aurjap b~anyparqns01 payse aJaM siuapnls poq3s q%!qq 3 y q ~u! suoye8!isanuy aa!lq!pnb aioly ~ o d u! s (siuyod aJom Oupo~s inoqa isow %ufurn?3 '.8-a)uospvduro:,py3os .to ( s m s 3 ~ n o ~ inoqa d q $sow%ufurn?3 l '.%'a)haisem %ulpa~a;r spo8 puylsp 01 paiuapo aJaM siuedy3yved i ~ y papaa -a1 s~sbpua~013aj'(39861 '95861 ' e p n a saiama aley2ano3~aiy pw p~nureJlu! bq play anyimds~adpo% ayl jo suoy~e%psaauyy 'aldmxa 109 '(7861 ' 8 q ) p 9 ~ 1 0 ~ ~ - 0.I08 a -ySQ 01 a3Ua -Ma f39861 '~9861' 9 ~ 8 6 1' 1861 ' ~ p n aBua)U3 -maJaJu! spo8 q a q ssam~dd m salame itq paie3pq anaq saFptUs '($5461' l a p m 'B s11093?N fq9861 ' s n o q ~ !hoayl ~ ) ,snoqqq jo siaual ayl 01 t a d s a ~U I -a.rnlyaj/ssa33nsa~rpafqns jo ~oixpaxdlsaq ayl S E M lsaluo:, Wqlaysaq ayl uy &yqe paleilsuowap pa~ya3~ad '(~$5461) snoq3y~y l ! ~
Children's Motivation in Sport 1 139
intercollegiateswimmers who received a mastery-based goal-setting training program exerted higher effort and demonstrated greater performance improvements than a control group of athletes. It is important to point out that those swimmers involved in the training program were also more likely to exhibit positive achievement behaviors with respect to optimal task choice. Congruent with Nicholls' theory (1984a, 1984b), the positive impact of mastery training on exerted effort, task choice, and performance was especially true for those athletes with lower levels of initial perceived ability. Second, a relationship between goal perspective and persistence in sport has also emerged in recent investigations. Studies by Duda (1985b, 1985c, 1986c) and Ewing (1981) of junior high, high school, and college-age students have indicated that those who drop out of sport are more likely to emphasize ego-involved ability goals. In Duda's research specifically, those subjects who were involved in sport at the recreational or organized level over a long period of time tended to be oriented to task- and ego-involved sport goals. On the other hand, those who had dropped out of sport tended to define sport success and failure more exclusively with respect to social comparison. A further question that needs to be addressed with respect to these subjects is the following: If ego involvement is your primary motivational perspective and you are not the most skilled, what can you fall back on that will provide you with a perceived success? Obviously a critical variable that also needs to be examined in research on the behavioral consequences of goal orientation is the subject's level of perceived competence.
Individual Diferences in Goal Orientations Supporting the position of Nicholls (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984), evidence has been accumulated in the sport domain to suggest there are individual differences in orientations to task- and ego-involved goals. Specifically, research indicates that mastery versus ego-involved goal preferences may vary as a function of the participant's gender, culture, and age. Studies by Duda (1985a, 1985b, 1986a, 1986b, 1986c) and Ewing (1981) of junior high, senior high, and college students revealed gender differences in goal orientations in sport. In general, males are more likely to place a greater emphasis on ego-involved goals in the athletic context than are females. Recent investigations have indicated that goal perspective in sport varies cross-culturally. When contrasted to Hispanic (Duda, 1985a, 1986b), Black (Duda, 1986b, Duda & Allison, 1982), and Navajo (Duda, 1986a) participants, Anglo athletes tended to be more ego involved in their goal orientations. As stated above, this trend was especially true when the comparison was made with Anglo males. In terms of the question of development, preliminary research has also suggested that variations in goal perspective are related to the age of the athlete. In a study by Ewing, Roberts, and Pemberton (1983), it was found that children of approximately 9 to 11 years of age tended to emphasize task-involved goals in sport whereas young adolescents approximately 12 to 14 years of age were more likely to be ego involved. Among the younger subjects in this study, though, the goal orientation factors that emerged were not as clear or distinct as they were for the older athletes. What is also not clear is whether differences in goal orien-
tation among children and adolescents are related to cognitive maturity, years of involvement in the sport system, or the intensity of competitive pressure at different age levels. It appears this area of research-development changes in goal orientation-is a critical line of inquiry for developmental sport psychologists intrigued with the topic of motivation.
Toward a Developmental Theory of Achievement Motivation in Sport In advocating the adoption of a developmental approach in future sport psychology research on children, Weiss and Bredemeier (1983) emphasize the importance of reviewing developmentally based, psychological constructs and models such as Nicholls' theory of achievement motivation, validating these constructs and models in sport settings, and formulating empirical, sport-specific hypotheses. Drawing from Nicholls' perspective (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984) and preliminary motivation research in the athletic domain, I would like to suggest several additional recommendations that are important to consider in the quest for a developmental theory of motivation in sport. First, more research on developmental changes in the conception of physical ability is needed (Horn & Hasbrook, 1986; Horn & Weiss, 1986). More important, future studies need to go beyond examining the sources of children's competence information to determining how physical ability is construed among children of varying ages. In particular, within the movement domain the development of the concept of ability should be systematically examined relative to the development of a child's understanding of demonstrated effort, task difficulty, and task performance. Research by Nicholls (1978), Nicholls and Miller (1984), and Miller (1985) suggests procedures and analyses by which a child's reasoning about ability may be determined. Second, in the formulation of a developmental theory of achievement motivation in sport, the prevalence and importance of individual differences in the proposed stages of development should be considered. According to Nicholls and Miller (1984, p. 208), "an adequate explanation and prediction of overt behavior (developmentally) demands consideration of both structure [e.g., how does the child construe physical ability] and content [e.g., how much ability does the child believe helshe possesses, does that child value being competent in the sport in question, does the child have a disposition to compete?]" Third, future developmentally based sport research should emphasize the potential impact of situational factors on motivation. For example, researchers must not assume that age changes in children's emphasis on self-referenced versus normative ability in sport automatically reflect a change in conceptions of ability. Rather, such differences could indicate a change of environmental pressure to compete and socially compare with others in the athletic domain. In future research on children's sport, it would be interesting to examine the effect of league structure on a child's degree of competence and orientation to task or ego involvement. Based on Nicholls' theory (1984a, 1984b), it could be argued that children who participate in highly evaluative and competitive sport organizations, rather than in leagues that are more recreational and participation oriented, would be more likely to emphasize the demonstration of normative ability as they
Children's Motivation in Sport 1 141 grow older. Drawing from Nicholls, one could also hypothesize that children who perceive their physical competence to be low would tend to stop trying and eventually drop out of competitive sport contexts more than would be the case in recreational sport. Fourth, in the development of a theory of children's motivation in sport, the influence of significant others, in particular parents and coaches, on a child's perceived competence and goal orientation should be examined. In her theoretical model, Harter (1978, 1981) emphasizes the importance of significant other socialization and the corresponding development of competence motivation. A quick perusal of the youth sport psychological literature would suggest that parents and coaches can have a profound impact on a child's sport experience. For example, research by Scanlan and Lewthwaite (1984) has revealed how the fear of negative evaluation from parents is linked to children's stress in sport. One could speculate that such children, who dread the possibility of failure and subsequent negative feedback from significant others, are more likely to be ego involved in sport. Fifth, in athletic settings we need to delineate the interrelationships between task- and ego-involved goal orientations, perceptions of high and low ability, and behavior. Based on Nicholls' work (1984b; Nicholls & Miller, 1984), it could be suggested that as conceptions of physical competence vary as a function of age, individual differences, or the situation at hand, the behavioral repercussions for individuals with perceived high or low ability should also differ. For example, one could hypothesize that children geared toward mastery goals in sport, whether high or low in their perception of normative ability, should persist in sport and play more often without supervision or organization. In contrast, children who tend to emphasize ego-involved goals would be more likely not to persist in sport if they perceived their skill level to be lacking in comparison to relevant others. An ego-involved child who experiences success and perceives his or her physical competence to be high, however, would tend to continue involvement in athletics. Sixth, in pursuit of a developmental theory of motivation in sport, the salience of group goals should be considered. In contrast to the classroom situation, the very structure of many sport activities entails the demonstration of team competence and performance outcomes defined in respect to the group (i.e., team winlloss). Past work by the author (Duda, 1981, 1985a, 1986a) has demonstrated that certain cultural groups tend to define sport success and failure on the basis of team rather than individual accomplishments. Specifically these studies indicated that athletes can be oriented to task- or ego-involved goals focused on the individual or group. The relevance of group goals in sport is also reflected in recent sport attribution research. Studies have indicated there is often a distinction between the attributions given for self- versus team-performance outcomes (Bird & Brame, 1978; Iso-Ahola, 1977; Roberts, 1978; Scanlan & Passer, 1980). Interestingly, whether self or team attributions are more egocentric (i.e., success is attributed to high ability and failure is explained by external factors or low effort) tends to relate to the structure of the group and its level of cohesiveness (Bird, Foster, & Maruyama, 1980; Gill, 1980). Based on this literature and on Nicholls' theory (1984a, 1984b), one might surmise that an individual who perceives his or her own physical ability to be low would be less likely to suffer performance impairment or drop out if helshe
places a great emphasis on group goals and that group is successful. It could also be possible that individuals who have a strong orientation to the group are more likely to adopt a mastery perspective and not stress the demonstration of their own normative ability. Finally, in future research focused on a developmental theory of achievement motivation in sport, it is important not to be limited to assessing the motivation-related perceptions of participants and nonparticipants at only the dispositional or trait level; that is, how competent does the child tend to perceive himself/herself to be in sport and physical games in general? And what goal perspective does the child tend to prefer in the sport context? Instead, it is essential to examine how children, at different stages of development, process the game or actual sport experience (Duda, 1982). That is, at the state level, what leads to the child's perception that he or she did well or did poorly in a game? How does this perception relate to his or her pregame goals and behavior in the contest? How do different conceptions of ability correspond to the child's other cognitivelaffective responses such as stress and enjoyment? What are the bases and behavioral consequences of causal attributions and game expectancies for children oriented to task- or ego-involved sport goals? The world of children's sport is in need of more systematic, theoretically based research with a developmental emphasis (Weiss & Bredemeier, 1983). It is argued that Nicholls' perspective, which considers how children reason about their own competence, provides us with a fruitful model for future sport psychology research on children's motivation. By understanding what physical ability means to children, we should gain more insight into their performance, level of intensity, and persistence within the athletic realm. With this knowledge, we can begin to maximize children's involvement in sport.
References Bird, A.M., & Brame, J.M. (1978). Self versus team attributions: A test of the "I'm OK, but the team's so-so" phenomenon. Research Quarterly, 49, 260-268. Bird, A.M., Foster, C.D., & Maruyama, G. (1980). Convergent and incremental effects of cohesion on attributions for self and team. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 181-194. Bukowski, W.M., & Moore, D. (1980). Winners' and losers' attributions for success and failure in a series of athletic events. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 195-210. Burton, D. (1985, May). Swimming faster through the development of a performance orientation: A test of Nicholls ' theory of achievement motivation. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Gulf Park, MS. Burton, D., & Martens, R. (1986). Pinned by their own goals: An exploratory investigation into why kids drop out of wrestling. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 183-197. Duda, J.L. (1980). Achievement motivation among Navajo students: A conceptual analysis with preliminary data. Ethos: Journal for the Society of Psychological Anthropology, 8, 316-331. Duda, J.L. (1981). A cross-cultural analysis of achievement motivation in sport and the classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois.
Children's Motivation in Sport 1 143 Duda, J.L. (1982). Toward a phenomenology of children in sport: New directions in sport psychology research. In L.L. Gedvilas (Ed.), NAPEHE Proceedings @p. 38-47). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Duda, J.L. (1985a). Goals and achievement orientations of Anglo and Mexican-American adolescents in sport and the classroom. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 9, 131-155. Duda, J.L. (1985b). Sex differences in mastery versus social comparison goal emphasis in a recreational sport setting. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, May, Gulf Park, MS. Duda, J.L. (1985~).Z?ze relationship between motivational perspective andparticipation and persistence in sport. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Canadian Society for Psychomotor Learning and Sport Psychology, October, University of Qukbec at Montrkal. Duda, J.L. (1986a). A cross-cultural analysis of achievement motivation in sport and the classroom. In L. VanderVelden & J. Humphrey (Eds.), Current selected research in the psychology and sociology of sport @p. 117-131). New York: AMS Press. Duda, J.L. (1986b). Perceptions of sport success and failure among white, black, and Hispanic adolescents. In J. Watkins, T. Reilly, & L. Burwitz (Eds.), Sport science @p. 214-222). London: E. & F.N. Spon. Duda, J.L. (1986~).Variations in goals among intercollegiate and recreational athletes. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, June, Scottsdale, AZ. Duda, J.L., & Allison, M.T. (1982, February). Variations in achievement values: Race, sex, and situational influences. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Association for the Anthropological Study of Play, Fort Worth, TX. Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283-332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Ewing, M.E. (1981). Achievement orientations and sport behavior of males and females. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois. Ewing, M., Roberts, G., & Pemberton, C. (1983, May). A developmental look at children 's goals for participating in sport. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, East Lansing, MI. Feltz, D., & Petlichkoff, L. (1983). Perceived competence among interscholastic sport participants and dropouts. GznadianJournal ofApplied Sport Sciences, 8,231-235. Gill, D. (1980). Success-failure attributions in competitive groups: An exception to egocentrism. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 106-114. Gould, D. (1982). Sport psychology in the 1980's: Status, direction, and challenge in youth sports research. Journal of Sport Psychology, 4 , 203-218. Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 1, 34-64. Harter, S. (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. In A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 14). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Harter, S., & Connell, J. (1984). A model of children's achievement and related self-
perceptions of competence, control, and motivational orientation. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), Zhe development of achievement motivation (pp. 219-250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Horn, T., & Hasbrook, C. (1986). Informational components influencing children's perceptions of their physical competence. In M. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport for children and youth @p. 81-88). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Horn, T., & Weiss, M. (1986, June). A developmental analysis of children 's self-ability judgments. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the North American Society for the Psychology of Sport and Physical Activity, Scottsdale, AZ. Iso-Ahola, S. (1977). Effects of team outcome on children's self-perceptions: Little League baseball. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 38-42. Kimiecik, J., Allison, M., & Duda, J. (1986). Performance satisfaction, perceived competence, and game outcome: The competitive experience of Boys' Club youth. Znternational Journal of Sport Psychology, 17(4), 255-268. S i n t , K.A., & Weiss, M.R. (1987). Perceived competence and motives for participating in youth sports: A test of Harter's competence motivation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 55-65. Maehr, M., & Nicholls, J. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology. New York: Academic Press. Miller, A. (1985). A developmental study of the cognitive basis of performance irnpairment after failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(2), 529-538. Nicholls, J. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of own attainment, and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800-814. Nicholls, J. (1980). The development of the concept of difficulty. Mem'll-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 271-281. Nicholls, J. (1984a). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346. Nicholls, J. (1984b). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. I ) . New York: Academic Press. Nicholls, J., Jagacinski, C., & Miller, A. (1986). Conceptions of ability in children and adults. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-related cognitions in m i e t y and motivation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Nicholls, J., & Miller, A. (1983). The differentiation of the concepts of difficulty and ability. Child Development, 54, 95 1-959. Nicholls, J., & Miller, A. (1984). Development and its discontents: The differentiation of the concept of ability. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement: The development of achievement motivation @p. 185-218). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Roberts, G.C. (1978). Children's assignment of responsibility for winning and losing. In F. Smoll & R. Smith (Eds.), Psychological perspectives in youth sports @p. 145-171). Washington, DC: Hemisphere. Roberts, G.C. (1984a). Achievement motivation in children's sport. In J. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 251-282). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Children's Motivation in Sport / 145 Roberts, G.C. (1984b). Toward a new theory of motivation in sport: The role of perceived ability. In J.M. Silva & R.S. Weinberg (Eds.), Psychological foundations of sport (pp. 214-228). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Roberts, G., & Duda, J. (1984). Motivation in sport: The mediating role of perceived ability. J o u m l of Sport Psychology, 6 , 312-324. Roberts, G., Kleiber, D., & Duda, J. (1981). An analysis of motivation in children's sport: The role of perceived competence in children's sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 3, 206-216. Roberts, G., & Pascuzzi, D. (1979). Causal attributionsin sport: Some theoretical irnplications. J o u m l of Sport Psychology, 1, 203-211. Scanlan, T.K. (1982). Social evaluation: A key developmental element in the competition process. In R. Magill, M. Ash, & F. Smoll (Eds.), Children in sport (pp. 138-152). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Scanlan, T.K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1984). Social psychological aspects of the competitive sport experience for male youth sport participants: I. Predictors of competitive stress. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6 , 208-226. Scanlan, T.K., & Passer, M.W. (1980). Self-serving biases in the competitive sport setting: An attributional dilemma. J o u m l of Sport Psychology, 2, 124-136. Spink, K., & Roberts, G. (1980). Ambiguity of outcome and causal attributions. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2 , 237-244. Vealey, R. (1986). Conceptualization of sport-confidence and competitive orientation: Preliminary investigation and instnunent development. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 221-246. Weiss, M. (1986). A theoretical overview of competence motivation. In M. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport for children and adults (pp. 75-80). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Weiss, M., & Bredemeier, B.J. (1983). Developmental sport psychology: A theoretical approach for studying children in sport. J o u m l of Sport Psychology, 5,216-230. Weiss, M., Bredemeier, B.J., & Shewchuk, R. (1985). An intrinsic/extrinsicmotivation scale for the youth sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. J o u m l of Sport Psychology, 7 , 75-91. Weiss, M., Bredemeier, B.J., & Shewchuk, R. (1986). The dynamics of perceived competence, perceived control, and motivational orientation in youth sport. In M. Weiss & D. Gould (Eds.), Sport for children and youths (pp. 89-102). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Manuscript submitted: September 10, 1986 Revision received: January 12, 1987
Acknowledgment The author would like to express her appreciation to John NichoIls and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
