Psychology in Sports: Effects of Motivation on Athletic Performance

Abstract

Do psychological factors affect sports performance? If they do, how? This paper focuses on the effects of motivation on sports performance and how coaches should act to foster the right motivation to enhance performance. Two main types of motivation are discussed in this paper: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Studies have found that athletes having intrinsic motivation is related to them competing at higher level, defined as their chances of competing internationally in their sports in this paper; extrinsic motivation potentially result in athletes to lose interest in their sports. To foster the right motivational climate in the team, coaches should be more supportive of their players in the learning process and emphasize less on achievements such as winning.Many people play sports. In competitive sports, most athletes work to win by becoming physically stronger, faster, and more skillful to outcompete their opponents. However, research has shown that psychological factors also play an important role in enhancing athletes’ sports performance. This paper aims to examine the effects of motivation on sports performance. 

---

The term motivation describes why someone does certain things. It is the process that initiates, guides, and maintains behaviors. There are two main types of motivation: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is when someone enjoys doing something for the activity itself, not its outcome (Oudeyer, 2007). For example, high school soccer players who receives no pay or scholarship still play during their free time because they genuinely love playing soccer. Extrinsic motivation is when someone does something to achieve certain results (Morris et al., 2022). For instance, if the high school soccer players in the previous example play as a mean to obtain something, such as college scholarships, they are extrinsically motivated.

There are three sub-categories in extrinsic motivation: identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation (Graña et al., 2021). Identified regulation is when someone involves in activities of their own choice even if they don’t it find interesting. For example, people might play golf because it’s necessary for them to know how to play golf to socialize, even if they don’t find the sport itself pleasant. Introjected regulation is when people do things to avoid certain negative feelings or consequences (Graña et al., 2021). An example of this would be when a tennis player practices extra hours to win to avoid his coach’s punishment. External regulation is when behavior is regulated by results, such as money (Graña et al., 2021), which usually applies to professional athletes whose performance are directly related to financial reward.

One of the most prominent theories in psychology that explains motivation is the Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2022). It states that people are motivated to do certain things to meet their psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2022). Intrinsic motivation is the most self-determined form of motivation since people are driven by their own desire to do things, while introjected regulation and external regulation are on lower end of this spectrum. 

Intrinsic motivation has direct effects on learning, which might enhance athletes’ performance. A study by Jakobsen (2023) discusses the connection between intrinsic motivation and a better result in task-solving, and intrinsically motivated people’s tendency to master skills. Athletes who are task-oriented are more likely to emphasize on the learning process than the outcome of the task. 

By completing a task and getting rewards from it, people are extrinsically motivated and therefore tend to finish the task in the shortest time or with minimum effort. Whereas more intrinsically motivated people care more about the quality of the work.

For intrinsically motivated people, the process of solving the task itself is inherently more fun than the pleasure they get from completing the task, therefore the learning behavior as they spend more time on the process. As a result, it can be reasoned that when players are intrinsically motivated, they will potentially have better performances when competing, because they would master the skills better, allowing them to be more proficient to deal with the different circumstances in games.

Intrinsic motivation also directly affects the engagement level in sports. A study conducted by Graña et al (2021) surveyed five hundred adolescent athletes (average age of 17.39 years) to research the effects of different types of motivation on their levels of engagement in sports. The result of the survey shows that athletes who experienced the intrinsic motivation (IM) to experience stimulation, IM to accomplish things, and IM to know have greatest level of engagement in sports than those who played because of external motivations. It can be assumed that intrinsic motivation also helps athletes’ proficiency in the games, as they tend to engage more in their sports and therefore is more experienced to react to varied situations.

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, has direct effect on performance as well. An external reward would promote people to work harder to achieve a goal, and its effects might be obvious in the short-term. However, in the long-term, extrinsic incentives can result in someone being less intrinsically motivated to perform certain tasks. Eventually, the stimulation that extrinsic incentives brings would wear off as one grows tired of the repeated tasks even when there is a reward. Furthermore, external rewards may take away the inherent enjoyment of an activity, which can result in individuals becoming less interested in that activity once the external rewards are removed. 

In some cases, individuals will be less interested in certain activities even if the external rewards are still present. This phenomenon is known as the hedonic adaptation (Scott, 2022). Hedonic adaptation says that humans have a tendency of returning to a normal emotional level despite the change in outside stimulus (Scott, 2022). If the same outside reward is present constantly, we tend to get used to that and gradually start to feel less pleasure in doing those certain activities that get us the rewards (Scott, 2022). For example, one might feel extremely pleasant the first time he’s tried a chocolate bar. However, if after that occasion, he eats a chocolate bar every day, he might feel that the chocolate bar doesn’t taste as good as it did before. The chocolate bar is the same, what has changed is that he has adapted to the same stimuli, therefore experiencing less pleasure when he eats it. Applying the concept of hedonic adaptation to the idea of extrinsic motivation: even if the same outside incentive is constantly present, one might feel less pleasure in receiving the same reward every time, which ultimately decreases his motivation even though the incentives are constant. 

The two types of motivations interact, and one phenomenon that might occur is refer to as the undermining effect. This effect states that if someone is both extrinsically and intrinsically motivated to do something, the presence of an external incentive such as money might reduce their intrinsic motivation (Morris et al., 2022). For example, a coach from a youth soccer team decided to use candy bars as a reward for the players that scored. Because of the presence of the candy bars, which the players wanted, they would start focusing only on attempting to score goals to obtain this reward, forgetting that playing soccer itself is inherently fun. Eventually, if the coach decided to not reward candy bars anymore, the players might feel less interested in playing. 

One possible explanation for undermining effect highlights the importance of one’s own sense of control over some tasks. The presence of extrinsic incentive potentially shifts this locus of control from internal to external, which creates the notion that one’s behavior is governed more by outside factors than inside ones. This weakens one’s intrinsic motivation (Morris et al., 2022). For example, an athlete might start out practicing at their own pace, which is an enjoyable activity. However, if a coach invites them to play on a team where the coach dictates when and how the team plays, the player would feel that the coach oversees their performance. This could cause the player to be less intrinsically motivated to play during his free time like he used to, because he now thinks that he practices more for the coach and the team. Therefore, he is less likely to practice when he is on his own.

A study by Schmid et al. (2021) has shown that athletes with more self-determined types of motivation tend to have better performance and be more successful at their sports. Researchers put five hundred Spanish athletes into four groups of different motivational patterns based on their response to a survey examining their motivational construct. The four groups are: highly intrinsically achievement-oriented athletes who shows high goal orientation, hope for success and self-determination; win-oriented athletes who puts winning as their primary objective; failure-fearing athletes who are characterized by a high fearing of failure; non-achievement-oriented athletes who shows low win and goal-orientation. 

This study defines success in sports by the athletes’ chances of competing internationally. The researchers found that the highly intrinsically achievement-oriented athletes are the most likely to compete at the highest performance level, while the failure-fearing athletes are less likely (Schmid et al., 2021). This pattern could be explained by the different types of motivation stated in the previous paragraphs. Failure-fearing is an example of introjected regulation, where the person is less self-determined to perform certain tasks. This study shows that more self-determined form of motivations, such as intrinsic motivation (first group) and identified motivation (win-oriented) are related to better performance in sports. Failure-fearing, an introjected regulation which is a less self-determined form of motivation, is a characteristic in athletes that relates to suboptimal performances. 

So how specifically does undermining effect influence sports performance? A study by Moller and Sheldon (2020) selected 348 former National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) Division One athletes from The University of Missouri as participants in their study of the undermining effect in sports. This study asks the participants if they have received scholarships for playing sports in college, and their current enjoyment level of playing, watching, or participating in their sports. 

According to the undermining effect, outside motivations such as monetary reward could decrease one’s intrinsic desire to do something, especially if the extrinsic factors are removed. This is proven relevant in the field of sports too. The result of this study shows that those who had received scholarship in college for playing sport showed significantly less enjoyment in playing their sport after college, when they no longer receive monetary reward, even though they used to be intrinsically motivated to play (Moller and Sheldon, 2020). This demonstrates that in the context of sports, when extrinsic motivations such as scholarship are present and then removed, intrinsically motivated behaviors are affected, and athletes might have less desire to play or practice, leading to a decreased performance on field. Taking this conclusion to a more general level, the existence of outside motivation would affect inner motivation. Therefore, to keep performance at a consistent level, athletes should focus on their intrinsic motivation even if an external incentive is present. 

A study by Sean Jones (2018) found that financial reward not only could affect individual’s athletic performance, but it potentially weakens team performance as well. In his study, Jones talked about the Contract Year Performance Effect (Jones, 2018), which refers to the phenomenon that when professional athletes are on their last year of contract and looking for new contracts, their performance tend to be better. This could be attributed to the fact that these athletes want to get better deals when renewing their contracts or signing with new teams. However, it can be reasoned that during the years when the athletes do not have to worry about their new contracts, their teams bear the loss of having to pay these athletes the same amount without them giving their best performance in return.

Jones’ study has also found that a performance-related monetary reward may undermine cooperation in a team (Jones, 2018). One reason is that when there is a monetary reward present, players become less inclined to work together as they see each other as competitors for the financial reward. Additionally, the difference in the amount of financial reward between players can alienate them from the team as well as from each other (Jones, 2018).

Athletes need support to help them achieve their best. The quality of that support can have a huge impact on their performance. The people around athletes, especially coaches, play important roles in helping them create the optimal types of motivations for their success. For example, different styles of coaching can affect players’ motivation to play, which correlates with the performance on the field. In a team, athletes would be willing to practice and compete if they think that the process of doing it is genuinely fun. This would enhance their performance because when athletes are willing to practice, they practice more, which leads to better mastery of skills which usually lead to better performance. This requires coaches to be more supportive of their athletes even when they don’t win games. However, if the coaches emphasize more on winning than the well-being of athletes, the athletes tend to practice to win and thereby avoid punishments. As a result, they’re less likely to practice when they don’t have to because they don’t enjoy it, which may lead to suboptimal performance on the field as a result of less mastery of skills. 

One study by Baric and Bucik (2009) addresses the effect that different coaching styles have on athletes’ motivational patterns. This study surveyed 51 Croatian club teams’ coaches’ different profiles using self-evaluation forms and the motivational tendencies of 577 young Croatian athletes that play in these teams with three surveys: the Task and Ego Goal Orientation Questionnaire, Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, and Perceived Motivational Climate Questionnaire. The researchers then collect the data and assign them into clusters based on the data. The result of this study shows that these coaches can be categorized into two main types: 1) those who care more about athletes’ learning process and less about achievement (people-oriented), which is more likely to cultivate players’ intrinsic motivation as they focus on the enjoyment in the sport itself and the team values learning more than result. 2) those who care less about athletes and have a stronger desire to win than to support their players (ego-oriented), which would likely cause players to be extrinsically motivated by the idea of playing to win. Both types of coaches are highly task-oriented (Baric & Bucik, 2009). 

Cluster analysis of the data from the survey found that coaches who are more athlete-oriented tend to be more supportive, instructive, and ready to give positive feedback. Teams under this type of coaches tend to have a more mastery motivational climate, meaning that the team generally emphasizes more on learning and mastering skills rather than winning games. The second type of coaches tend to focus more on winning instead of if the players actually master the skills (Baric & Bucik, 2009). 

However, the result of this study is not a definitive conclusion that the first cluster of coaches is more likely to promote athletes’ better performance. The Yerkes-Dodson Law suggests that there is a link between arousal and performance. It says that the optimal amount of arousal is positively related to high level performances (Yerkes, 1908). In the case of sports events, athletes should feel the right amount of stress which will help them focus on the tasks more. However, too much or too little arousal can harm performance (Yerkes, 1908). Therefore, the first cluster of coaches who are more supportive of their players and often give players positive feedback might not motivate their players enough when it comes to actual game scenarios. For instance, if a coach is overly supportive of certain players and promise them spots in the starting lineup without giving them constructive feedback, the players would grow content with their performance and be less motivated to work harder and improve. On the other hand, if an ego-oriented coach pushes his players too hard to win, they might be overly stressed, which may harm their performance. For example, if a coach constantly yells at players when they make mistakes, the players will feel anxious and stressed, which could lead to them focusing only on that one mistake that they made, instead of on the bigger picture of the game. 

In conclusion, this paper discusses the two types of motivation for the purpose of this study: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. The two motivations don’t exist independently within someone. They often interact and might cause what’s known as the undermining effect.  

This paper establishes that in sports, intrinsic motivation is generally preferable than extrinsic motivation for multiple reasons: First, athletes who are more intrinsically motivated to achieve their goals are the most likely to attain higher performances at their sports. Second, it is advisable for athletes to have intrinsic motivation to play their sports because external rewards might be present during some point at their sport careers, and if they don’t hold on to their intrinsic motivation firmly enough, athletes might gradually develop the sense that their performance, and therefore their effort, is controlled by outside factors, which could result in them being less engaged in their sports. Finally, intrinsic motivation of athletes is beneficial for the well-being of the team, as the performance level of intrinsically motivated athletes tend to be more consistent over time. Athletes’ motivation patterns can be affected by those around them, such as their coaches. Coaches who are people-oriented are usually supportive, instructive, and available to give positive feedback to their players. This type of coach might find it more rewarding when their players exhibit progress in learning. This usually results in the team having a mastery-emphasized environment, meaning that players focus more on skill mastery in their sports. Coaches who are more ego-oriented might find it more rewarding when their teams win. This type of coach tends to concern less about their players learning behavior in sports. The first type of coaches is more likely to instill their players with intrinsic motivation. Players who play with the second type of coaches are more extrinsically motivated to play. These players might be aware of their coaches’ desire to have a winning team.

Overall, most evidence points to the conclusion that motivation does in fact play an important role in athletes achieving their best performance on the field. Therefore, when attempting to improve athletic performance, one should keep in mind that athletic prowess is not all it takes so succeed in a sport. Possessing the right type of motivation is as crucial in boosting sports performances. 

References

Baric, R., & Bucik, V. (2009, December). (PDF) motivational differences in athletes trained by coaches of different motivational and Leadership Profiles. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266866345_Motivational_differences_in_athletes_
trained_by_coaches_of_different_motivational_and_leadership_profiles 

Graña, M., De Francisco, C., & Arce, C. (2021, May 4). The relationship between motivation and burnout in athletes and the mediating role of Engagement. International journal of environmental research and public health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8124225/ 

Jakobsen, A. M. (2023, October 26). How can autonomy support from a coach, basic psychological needs, and the psychological climate explain ego and task involvement?. International journal of environmental research and public health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10647599/ 

Jones, S. (2018, May). The Relationship between Monetary Incentives and Athletic Performance among Adolescent Males. https://www.proquest.com/openview/d9d07dd15a6b0eaf445d4fd397eb5a4e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750. https://www.proquest.com/openview/d9d07dd15a6b0eaf445d4fd397eb5a4e/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750 

Moller, A., & Sheldon, M. (2020). Athletic scholarships are negatively associated with intrinsic motivation for sports, even decades later: Evidence for long-term undermining. American Psychological Association. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-14245-001 

Morris, L. S., Grehl, M. M., Rutter, S. B., Mehta, M., & Westwater, M. L. (2022, July). On what motivates us: A detailed review of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation. Psychological medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9340849/ 

Oudeyer PY, Kaplan F. What is Intrinsic Motivation? A Typology of Computational Approaches. Front Neurorobot. 2007;1:6. doi:10.3389/neuro.12.006.2007

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2022). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and Wellness. Guilford Press. 

Schmid, M. J., Charbonnet, B., Conzelmann, A., & Zuber, C. (2021, January 20). More success with the optimal motivational pattern? A prospective longitudinal study of young athletes in individual sports. Frontiers in psychology. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7854446/ 

Scott, E. (2022, June 23). Defining the hedonic treadmill. Verywell Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/hedonic-adaptation-4156926 

Yerkes RM, Dodson JD. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 1908;18(5):459–482. Reprinted by Classics in the History of Psychology. An internet resource. Christopher D. Green, York University, Toronto, Ontario

---