Motivation in Masters sport: Achievement and social goals

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176 www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Motivation in Masters sport: Achievement and social goals Ken Hodge, Justine B. Allen, Liz Smellie School of Physical Education, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand Received 9 December 2005; received in revised form 23 February 2007; accepted 5 March 2007 Available online 12 March 2007

Abstract Objective: This study examined the collective relationships amongst achievement goals, social goals and motivational correlates in Masters sport. Method: The participants were 373 (184 females; 189 males) Masters athletes from six sports. Ages ranged from 29 years to 77 years (mean ¼ 48 years). Cluster analysis was employed to identify ‘goal profiles’ of two achievement goals (task and ego) and three social goals (affiliation, recognition, status). MANOVA was employed to examine the goal profiles for differences on self-perceptions, affect, and motivation. Results: Five goal profiles were identified and labeled as follows: Cluster 1 (Lo-Aff) low affiliation, moderate task, ego, status, and recognition; Cluster 2 (Lo-Val) low ego, status, and recognition, moderate task and affiliation; Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) high affiliation and status, moderate recognition and task, and low ego; Cluster 4 (Lo-Ach) low task and ego, moderate affiliation, status, and recognition; and Cluster 5 (Hi-Ach) high task, ego, and recognition, moderate affiliation and status. MANOVA revealed that Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) was highest on enjoyment and perceived belonging, while Clusters 3 and 5 (Hi-Ach) were highest on intrinsic motivation, commitment, and perceived ability. Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff) and 4 (Lo-Ach) had lower levels of enjoyment and commitment. Conclusion: In general, these Masters athletes enjoyed their participation, they were committed, they had high perceptions of ability and belonging, and they were predominantly intrinsically motivated. The implications of these motivational profiles for Masters athletes are discussed from both theoretical and applied perspectives. r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Motivation; Goal orientations; Self-determination theory; Cluster analysis; Masters sport

Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 03 479 8991; fax: +64 03 479 8309.

E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Hodge). 1469-0292/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.03.002

ARTICLE IN PRESS 158

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

Introduction Masters sport is a growing phenomenon worldwide. Participation levels are increasing in many Masters sports and an increasing number of national and international tournaments exclusively cater for Masters athletes (World Masters Games, 2005). For example, the World Masters Games are held every three-to-four years—24,886 athletes participated in the 2002 Games and 21,600 athletes from 88 countries participated in the 2005 World Masters Games. Participants compete as individuals, not in national teams, and the Masters Games philosophy ‘‘is one of ‘sport for life’, promoting a long-term approach towards sport and physical activity’’ (World Masters Games, 2005). The Games include people of all sports abilities and skill levels, from former Olympians and world champions to sportsmen and women wanting to achieve a personal best or simply compete with their peers (World Masters Games, 2006). Apart from sports competition, the Games offer ‘‘social and cultural interaction for people from around the world who share similar attitudes towards lifelong sport, fitness and physical activity’’ (World Masters Games, 2006). Clearly, Masters sport is becoming increasingly popular and it is both a sporting and a social occasion for the participants. In addition to these ‘world’ events, many countries host their own national Games; for example, 10,000 athletes participated in the Australian Masters Games in 2005 and 8000 athletes participated in the 2006 New Zealand Masters Games. In contrast, the Athens 2004 Olympics hosted 11,000 athletes (World Masters Games, 2005). The minimum age for participation for some Masters Games events is as young as 25 years (e.g., swimming), but for most sports the minimum age is 30 or 35 years; and although a good number of Masters athletes are 60 years plus, three-quarters of Masters athletes are typically under 55 years (World Masters Games, 2005). Given these substantial participation numbers the question that begs an answer is why do these Master Games participants choose to participate in sport at a time in life (middle-age onward) when most of their age-group peers are becoming less physically active? (ADNFS, 1992; Chodzko-Zajko, 2000; Shephard, 1997; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). Clearly this is a question of motivation (Biddle, 1995, 2001). Therefore, the general purpose of this paper was to examine the motivation of Masters Games participants. Achievement goal theory Nicholls’ (1989) achievement goal theory has proven useful in explaining motivation that individuals exhibit in sport across a wide range of age groups from youth sport participants to Senior Olympians (Duda, 2001). Within this social cognitive theory motivation is viewed as a consequence of an individual’s goal of action to develop or demonstrate high ability and avoid demonstrating low ability (Roberts, 2001). Success is defined relative to this goal of action in terms of a person’s perception of ability (Nicholls, 1989). In sport this goal of action is examined with respect to perceived physical ability (Roberts, 2001). Typically, individuals adopt task and ego goal orientations as the primary criteria for judging their success relative to this goal of action in sport (Duda, 2001). A task-oriented person seeks to improve his/her ability and the criteria for success are self-referenced. In contrast an ego-oriented person seeks to demonstrate his/her ability by being the best and out-performing others, and the criteria employed to define success are otherreferenced.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

159

Achievement goal orientations have been theoretically and empirically associated with differing patterns of thoughts, feelings, and actions in sport as reflected in adaptive and less adaptive patterns of self-regulation, persistence, and affect (Biddle, Wang, Kavussanu, & Spray, 2003; Duda, 2001). For example, considerable research supports the use of achievement goal theory to examine levels of intrinsic motivation in sport (e.g., Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, & Catley, 1995; Fox, Goudas, Biddle, Duda, & Armstrong, 1994). Consistent with the achievement goal (Nicholls, 1989) and self-determination theories (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002), research indicates that a predominant task goal orientation is associated with high levels of intrinsic motivation and consequently higher levels of self-determination in sport (e.g., Duda et al., 1995). A predominant ego orientation, on the other hand, has been found to be associated with lower intrinsic motivation (e.g., Duda et al., 1995). Achievement goal orientations have also been employed to explain short-term positive affect in sport. For example, the positive association between a predominant task goal orientation and enjoyment in sport is well documented in the literature (e.g., Duda et al., 1995; Fox et al., 1994). Further, although not directly empirically tested, a task orientation has been promoted as the means to facilitate long-term participation in sport and physical activity (Duda, 1996). Those individuals who participate in sport over a long period of time can be characterized as having a high level of sport commitment (Raedeke, 1997; Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, 1993), consequently it would seem logical that a predominant task orientation should be associated with greater commitment to sport participation. The two achievement goal orientations (task and ego) have been demonstrated to be orthogonal and have been examined separately, as well as in combination (e.g., Fox et al., 1994; Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000). However, achievement goal theory forwards no predictions of achievement-related behaviors when individuals are high in both orientations, low in both orientations, or when they have a ‘mixed’ profile of both goal orientations (e.g., high in one/low in the other). Given that task and ego goal orientations have different cognitive and motivational implications (e.g., Biddle et al., 2003; Duda, Fox, Biddle, & Armstrong, 1992), their combined impact (i.e., goal profile) may be different than the independent effect of being classified as task- or ego-dominant (Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000; Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussanu, 1996). Indeed, considering goal orientations in combination, such as a goal profile, has been shown to be useful in furthering our understanding of motivation for youth and young adults in both sport and physical activity (e.g., Fox et al., 1994; Harwood, Cumming, & Fletcher, 2004; Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000; Wang & Biddle, 2001; Wang, Chatzisarantis, Spray, & Biddle, 2002). Despite the substantial body of research utilizing achievement goal theory to understand motivation in sport, relatively little is known about the achievement motivation of middle-aged and older adult athletes. Nevertheless, preliminary research has demonstrated that goal orientations are useful for understanding the motivation of middle-aged and older adults participating in sport (Newton & Fry, 1998). For example, Newton and Fry’s (1998) study of 137 Senior Olympians (mean age ¼ 65 years) revealed a positive association between task orientation and intrinsic motivation, the belief that success in sport is achieved through hard work, and selfimprovement-based purposes of sport. In contrast, ego orientation was associated with the belief that success in sport is achieved by those who are gifted with natural ability and who know how to be competitive and maximize extrinsic rewards (e.g., social and career status). Further

ARTICLE IN PRESS 160

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

examination of the goal orientations of middle-aged and older adult adults would be useful in developing our understanding of adult motivation in sport. Social motivation model Researchers employing achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1989) have made a substantial contribution to our understanding of motivation in sport; however, they have largely ignored the desire for social connections as an additional goal of action underpinning behavior in sport. Rather researchers adopting the achievement goal approach have emphasized the desire to demonstrate physical ability/competence as the primary energizer of behavior (goal of action) in sport and physical activity settings. This approach limits any explanation of the psychological processes that energize and direct behavior in sport to ability alone and provides an incomplete picture of sport motivation (Allen, 2003, 2005). Despite the dominance of ability-based theories of motivation, social aspects of motivation have been identified in a number of studies investigating participation in sport across varying age groups (e.g., Allen, 2003, 2005; Schilling & Hayashi, 2001; Stuntz & Weiss, 2003; Williams, 2004; Wylleman, 2000). Research supports the contention that ‘social motives’ are particularly important for middleaged and older adults participating in sport (e.g., Ashford, Biddle, & Goudas, 1993; Brodkin & Weiss, 1990). For example, Ashford et al. (1993) found that middle-aged athletes (45 years plus) rated sociopsychological well-being (affiliation, relaxation, aesthetics, excitement) as a more important participation motive than younger athletes. Recently, Allen (2003, 2005) developed a model of social motivation that specifically addresses the social aspects of motivation in sport. As with other motivational theories, this perspective views motivation as a psychological process, but the central energizer of motivation (or goal of action) in a social context such as sport is the desire to develop, maintain and demonstrate social bonds or connections with others (Allen, 2003). The social context of sport provides individuals with opportunities to satisfy their need for social connections and belonging. Therefore, the goal(s) of action in sport is(are) derived not only from individuals’ perceptions of ability (achievement goal theory), but also from their perceptions of belonging in the sport environment. Perceived belonging is a psychological sense of attachment/bonding with others in a social context; characterized by feelings of affective concern that are relatively stable and on-going (Allen, 2006; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Social goal orientations and perceptions of belonging are proposed as the two central constructs to explain social motivation in the context of sport (Allen, 2003, 2005). The social motivation orientations include social affiliation, social status and social recognition orientations. These orientations are hypothesized to be stable tendencies that reflect individuals’ social goals and concerns in the social context of sport. An affiliation-oriented individual’s primary concern is to develop and maintain mutually satisfying interpersonal relationships. Motivationally adaptive patterns of affect and behavior are hypothesized to result from a predominant affiliation orientation because participation in the social context of sport is a satisfying end in itself (Allen, 2003, 2005). In contrast, an individual who has a predominant social status or social recognition orientation is motivated to gain social status and recognition for effort or ability from others as a way of achieving a sense of belonging. That is, participation in the social context of sport is a means to an end of social connection. Crucial to the social status and social recognition

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

161

orientations is the fact that one has limited control over whether behavior will be validated by others or not, and therefore individuals have limited control over whether secure and stable interpersonal relationships will be formed or last. Less adaptive behaviors are therefore hypothesized to result from these two social orientations, especially when significant and important relationships are under threat and perceptions of belonging are low (Allen, 2003, 2005). In contrast to the substantial research conducted on the relationship of achievement goals with intrinsic motivation and affect, no research has been conducted to date on the relationships of social goal orientations (e.g., social affiliation, status, recognition) with intrinsic motivation and affect for adult sport participants. However, some predictions may be offered about levels of intrinsic motivation associated with predominant social goal orientations using self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002) as a framework. Selfdetermination theory predicts high intrinsic motivation when an individual’s needs for selfdetermination (autonomy), competence and relatedness are satisfied. In particular, the psychological need of relatedness is characterized by ‘‘feeling connected (or feeling that one belongs in a social milieu)’’ (Vallerand, 1997, p. 300)—clearly reminiscent of perceptions of belonging. Taking this into account, the primary concern of the social affiliation goal orientation is with developing reciprocal social connections. This development focused goal should be associated with more secure perceptions of connections with others (i.e., higher levels of autonomy and relatedness) and consequently greater perceived belonging. Consequently, one might expect social affiliation to be associated with higher levels of self-determination and consequently higher intrinsic motivation. On the other hand a predominant social status and/or social recognition orientation relies on social reinforcement and approval from significant others (i.e., low levels of autonomy). Consequently, one might expect these two social goals to be associated with lower levels of self-determination and consequently lower intrinsic motivation. The primary concern of the social affiliation goal orientation is with developing reciprocal social connections (i.e., relatedness). Although it has been postulated that relatedness has a lesser impact on intrinsic motivation than competence and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002); little research has been conducted to empirically examine this hypothesis (Hollembeak & Amorose, 2005). Thus, further research investigating the relations among social goals, belonging and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation is required. Individuals endorsing an affiliation goal orientation view sport as a social, as well as a physical activity and recognize that participation provides opportunities to socialize (Allen, 2003). Therefore, as with the predicted positive relationship between a task goal orientation, intrinsic motivation and commitment, a predominant affiliation goal orientation was predicted to be associated with higher intrinsic motivation, greater sport commitment, and greater positive affect. Recent research in the youth sport setting has demonstrated a positive relationship between affiliation goal orientation and interest in sport (Allen, 2003). Individuals endorsing social status and social recognition goal orientations also view sport as a social activity; however, they view participation as a means to an end—self-validation (Allen, 2003). This led Allen to describe these two goals as ‘validation’ orientations. This more extrinsically oriented view of participation, therefore, was expected to be associated with lower intrinsic motivation and greater extrinsic motivation. Relationships with commitment and

ARTICLE IN PRESS 162

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

enjoyment were expected to be dependent on the extent to which individuals felt that sport was validating their sense of self (i.e., perceived belonging). Allen (2005) found positive relationships between the social validation goals and interest in sport amongst adolescent sport participants; however, the extent to which this positive relationship was associated with higher perceptions of belonging was not examined. Little is known about social goal orientations for adult sport participation, the extent to which they are endorsed by adult participants, how they are related to motivational and affective variables or the importance of belonging. Purpose Given the salience of both achievement and social goals for sport participation, the use of complementary theoretical models (social motivation model and achievement goal theory) should enhance a comprehensive understanding of behavior, affect and motivational processes in competitive sport for middle-aged and older adults. Masters sport is becoming increasingly popular and it is both a sporting (i.e., competitive) and a social occasion for the participants (World Masters Games, 2006). Master Games athletes choose to participate in sport at a time in life (middle-age onward) when most of their age-group peers are becoming less physically active; clearly this is an issue of motivation. As stated previously, preliminary research has demonstrated that achievement goal orientations are useful for understanding the motivation of middle-aged and older adults participating in sport; and research also supports the contention that ‘social motives’ are particularly important for middle-aged and older adults participating in sport. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the collective relationships of achievement motivation (Nicholls, 1989) and social motivation (Allen, 2003, 2005) orientations with motivational correlates in Masters sport. Specifically we investigated which goal profile (social goals and achievement goals), or profiles, was more or less adaptive with regard to intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, commitment, self-perceptions, and enjoyment in Masters sport.

Method Participants Participants were 373 athletes (184 females; 189 males) participating in six sports at the 2002 New Zealand Masters Games (from a population of approx. 8000 athletes participating in 70 events). Participants were recruited from six sports (swimming, n ¼ 41; golf, n ¼ 81; tennis, n ¼ 39; soccer, n ¼ 90; field hockey, n ¼ 50; netball, n ¼ 72). The mean age was 48 years (SD ¼ 9.60) with a range from 29 years to 77 years. These sportspeople had participated in Masters sport for an average of 5.6 years (range ¼ 1–27 years). Mean sports participation experience across their lifetime was 33 years (range ¼ 3–66 years). The majority were New Zealand European (89%), with 2.7% of Maori descent (i.e., indigenous people of New Zealand). Sixty-five percent (65%) of these sportspeople were in full-time employment, 23% were in parttime employment, and 10% were retired.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

163

Procedure Consent to conduct the investigation was given by the General Manager of the New Zealand Masters Games and also from the event organizers for each of the six sports. Each participant provided signed consent and volunteered to complete a questionnaire at their competition venue during the New Zealand Masters Games. Measures Background information: Participants were asked to indicate their age, gender, ethnic origin, employment status, sport experience across their life span and at Masters level, the sports in which they had participated, and how long they participated in each sport. Achievement goal orientations: The participants’ achievement (task and ego) goal orientations in sport were assessed through the Task and Ego Goal Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ; Duda & Nicholls, 1992). In response to the stem I feel most successful in sport wheny participants indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the 13 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The task subscale consists of seven items which focus on success defined through task mastery, learning, and effort. A sample item was ‘‘I learn a new skill by trying hard’’. The ego orientation subscale contains six items which reflect success defined through outperforming others and the demonstration of superior ability. A sample item was ‘‘I can do better than my friends’’. This scale has been used extensively in sport research and evidence of validity and reliability has been provided through numerous empirical investigations with adolescent and young adult samples (see Duda & Whitehead, 1998 for a review). In addition, Newton and Fry (1998) confirmed the internal reliability and factor structure of the TEOSQ with a sample of Senior Olympians (mean age ¼ 65 years). Social motivational orientations: Participants’ social motivational orientations were assessed using the Social Motivational Orientations Scale for Sport (SMOSS) (Allen, 2003, 2005). In response to the stem ‘‘I feel things have gone well in my sport wheny’’ participants indicated the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the 15 items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale assesses participants’ degree of social status orientation (four items), social recognition orientation (four items) and social affiliation orientation (seven items) in sport. Items such as ‘‘I belong to the popular group in the team’’ and ‘‘I am the center of attention’’ assessed the social status orientation. Examples of items that assessed social recognition orientation were ‘‘Other people think I am really good at sport’’ and ‘‘Others tell me I have performed well’’. Finally, items assessing affiliation orientation included ‘‘I make some good friends on the team’’ and ‘‘Just hanging out with others is fun’’. The validity and reliability of the scale has been examined with two adolescent samples in Britain (Allen, 2003, 2005). In both studies acceptable coefficient alphas were reported for all scales (range was between .77 and .87). Allen (2005) demonstrated acceptable measures of fit from the CFA (w2 [df ¼ 74, N ¼ 244] ¼ 190.39, po.001; BBNNFI ¼ .90; CFI ¼ .92; RMSEA ¼ .08, SRMR ¼ .06) as well as evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Sport Motivation Scale (SMS) was used to assess intrinsic/extrinsic motivation (Pelletier et al., 1995). The SMS is based on Deci and Ryan’s (1985)

ARTICLE IN PRESS 164

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

self-determination theory and consists of 28 items, which are divided into seven subscales. The following subscales assess three dimensions of intrinsic motivation: intrinsic motivation to know, intrinsic motivation toward accomplishments and intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation. The remaining four subscales assess three measures of extrinsic motivation: identification, introjection, and external regulation, and one of amotivation. Participants were asked, ‘‘Why do you practise your main sport?’’ and then requested to respond to each item on a 7-point Likert scale anchored at the extremes by 1 (does not correspond at all) and 7 (corresponds exactly). Previous research has attested to the internal consistency of the SMS with young adult (Pelletier et al., 1995) and older adult samples (Jackson, Kimiecik, Ford, & Marsh, 1998). Pelletier et al. (1995) also reported acceptable internal consistency for the SMS subscales and provided evidence of acceptable test–retest reliability over a 5-week period. Nevertheless, Martens and Webber (2002) and Shaw, Ostrow, and Beckstead (2005) have cast some doubt on the factor structure of the SMS with a college age sample (M ¼ 19.8 years) and an older adult sample (M ¼ 65.7 years), respectively. Consequently, we decided to employ confirmatory factor analysis to examine the factor structure of the SMS for this Masters athlete sample. Perceived physical ability in sport: Participants’ perception of their physical ability was assessed using a 4-item scale (Allen, 2003; Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002). Participants rated (a) their sports ability in general, (b) their sports ability compared to all other players in their sport they know, (c) how their coach or teammates would rate their ability, and (d) how their friends would rate their sports ability. Previous research has provided evidence regarding the validity and reliability (a ¼ .84–.94) of this scale (Allen, 2003; Smith et al., 2002). Responses to all items were indicated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely weak) to 7 (extremely strong). Perceived belonging in sport: The perceived belonging in sport (PBS) scale is an 11-item questionnaire that assesses participants’ perceptions of belonging specifically in the sporting context (Allen, 2003, 2006). Allen (2003) reported acceptable internal reliability for the PBS (a ¼ .84) in a study conducted with adolescent participants from Britain. Evidence of the validity and reliability of the scale has also been provided with data from a study of tertiary education students (Allen, 2006). When completing this scale, participants were asked to consider all the people involved in their sport such as team-mates, coach, training groups or squads, officials, supporters and competitors. After being asked, ‘‘How do you feel about being in your Masters team or sport?’’, the participants were requested to indicate the extent to which each item was true for them on a 5-point Likert scale. The scale ranges from 1 (not at all true for me), to 3 (somewhat true for me) and 5 (completely true for me). A sample item was ‘‘I feel a part of my team.’’ Commitment and enjoyment: Participants’ commitment and enjoyment of Masters sport were assessed with seven items from the Sport Commitment Questionnaire (Scanlan et al., 1993). Three items reflected commitment to Masters sport. A sample item was ‘‘How determined are you to keep playing Masters sport?’’ Four items assessed enjoyment of Masters sport. A sample item was ‘‘Do you enjoy playing Masters sport?’’ Participants responded to all items on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a lot). Scanlan et al. provided evidence regarding the reliability of these measures (commitment a ¼ .85 and enjoyment a ¼ .95).

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

165

Design and analyses A multivariate correlational design was employed to assess the differences among cluster groups of goal orientations on intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, self-perceptions (i.e., perceived ability, perceived belonging), affect (i.e., enjoyment), and commitment in Masters sport. The independent variables were social and achievement goal orientations. The dependent variables were intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation, perceived physical ability, perceived belonging, enjoyment and commitment. Preliminary analyses: Given that the measures employed have seldom been employed with middle-aged or older-adult populations, or with athletes from the New Zealand cultural context, we decided to examine the factor structures for the TEOSQ,1 SMOSS,2 PBS3 and SMS4 via confirmatory factor analysis. The factor structures for each of these measures were confirmed with each model demonstrating adequate fit to the data. Descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation, and Pearson’s product–moment correlations) were calculated for all variables. Reliability estimates were calculated for all variables using alpha coefficients. Main analyses: The ‘goal profile’ concept (see Harwood et al., 2004; Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000; Wang & Biddle, 2001; Wang et al., 2002) was employed, but expanded to incorporate social as well as achievement goal orientations. Cluster analysis was utilized to determine whether participants could be classified into goal profile groups based on their goal orientation scores (Gore, 2000; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Specifically, a non-hierarchical K-means clustering procedure (Quick Cluster; SPSS) was used to classify participants based on their task, ego, affiliation, social status and social recognition scores. These ‘goal profiles’ were used as predictor variables to discriminate amongst the dependent variables. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with follow-up Bonferroni pairwise comparisons in which significance level is adjusted for multiple comparisons was conducted to determine whether the goal profile groups differed significantly with regard to their levels of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, self-perceptions, enjoyment, and commitment for sport.

1 TEOSQ. Item 13 ‘‘I do my very best’’ loaded on both task and ego latent factors and was removed. The 12-item two factor model demonstrated acceptable fit to the data (BBNNFI ¼ .95, RCFI ¼ .95, RMSEA ¼ .07, average absolute standardized residual ¼ .07, average off-diagonal absolute standardized residual ¼ .04, largest individual residual ¼ .12). 2 SMOSS. Two items had either low factor loadings or demonstrated considerable overlap with items on other factors; these were removed. The final model consisted of affiliation (seven items), recognition (three items) and social status (three items). This model demonstrated acceptable fit to the data (BBNNFI ¼ .90, RCFI ¼ .90, RMSEA ¼ .08, SRMR ¼ .06, average absolute standardized residual ¼ .04, average off-diagonal absolute standardized residual ¼ .05, largest individual residual ¼ .26). 3 PBS. The two negatively worded items effected model fit and were removed. This model demonstrated an adequateto-marginal fit to the data (BBNNFI ¼ .87, RCFI ¼ .92, RMSEA ¼ .12, average absolute standardized residual ¼ .04, average off-diagonal absolute standardized residual ¼ .05, largest individual residual ¼ .19). 4 SMS. The seven factor model approached but did not adequately fit the data (BBNNFI ¼ .83, CFI ¼ .85, RMSEA ¼ .08, SRMR ¼ .07). Item 28 demonstrated considerable overlap with items on other factors and was removed and the new model demonstrated an adequate-to-marginal fit to the data (BBNNFI ¼ .87, CFI ¼ .89, RMSEA ¼ .07, SRMR ¼ .06, average absolute standardized residual ¼ .04, average off-diagonal absolute standardized residual ¼ .05, largest individual residual ¼ .17).

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

166

Results Descriptive statistics and reliability The means, standard deviations, Pearson’s product–moment correlations among all variables and internal reliability were calculated and are presented in Table 1. Acceptable internal reliability for each of the measures employed was set a priori at .70 (Nunnally, 1978). All variables demonstrated acceptable reliability with the exception of the commitment to sport (alpha ¼ .66) variable. This variable was retained, but related results should be interpreted with a degree of caution. Main analyses Goal profiles: Cluster analysis was employed to determine whether participants could be classified into goal profile groups based on their goal orientation scores. Results for four-, five-, and six-cluster solutions were examined. Based on conceptual issues and empirical findings the five-cluster solution was determined to be the best fit. The five cluster groups provided conceptually interesting contrast groups and contained adequate participants in each cluster to Table 1 Descriptive statistics, correlations, and reliability for independent and dependent variables Task Ego Aff

Status Rec IMkn IMacc IMstim EMid EMin EMext Amot Pab Pbel Enj Comit

Task .82 Ego .24 .88 Affiliation .22 .21 .83 Status .10 .26 .14 .82 Recognition .33 .36 .13 .52 IMknow .48 .26 .02 .16 IMaccom .45 .25 .01 .21 IMstim .34 .13 .20 .19 EMidentified .28 .08 .28 .12 EMintrojected .29 .17 .03 .14 EMexternal .23 .35 .02 .26 Amotivation .09 .11 .18 .04 Perc. Ability .15 .22 .03 .20 Perc. Belong .20 .10 .53 .15 Enjoy .18 .18 .39 .06 Commit .23 .07 .29 .13

.81 .21 .87 .25 .78 .26 .61 .15 .52 .18 .46 .31 .51 .05 .09 .39 .23 .22 .01 .10 .11 .16 .20

.83 .69 .59 .54 .52 .04 .20 .04 .11 .20

.81 .68 .57 .45 .01 .23 .22 .26 .33

.72 .56 .54 .08 .18 .17 .24 .28

Mean SD

3.21 3.33 3.96 .70 1.43 1.42

4.33 1.31

4.18 1.28

3.55 2.14 4.18 2.83 .58 .75 .50 .75

.80 .59 .78 .17 .31 .19 .23 .03 .04 .01 .01 .13 .10

.73 .11 .26 .22 .29

3.78 1.46

1.91 4.85 4.00 4.51 4.31 1.12 .97 .68 .68 .66

2.80 1.28

.92 .14 .90 .16 .30 .28 .27

.93 .73 .66

Note: Correlations among variables are reported below the diagonal. Correlations less than .11 are non-significant, p4.05. Alpha coefficients are reported on the diagonal. All means for goals (task, ego, affiliation (Aff), social status (status), social recognition (Rec)), perceived belonging (Pbel), enjoyment (Enj), and commitment (Comit) are on a 5-point scale. Means for intrinsic motivation (IM), extrinsic motivation (EM), and perceived physical ability (Pab) are on a 7-point scale.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

167

allow for further empirical testing. Further, when tested for stability using two-thirds random sample re-clustering and discriminant analyses, the cluster pattern demonstrated good stability (Gore, 2000; Hair et al., 1995). With the two-thirds re-cluster 75% of participants were accurately assigned to their original cluster group and in the discriminant function analysis 96% of cases were correctly assigned. The unstandardized means, standard deviations, and z scores of the fivecluster solution are presented in Table 2. A z score of 70.5 was used as a criterion to interpret profile groups as high, moderate, or low on the five goal orientations; that is, a z score above +0.5 was classified as high, a z score below +0.5 but above 0.5 was classified as moderate, and a z score below 0.5 was classified as low (Harwood et al., 2004; Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000). The cluster groups were examined and classified accordingly. Although the labels of low, moderate, and high were assigned to each cluster it is important to remember that these labels reflect the relative rather than the actual strength of goal orientation. Therefore, when interpreting the goal profiles the reader is encouraged to examine both the relative differences (i.e., z score and assigned label; see Table 2) and the absolute differences (i.e., means and standard deviations; see Tables 1 and 2). The goal profiles were: Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster Cluster

1 2 3 4 5

(Lo-Aff): low affiliation, mod. task, ego, status, and recognition. (Lo-Val): low ego, status, and recognition, mod. task and affiliation. (Hi-Social): high affiliation and status, mod. recognition and task, and low ego. (Lo-Ach): low task and ego, mod. affiliation, status, and recognition. (Hi-Ach): high task, ego, and recognition, mod. affiliation and status.

Cluster 1 comprised participants who were low in affiliation, and moderate on task, ego, recognition, and status (see z scores in Table 2). As the low affiliation score appeared to be the feature that set this cluster apart from the other clusters it was labeled low affiliation (Lo-Aff). Cluster 2 participants were low on the external validation-focused orientations of ego, recognition, and status and had moderate scores on task and affiliation. This cluster was designated low validation (Lo-Val). The participants in Cluster 3 were characterized by high affiliation and social status scores, moderate recognition and task, and low ego scores. The strong social orientation reflected in this cluster led to the group being labeled high social (Hi-Social). Clusters 4 and 5 provided two contrasting groups. Participants in both groups were moderate on Table 2 Descriptive statistics for goal profiles Cluster 1 (n ¼ 89) Lo-affiliation

Cluster 2 (n ¼ 46) Lo-validation

Cluster 3 (n ¼ 81) Hi-social

Cluster 4 (n ¼ 74) Lo-achievement

Cluster 5 (n ¼ 79) Hi-achievement

z

SD

z

M

SD

z

M

SD

z

M

SD

z

M

SD

.31 .47 .34 .48 .53

.23 .94 .32 1.49 1.61

3.42 1.43 4.34 2.17 1.63

.74 .46 .46 .82 .54

.45 .66 .98 .42 .56

3.81 1.64 4.66 3.51 3.25

.40 .45 .28 .49 .63

1.16 .44 .39 .30 .10

2.89 1.81 3.98 3.00 2.91

.42 .46 .36 .44 .47

.60 1.24 .28 .65 .46

3.89 3.05 4.31 3.67 3.18

.41 .49 .37 .51 .58

M

Task .14 3.64 Ego .35 2.39 Affiliation .97 3.69 Recognition .06 3.26 Status .17 2.70

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

168

affiliation and status social orientations; however, Cluster 4 was low on task, ego, and recognition orientations while Cluster 5 was high on these orientations. Given these contrasting ‘achievement’ profiles Cluster 4 was labeled low achievement (Lo-Ach) and Cluster 5 was labeled high achievement (Hi-Ach). As stated above we need to bear in mind the ‘relative’ aspect of the goal profile labels—the labels are relative to the z scores, rather than being necessarily ‘high’, ‘moderate’, or ‘low’ in an absolute sense (see Table 2). For example, the ‘high-ego’ aspect of Cluster 5 is represented by a mean ego score of 3.05, which is only moderate in an absolute sense on a 1–5 scale. On the other hand the ‘high-task’ aspect of Cluster 5 is represented by a mean task score of 3.89, and the ‘mod task’ aspect of Cluster 3 is represented by a mean task score of 3.81, both of which are moderateto-high in an absolute sense on a 1–5 scale. Indeed, the dissimilar raw scores of ‘high task’ (3.89) and ‘high ego’ (3.05) in Cluster 5, respectively, highlight the need to examine both the absolute and relative strengths of goal orientations when we seek to characterize or interpret a goal profile as being more or less adaptive. Goal profiles and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, self-perceptions, and affect: To determine whether the goal profile groups differed significantly with regard to their behavioral regulations for sport, self-perceptions, and affect a MANOVA was conducted. Goal profile cluster was the between subjects factor and the seven forms of behavioral regulation for sport (amotivation, extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation), two self-perceptions (perceived ability, perceived belonging), enjoyment and commitment were the dependent variables. The results of this analysis indicated a significant overall multivariate effect for goal profile group (Wilk’s Lambda ¼ .59, F (44, 1345) ¼ 4.50, po.05) accounting for 12% of the variance among the variables. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs revealed several significant effects for goal profile group. These comparisons are summarized in Table 3. There were significant univariate effects for goal profile for intrinsic Table 3 Comparisons of self-regulation, self-perceptions, and enjoyment means scores across goal profile groups

Pab Pbel Commit Enjoy IMKno IMAcc IMStim EMId EMIntro EM Ext Amot

Cluster 1 (n ¼ 89) Lo-affiliation

Cluster 2 (n ¼ 46) Lo-validation

Cluster 3 (n ¼ 81) Hi-social

Cluster 4 (n ¼ 74) Lo-achievement

Cluster 5 (n ¼ 79) Hi-achievement

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

4.81 3.64a,e 4.19a 4.29a 3.55b,e 4.11b,e 4.08a,e 3.90b,e 3.75 2.89a 2.17a

.86 .70 .69 .72 1.31 1.21 1.22 1.28 1.35 1.14 1.22

4.40a,b 3.91b 4.22b 4.53 2.81a,b,c 3.10a,b,c 3.87b,d 3.89a 3.19a,b 1.96a,b,c 1.79

1.02 .75 .80 .56 1.33 1.56 1.63 1.41 1.59 .91 1.07

5.04a 4.41a,b,c,d 4.58a,b,c 4.80a,b,c 3.52a,d 4.22a,d 4.86a,b,c 4.70a,b,c 4.03a 2.88b 1.61a

1.00 .48 .50 .39 1.50 1.56 1.16 1.14 1.51 1.41 .92

4.63c 3.92c 4.20c 4.46b 2.58d,e,f 3.44d,e,f 3.95f 3.80c,d 3.45c 2.49d 1.95

1.01 .60 .63 .60 1.05 1.22 1.25 1.19 1.30 1.20 1.04

5.18b,c 4.12d,e 4.35 4.47c 3.89c,f 4.51c,f 4.70d,e,f 4.46d,e 4.19b,c 3.42c,d 1.96

.83 .64 .63 .62 1.51 1.23 1.14 1.20 1.46 1.23 1.22

Means for perceived ability are on a 7-point scale. Means for perceived belonging, enjoyment, and commitment are on a 5-point scale. Means for IM, EM, and Amot are on a 7-point scale. a,b,c,d,e,f Cluster pairs significantly different from each other (po.05).

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

169

motivation to know (F (4, 361) ¼ 11.47, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 11%), intrinsic motivation to accomplish (F (4, 361) ¼ 11.83, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 12%), and intrinsic motivation for stimulation (F (4, 361) ¼ 9.27, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 9%). Clusters 2 (Lo-Val) and 4 (Lo-Ach) participants reported the lowest levels of intrinsic motivation to know and to accomplish and these levels were significantly lower than those reported by participants in Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff), 3 (Hi-Social), and 5 (Hi-Ach) which were not significantly different from each other. With regard to intrinsic motivation for stimulation, participants in Clusters 3 (Hi-Social) and 5 (Hi-Ach) had the highest levels. Although these two clusters were not significantly different from each other, they were both significantly higher than Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff), 2 (Lo-Val), and 4 (Lo-Ach). There were also significant univariate effects for goal profile for extrinsic motivation–identified regulation (F (4, 361) ¼ 7.94, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 8%), extrinsic motivation–introjected regulation (F (4, 361) ¼ 5.09, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 5%), and extrinsic motivation–external regulation (F (4, 361) ¼ 12.00, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 12%). Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff) and 4 (Lo-Ach) participants reported the lowest levels of identified regulation and these levels were significantly lower than those reported by participants in Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) and 5 (Hi-Ach). Participants in Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) also reported higher identified regulation than participants in Cluster 2 (Lo-Val). With regard to introjected regulation, Cluster 2 (Lo-Val) participants reported lower levels than participants in Clusters 3 (Hi-Social) and 5 (Hi-Ach). Cluster 4 (Lo-Ach) participants reported lower introjected regulation than participants in Cluster 5 (Hi-Ach). Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff), 3 (Hi-Social), and 5 (Hi-Ach) had the highest levels of external regulation and these were significantly higher than those reported by participants in Cluster 2 (Lo-Val). Cluster 5 (Hi-Ach) participants reported higher external regulation than participants in Cluster 4 (Lo-Ach). Finally with regard to amotivation, there was only one significant univariate effect ability (F (4, 361) ¼ 2.92, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 3%). Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) participants’ level of amotivation was lower than participants in Cluster 1 (Lo-Aff). In summary, intrinsic motivation was highest in Clusters 3 and 5 which had high social or achievement orientations, and lowest in Clusters 2 and 4 which had moderate or low levels of motivational orientations. Cluster 1 reported relatively high IM-to-know and accomplish, but not for stimulation. With regard to extrinsic forms of motivation, Clusters 3 and 5 were higher on all forms of extrinsic self-regulation. Cluster 4 was low on all forms of extrinsic motivation, particularly in comparison with Cluster 5. There were also significant univariate effects for perceived ability (F (4, 361) ¼ 7.16, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 7%), perceived belonging (F (4, 361) ¼ 6.33, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 15%), commitment (F (4, 361) ¼ 5.40, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 6%), and enjoyment (F (4, 361) ¼ 7.86, po.05, partial eta squared ¼ 8%). Cluster 5 (Hi-Ach) participants had the highest levels of perceived ability and these were significantly higher than those reported by participants in Clusters 2 (Lo-Val) and 4 (Lo-Ach), but not significantly different from those reported by participants in Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff) and 3 (Hi-Social). Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) was also significantly higher than Cluster 2 (Lo-Val). With regard to perceived belonging, participants in Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) had the highest levels and these were significantly higher than all other clusters. Cluster 1 (Lo-Aff) participants reported the lowest levels of perceived belonging and these were significantly lower than Clusters 3 (Hi-Social) and 5 (Hi-Ach). Participants in Clusters 3 (Hi-Social) and 5 (Hi-Ach) had the highest levels of commitment to sport, with Cluster 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS 170

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

reporting significantly higher levels than Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff), 2 (Lo-Val), and 4 (Lo-Ach). Finally, with regard to enjoyment, Cluster 1 (Lo-Aff) participants had the lowest levels of enjoyment and these levels were lower than Cluster 3 (Hi-Social). Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) participants reported the highest levels of enjoyment and these were significantly higher than Clusters 1 (Lo-Aff), 4 (LoAch), and 5 (Hi-Ach), but not significantly higher than those reported by participants in Cluster 2 (Lo-Val). In summary, perceived ability and perceived belonging were highest in Clusters 3 and 5 which had high achievement or social orientations. Perceived ability was lowest in Cluster 2 and perceived belonging was lowest in Cluster 1. Enjoyment and commitment were highest in Cluster 3 with Clusters 5 and 2 also reporting high enjoyment and commitment. Clusters 1 and 4 had lower levels of enjoyment and commitment.

Discussion Given that middle-aged and older adults make up an increasing proportion of the population in Western countries, and because levels of sport participation typically decrease with advancing age, the motivation of middle-aged and older adults for sport participation has become an important area of inquiry. As stated previously, Masters sport is a growing phenomenon worldwide with increased participation levels in many sports at Masters level and it is both a sporting (i.e., competitive) and a social occasion for the participants (World Masters Games, 2006). The purpose of this study was to examine the collective relationships of achievement motivation and social goal orientations with motivational correlates in Masters sport. Descriptive findings In general these Masters athletes were predominantly affiliation- (M ¼ 4.18; 1–5 scale) and task-oriented (M ¼ 3.55), with a substantial element of social recognition orientation (M ¼ 3.21) as well. Social status orientation scores were low-to-moderate (M ¼ 2.83) and ego orientation was noticeably low (M ¼ 2.14) (see Table 1). The achievement goal findings were similar to those found by Newton and Fry (1998), who also identified high levels of task orientation (M ¼ 4.25) and moderate-to-low levels of ego orientation (M ¼ 2.69) for older adult athletes. In comparison with the numerous studies with young adult and youth athlete samples (see Duda, 2001 for a review) it appears that this group of Masters athletes was particularly high in task orientation and unusually low in ego orientation. The social goal findings (affiliation, recognition, status) were similar to those found by Grant (2001) who revealed that older adults have a strong focus on the social affiliation aspects of participation in sport. This finding reinforces Allen’s (2003) argument that sport is a social as well as an achievement context and that participants’ value the opportunities sport provides for social interaction. Social recognition was also a substantial element of social motivation for these middle-aged and older adults. This is similar to Allen’s (2005) findings with youth athletes, but in contrast with Grant who found that social recognition was not an important sport participation motive. With respect to ‘social status’, our findings support the work of Newton and Fry (1998)

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

171

who also identified a moderate-to-low (M ¼ 2.54; 1–5 scale) focus on sport as a means to ‘enhance social status’ for older athletes (mean age ¼ 65 years). Goal profiles and motivational correlates Self-determined forms of behavior regulation (intrinsic motivation), positive affect (enjoyment), a desire to continue participation (commitment), and positive self-perceptions (perceived ability and belonging) were considered indicative of an adaptive motivational pattern. Logically this pattern seems likely to be associated with long-term involvement in sport and physical activity and is also supported by theoretical predictions from self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2002). In this study we were interested in which goal profile(s) was associated with more or less adaptive motivational patterns. The value judgment of labeling particular goal profiles as more or less adaptive is in the ‘eyes of the researcher’; or more specifically ‘in the eyes of the dependent variable’ chosen by the researcher. The goal profiles that are regarded as adaptive are only adaptive with respect to the specific dependent variable(s) in question. In other words, any claims regarding a particular goal profile being labeled as ‘adaptive’ should come with a qualification regarding the specific dependent variable(s), rather than an implication of any ‘generic’ adaptive qualities. Examination of our findings indicated that Clusters 3 (Hi-Social) and 5 (Hi-Ach) were associated with a more adaptive pattern of motivational correlates compared to the other three clusters. Both Clusters 3 and 5 were highest on all indicators of intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, commitment, and self-perceptions. Participants in these Clusters were characterized by either high achievement orientations (i.e., Cluster 5) or high social orientations (i.e., Cluster 3). This finding is consistent with theory in that motivationally adaptive patterns of affect and behavior are hypothesized to result from predominant task (Duda, 1996, 2001; Nicholls, 1989) and affiliation orientations (Allen, 2003, 2005). Participants in Cluster 5 (Hi-Ach) reported high levels of task orientation which is consistent with predictions that a focus on skill development is associated with greater intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, and commitment (see Tables 2 and 3). Newton and Fry’s (1998) study of Senior Olympians also revealed positive associations between task orientation and levels of intrinsic motivation and enjoyment. Cluster 5 participants were also relatively high in ego orientation (z score), but the absolute value of ego orientation was moderate (M ¼ 3.05, 1–5 scale). Therefore, the interpretation of success for participants in this goal profile was primarily task-oriented (M ¼ 3.89). A possible explanation for the positive association found between ego orientation and adaptive motivational correlates may be attributed to the high perceptions of physical ability (M ¼ 5.18, 1–7 scale) reported by participants in this goal profile. This finding is consistent with achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1989), given that less adaptive behavior patterns are only predicted for ego orientation when perceptions of ability are low. Although a ‘high’ combination of both achievement orientations was the characteristic that distinguished this cluster from the others it is important to note that the absolute scores for these participants were also ‘high’ in social orientations, particularly affiliation (M ¼ 4.31). The pattern of association amongst high affiliation, high task orientation and adaptive motivational correlates is consistent with recent findings from a youth sport sample (Allen, 2003).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 172

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

The adaptive pattern of motivational correlates associated with participants in Cluster 3 (HiSocial) was also consistent with theoretical propositions from the social motivational model (Allen, 2003). In line with self-determination theory, Allen (2003) suggested that because the affiliation orientation reflects a desire for the development and maintenance of mutual relations which are critical for psychological growth and development, a strong affiliation orientation should be associated with adaptive motivational correlates. Consequently, the finding that the high affiliation aspect of Cluster 3 was positively associated with intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, and commitment is consistent with predictions. These findings also support related research by Allen (2003, 2005) who found a positive association between affiliation orientation and interest in sport with two different adolescent samples. The high levels of intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, and commitment associated with the relatively high level of social status orientation in Cluster 3 initially appeared inconsistent with predicted patterns from the social motivation model (Allen, 2003, 2005). However, the participants in this cluster also reported high perceptions of belonging. Thus it appears that their psychological need for social connections (belonging) was being satisfied despite having external, other-focused goals (i.e., non-self-determined extrinsic motivation). Therefore, this finding is consistent with theoretical predictions. Self-determination theory posits that conditions which satisfy the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (belonging) should foster psychological well-being (Vallerand, 1997). Although it was the social orientations that set this cluster apart from other clusters it is important to note that these participants also reported a high absolute score for task orientation (M ¼ 3.81), almost as high as those in Cluster 5 (M ¼ 3.89), and a very low ego orientation (M ¼ 1.64). The combination of high task/low ego has been associated with adaptive motivational correlates (e.g., Duda, 1989). Consequently the profile of social and achievement goals represented in Cluster 3 appears to be favorably associated with an adaptive motivational pattern and is consistent with the motivational theories employed in this study (Allen, 2003, 2005; Nicholls, 1989; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) was high in commitment and enjoyment. Compared with other clusters Cluster 3 was also higher in perceived ability (thus satisfying the psychological need of competence), and higher in intrinsic motivation. The enjoyment findings for Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) likely reflect a task orientation focus on mastery and competence, a low level of ego orientation that minimized any unfavorable social comparisons (cf. achievement goal theory; Nicholls, 1989), and a high affiliation orientation combined with high perceived belonging which emphasized positive affect from strong interpersonal relationships (cf. social motivation model; Allen, 2003). Newton and Fry (1998) also discovered that older athletes high in task orientation reported high levels of enjoyment in sport, while Weiss and Smith (2002) found that higher friendship quality (cf. affiliation) was related to higher enjoyment and commitment in youth tennis players. Extrinsic motivation has not typically been characterized as part of an adaptive motivational pattern; however, it is interesting to note that these Masters athletes, who in general demonstrated adaptive motivational patterns, also reported moderate levels of extrinsic motivation. In fact, Clusters 3 and 5 were the highest in identified and introjected regulation. When examining the absolute scores these extrinsic motivation values were lower than all forms of intrinsic motivation; however, they were moderate-to-high (see Table 3). The positive relationship between Cluster 5 (Hi-Ach) and elements of extrinsic motivation is consistent with achievement goal theory (Duda, 2001; Nicholls, 1989) given that the high ego orientation is characterized by an ‘other-referenced’,

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

173

external focus of achievement motivation. Similarly, the positive relationship between Cluster 3 (Hi-Social) and extrinsic motivation is consistent with the social motivation model (Allen, 2003, 2005) in terms of the ‘social validation’ focus of this profile group (i.e., social status). In general, these Masters athletes displayed a pattern of adaptive motivational correlates. They enjoyed their participation, they were committed, they had high perceptions of ability and belonging, and they were predominantly intrinsically motivated (i.e., self-determined motivation). In terms of the associations with goal profiles, those participants who demonstrated the most adaptive motivational pattern were also those who were particularly task- and affiliation-oriented. This pattern supports previous literature which has indicated that motivational correlates are influenced by a predictable pattern of goal orientations (Allen, 2003; Duda, 2001). Notwithstanding these ‘positive’ findings regarding a pattern of adaptive motivational correlates these findings should be interpreted in light of the limitations of this study. For example, the cross-sectional correlational design precludes any causal conclusions regarding the influence of this pattern of adaptive motivational correlates. In addition, we did not assess any behavioral measures with respect to these adaptive motivational correlates; consequently the actual behavioral implications of our findings could not be verified. Conclusion In this paper we have argued that the use of complementary theoretical models (achievement goal theory and social motivation model) should enhance a comprehensive understanding of behavior, affect and motivational processes in sport. Therefore, one of the major objectives of this study was to examine the collective contribution that social and achievement goal orientations make to understanding the motivation of Masters athletes. Our findings revealed meaningful and insightful relationships amongst complementary goal profiles (achievement and social goals), intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, self-perceptions, enjoyment and commitment that may not have been evident if achievement and social goals had been examined separately. The impact of these goals when considered in combination provides a finegrained examination of relationships amongst variables that adds considerable depth to our understanding of behavior, affect and motivational processes in competitive sport. Those middleaged and older adults who were high in achievement goals (esp. task) as well as social affiliation revealed a pattern of motivational correlates and self-perceptions that indicate a range of positive outcomes such as facilitating long-term commitment to, enjoyment of, and participation in sport. These findings echo the Masters Games philosophy regarding ‘sport for life’ (World Masters Games, 2005) and the promotion of a long-term approach towards sport and physical activity participation. Finally, these findings also reflect the Masters Games claim that Masters ‘sport’ is both a sporting and a social occasion for the participants (World Masters Games, 2006). Future research directions There is much that we still do not know about the complex factors that help motivate individuals of all ages to begin and continue participation in regular sport activity (i.e., recreational and/or competitive sport). In an attempt to unravel some of the complexities of motivation this study focused on individual difference factors, specifically social and achievement

ARTICLE IN PRESS 174

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

goal orientations, associated with motivation. In doing so only a modest amount of variance in the dependent variables was accounted for; however, it is important to note that motivation is influenced by both individual difference and contextual factors (Duda, 2001; Roberts, 2001). Future research should also examine the influence of contextual factors such as motivational climate (i.e., ‘climate’ profiles) that influence the development of these goal profiles as well as directly influencing enjoyment, commitment, self-perceptions, and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. Future research should also investigate the moderating/mediating influence of the respective ‘goals of action’ (i.e., perceived ability; perceived belonging) in achievement goal theory and the social motivation model. Given the important role that the respective ‘goals of action’ play in these social cognitive models, it is surprising that their moderating/mediating effects have not been explicitly examined to date in sport. A likely analytical approach would be to utilize the cluster analysis method to examine ‘goal profiles’ that include the respective goal of action in the clusters; that is, (i) achievement goal theory constructs (i.e., task and ego orientations; perceived ability) and (ii) social motivation model constructs (i.e., affiliation, status, recognition orientations; perceived belonging). Clearly participation in Masters sport is becoming increasingly popular and for many of these participants their ‘sport’ participation may be their primary means of remaining physically active in middle-age and older adulthood. Nevertheless, the issue of encouraging more middle-aged and older adults to participate in sport and be more physically active is complex (just as it is for younger age cohorts), and thus future research that investigates middle-aged and older adults who are both active and inactive will be of considerable value (cf. Newton & Fry, 1998). Furthermore, the challenge of increasing adult sport participation will be best addressed with complementary use of both quantitative (e.g., Newton & Fry, 1998) and qualitative methods (e.g., Grant, 2001). A multi-method approach should provide considerable insight into this complex issue and allow interventions to be implemented to help middle-aged and older adults benefit from the many positive physical, psychological, and social effects of being physically active.

References ADNFS. (1992). Allied Dunbar national fitness survey. London: Sports Council and Health Education Authority. Allen, J. B. (2003). Social motivation in youth sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25(4), 551–567. Allen, J. B. (2005). Measuring social motivational orientations in sport: An examination of the construct validity of the SMOSS. International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 3(2), 23–37. Allen, J. B. (2006). The perceived belonging in sport scale: Examining validity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 387–405. Ashford, B., Biddle, S., & Goudas, M. (1993). Participation in community sports centres: Motives and predictors of enjoyment. Journal of Sport Sciences, 11, 249–256. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. Biddle, S. J. H. (1995). Exercise motivation across the lifespan. In S. Biddle (Ed.), European perspectives on exercise and sport psychology (pp. 3–25). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Biddle, S. J. H. (2001). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in physical activity: The influence of achievement goals on motivational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 101–127). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

ARTICLE IN PRESS K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

175

Biddle, S. J. H., Wang, C. K. J., Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2003). Correlates of achievement goal orientations in physical activity: A systematic review of research. European Journal of Sport Science, 3, 1–20. Brodkin, P., & Weiss, M. R. (1990). Developmental differences in motivation for participating in competitive swimming. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 12, 248–263. Chodzko-Zajko, W. (2000). Successful aging in the New Millennium: The role of regular physical activity. Quest, 52, 333–343. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation: Self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum. Duda, J. L. (1989). Relationship between task and ego goal orientation and the perceived purpose of sport among high school athletes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 318–335. Duda, J. L. (1996). Maximizing motivation in sport and physical education among children and adolescents: The case for greater task involvement. Quest, 48, 290–302. Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129–182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M., Walling, M., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 40–63. Duda, J. L., Fox, K., Biddle, S., & Armstrong, N. (1992). Children’s achievement goals and beliefs about success in sport. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 309–319. Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 290–299. Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 21–48). Morgantown: Fitness Information Technology. Fox, K., Goudas, M., Biddle, S., Duda, J. L., & Armstrong, N. (1994). Children’s task and ego goal profiles in sport. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 253–261. Gore, P. A. (2000). Cluster analysis. In H. Tinsley, & S. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 298–321). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Grant, B. (2001). ‘You’re never too old’: Beliefs about physical activity and playing sport in later life. Aging & Society, 21, 777–798. Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan. Harwood, C., Cumming, J., & Fletcher, D. (2004). Motivational profiles and psychological skills use within elite youth sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 318–332. Hodge, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (2000). Goal profiles in sport motivation: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 22, 256–272. Hollembeak, J., & Amorose, A. (2005). Perceived coaching behaviors and college athletes’ intrinsic motivation: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 20–36. Jackson, S., Kimiecik, J., Ford, S., & Marsh, H. (1998). Psychological correlates of flow in sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 20, 358–378. Martens, M., & Webber, S. (2002). Psychometric properties of the Sport Motivation Scale: An evaluation with college varsity athletes from the U.S. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 254–270. Newton, M., & Fry, M. (1998). Senior Olympians achievement goals and motivational responses. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity, 6, 256–270. Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M., Briere, N. M., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale (SMS). Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 17, 35–53. Raedeke, T. D. (1997). Is athlete burnout more than just stress? A sport commitment perspective. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19(4), 396–417. Roberts, G. (2001). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in physical activity: The influence of achievement goals on motivational processes. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 1–50). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 176

K. Hodge et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 9 (2008) 157–176

Roberts, G., Treasure, D., & Kavussanu, M. (1996). Orthogonality of achievement goals and its relationship to beliefs about success and satisfaction in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 398–408. 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: University of Rochester Press. Scanlan, T., Carpenter, P., Schmidt, G., Simons, J., & Keeler, B. (1993). An introduction to the Sport Commitment Model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 1–15. Schilling, T. A., & Hayashi, C. T. (2001). Achievement motivation among high school basketball and cross-country athletes: A personal investment perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13(1), 103–128. Shaw, K. L., Ostrow, A., & Beckstead, J. (2005). Motivation and the Senior athlete: An examination of the psychometric properties of the Sport Motivation Scale. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 21, 206–214. Shephard, R. (1997). Aging, physical activity and health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Smith, M., Duda, J. L., Allen, J. B., & Hall, H. K. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 155–190. Stuntz, C., & Weiss, M. (2003). Influence of social goal orientations and peers on unsportsmanlike play. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 74(4), 421–435. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Healthy people 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Vallerand, R. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). New York: Academic Press. Wang, C. K. J., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2001). Young people’s motivational profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23(1), 1–22. Wang, C. K. J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Spray, C. M., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). Achievement goal profiles in school physical education: Differences in self-determination, sport ability beliefs, and physical activity. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 433–445. Weiss, M. R., & Smith, A. (2002). Friendship quality in youth sport: Relationship to age, gender, and motivation variables. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 24, 420–437. Williams, L. (2004). Physical activity-related affect and perceived effort: Examining the role of social motivational orientations and belonging. In Paper presented at the annual AAASP conference, Minneapolis, MN, USA. World Masters Games. (2005). Quick facts: A brief history. Retrieved 16 December 2005. /www.2005worldmasters.comS. World Masters Games. (2006). Background. Retrieved 12 September 2006. /www.2009worldmasters.comS. Wylleman, P. (2000). Interpersonal relationships in sport: Uncharted territory in sport psychology research. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 31, 555–572.