This article was downloaded by: [80.111.30.

91]
On: 05 April 2015, At: 06:43
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sport and

Exercise Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijs20

The influence of controlled motivation

alongside autonomous motivation:
Maladaptive, buffering, or additive
effects?
ac

Edel Langan , Ken Hodge , Siobhan McGowan , Shane Carney ,

a

Valerie Saunders & Chris Lonsdale

School of Public Health, Physiotherapy & Population Science,

University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
b

Click for updates

School of Physical Education, Sport & Exercise Science,

University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
c

School of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney,

Penrith, NSW, Australia
Published online: 09 Mar 2015.

To cite this article: Edel Langan, Ken Hodge, Siobhan McGowan, Shane Carney, Valerie Saunders &
Chris Lonsdale (2015): The influence of controlled motivation alongside autonomous motivation:
Maladaptive, buffering, or additive effects?, International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
DOI: 10.1080/1612197X.2015.1016084
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1016084

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1016084

The inuence of controlled motivation alongside autonomous motivation:

Maladaptive, buffering, or additive effects?
Edel Langana,c*, Ken Hodgeb, Siobhan McGowana, Shane Carneya, Valerie Saundersa
and Chris Lonsdalec
a

School of Public Health, Physiotherapy & Population Science, University College Dublin, Dublin,
Ireland; bSchool of Physical Education, Sport & Exercise Science, University of Otago, Dunedin,
New Zealand; cSchool of Science and Health, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

(Received 13 September 2013; accepted 4 January 2015)

Contrary to self-determination theory (SDT) tenets, research indicates that controlled
motivation towards sport may not be associated with maladaptive outcomes, if accompanied
by high autonomous motivation. However, the measures of controlled motivation employed
in many of these studies have been criticised for the lack of content validity (i.e. Sport
Motivation Scale [SMS]). This study examined the inuence two different measures (SMS
and Behavioural Regulation in Sport Questionnaire [BRSQ]) have on empirical support
for competing hypotheses concerning the inuence of controlled motivation on athletes
sport experiences. A cross-sectional design was employed. Gaelic football players (N = 395,
M = 13.36 years) answered questionnaires to assess motivation, ow, and burnout. Multivariate
analysis of variances indicated that when the SMS was employed, controlled motivation
appeared adaptive, or at least innocuous, when autonomous motivation was high. When the
BRSQ was used, controlled motivation appeared maladaptive, or at best innocuous, when
autonomous motivation was high. While these ndings do not indicate that one measure
produces controlled motivation scores that are more valid than the other, compared with the
SMS-based results, the BRSQ-based ndings are more in line with SDT tenets.
Keywords: motivation; burnout; ow; cluster analysis; self-determination theory

Ancient Chinese philosophy describes the interaction of two opposing but complementary energies, called yin and yang, which interact to inuence various events throughout ones life. Yin
is described as negative and oppressed. Yang, on the other hand, is described as positive, active,
and bright (Dingbo & Murphy, 1994). In some respects, one could argue that yin and yang are
analogous to the type of motives that underpin athletes participation in competitive sport. For
example, athletes sometimes participate in sport out of personal interest, enjoyment, or importance. According to self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), these motives can
be classied as autonomous and could therefore be aligned with yang, the brighter of the two
states. However, athletes may also participate in sport due to pressure emanating from within
(e.g. avoiding negative emotional states, such as guilt and shame) and/or from others (e.g.
social pressure or reward contingencies). These motives can be classied as controlled and
could therefore be aligned with yin (i.e. the darker state).

*Corresponding author. Email: e.langan@uws.edu.au

Current address: Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, NSW,
Australia.
2015 International Society of Sport Psychology

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

E. Langan et al.

Like the classic yin and yang energies, autonomous and controlled motives for sport participation can co-exist, meaning that athletes may participate for a combination of reasons, some
autonomous, others controlled. Recent studies have produced conicting ndings regarding the
combined inuence of these different types of motives on athletes behaviour (e.g. Gillet, Vallerand, & Rosnet, 2009), cognition (e.g. Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009),
and affect (e.g. Gillet, Berjot, Vallerand, Amoura, & Rosnet, 2012). In this study, we examined
whether controlled forms of motivation are necessarily detrimental, or if controlled motivation
might have an additive effect with autonomous motivation such that athletes experience more
adaptive outcomes when both forms of motivation are strong.
According to SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985), autonomous motivation includes intrinsic motivation
as well as self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation; that is, integrated regulation (i.e. acting
because the activity has been assimilated with ones sense of self) and identied regulation (i.e.
acting because the activity is personally valued). In contrast, controlled motivation consists of the
non-self-determined types of extrinsic motivation, including introjected regulation (i.e. acting to
avoid guilt or gain pride) and external regulation (i.e. acting to satisfy an external contingency).
When combined, autonomous and controlled regulatory styles represent a continuum of selfdetermination, reecting the extent to which a regulation has been internalised by the individual.
In addition to autonomous and controlled motivation, Deci and Ryan (1985) describe amotivation
as a third motivational construct, which can be seen as a lack of motivation.1
There is considerable research in sport that has demonstrated a positive relationship between
autonomous motivation and adaptive outcomes, such as enhanced persistence, effort, performance,
vitality, self-esteem, and well-being (Ntoumanis, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Additionally, autonomous motivation has demonstrated a negative relationship with maladaptive outcomes, such as
burnout (Cresswell & Eklund, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; Raedeke & Smith, 2001). Such ndings are
logical because self-determination is viewed as a prerequisite for adaptive functioning (Deci,
1980) as a self-determined person has become effective in internalising and integrating the regulation
of an activity or activities (see, e.g. Ryan & Connell, 1989; Vallerand, 1997). Hence, consequences
should be increasingly positive as one moves from amotivation to autonomous motivation. Of particular interest to this study was the adaptive outcome of ow (Jackson & Eklund, 2004). Flow is an
intrinsically rewarding, state-like experience characterised by total involvement or immersion in an
activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) that is theoretically (Jackson, Ford, Kimiecik, & Marsh, 1998;
Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose, 2008) and empirically related to autonomous motivation. Indeed, Lonsdale et al. (2008) found that autonomous forms of athlete motivation were positively associated with
ow, whereas controlled forms of motivation were negatively associated with ow states.
In contrast, controlled motivation has been associated with maladaptive outcomes, such as
disengagement-oriented coping (Amiot, Gaudreau, & Blanchard, 2004), and antisocial attitudes/behaviour (Hodge & Lonsdale, 2011). Such ndings are not surprising given an athlete
with controlled motives is not self-determined, thus consequences are expected to be increasingly
negative as motivation becomes less self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2000) as excessive external
pressures, controls and evaluations appear to forestall rather than facilitate the internalisation of an
activity (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
A maladaptive outcome of particular interest to this study was burnout, which is a syndrome
characterised by (a) emotional and physical exhaustion, (b) sport devaluation, and (c) a reduced
sense of accomplishment (Raedeke & Smith, 2001). Researchers have reported a positive
relationship between burnout and controlled motivation (e.g. Lonsdale & Hodge, 2011; Lonsdale,
Hodge, & Rose, 2009). These ndings are in line with the SDT tenet that controlled motivation
leads to maladaptive outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2002).
Since autonomous and controlled motivations often co-occur, and athletes often endorse multiple reasons for sports participation (Ryan & Deci, 2001), researchers have recently explored how

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

different combinations of these motivation types relate to athlete outcomes (e.g. Gillet et al., 2009,
2012; Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). This intra-individual research evidence gives rise to three competing hypotheses that offer differing explanations regarding the inuences of these combinations
of autonomous and controlled forms of motivation. These three competing hypotheses will be discussed in the subsequent sections.
According to SDT propositions, the most adaptive outcomes result from high levels of autonomous and low levels of controlled motivation. For example, in the education domain Hayenga
and Corpus (2010) found that students with high autonomous and low levels of controlled motivation achieved higher grades than students with low autonomous and high controlled motivation,
even if the latter form of motivation was strong. This study highlights the disadvantages of controlled motivation, even when autonomous motivation is high. Such ndings support SDT, which
emphasises the importance of the quality of motivation. Hence, a prole, which predominantly
consists of a poor-quality (i.e. controlled) motivation, is likely to hamper rather than facilitate
adaptive outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
However, some recent studies appear to refute the SDT-based predictions by suggesting that
proles other than high autonomouslow controlled motivation can also lead to similar or even
more adaptive outcomes (e.g. Gillet et al., 2009; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Vlachopoulos,
Karageorghis, & Terry, 2000).
One empirically supported alternative proposition is that autonomous motivation may exert a
protective or buffering effect against the expected negative effects of controlled motivation. Deci
and Ryan (1985), who focused on the dispositional level of motivation, suggested that an autonomous orientation would protect autonomous motivation in the face of activities taking place in
controlling settings. For example, if an athlete enjoys weight lifting but also feels pressure from a
coach it is plausible that without enjoyment the athlete may not adequately contend with the controlling approach. Gillet et al. (2009) found that French junior national tennis players with high
controlled and high autonomous motivation performed similarly to athletes with high autonomous and moderate controlled motivation. These results suggested that autonomous motivation
might have buffered against the expected negative effects of controlled motivation. Throughout
this paper, we refer to this explanation as the buffering hypothesis.
Another empirically supported proposition suggests that being high in both autonomous and
controlled motivation may lead to greater adaptive outcomes than being high in autonomous and
low in controlled motivation. For example, Gillet et al. (2009) found that superior performance
was obtained by French junior national fencers with a combination of high autonomous and
high controlled motivation when compared with fencers who reported: (1) moderate autonomous
and low controlled motivation; (2) high autonomous and moderate controlled motivation; and (3)
moderate autonomous and high controlled motivation. Similar ndings were reported in a more
recent study of elite junior fencers (Gillet et al., 2012), and in a non-elite, adult sport setting
(Vlachopoulos et al., 2000). These ndings are in line with Lepper et al. (2005) who proposed
that autonomous and controlled motivation may have an additive effect to produce greater positive outcomes than a motivational prole of high autonomous and low controlled motivation.
Given the characteristics of organised sport, it could be argued that a high level of controlled
motivation accompanied by a high level of autonomous motivation would allow an athlete to
meet the environmental demands. This dual motivational system suggests that the energizing
emotions such as interest and excitement (Koestner & Losier, 2002, p. 115) that autonomous
motivation implies would facilitate an athlete in meeting the highly pressured demands of a
controlling environment. Throughout this paper, we refer to this proposition as the additive
hypothesis.
To summarise, three competing hypotheses, each with some empirical support, are evident in
the SDT literature in the sport domain. The SDT-based hypothesis suggests that the presence of

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

E. Langan et al.

controlled motivation (regardless of the accompanying levels of autonomous motivation) will

result in maladaptive outcomes. The buffering hypothesis suggests that high levels of autonomous
motivation exerts a protective or buffering effect against the expected negative effects of controlled motivation, but does not have an additive effect. Finally, the additive hypothesis suggests
that being high in both autonomous and controlled motivation will not only buffer against the
negative effects of controlled motivation, but will also lead to greater adaptive outcomes than
being high in autonomous and low in controlled motivation.
One possible explanation for the conicting ndings that give rise to these three hypotheses
relates to the questionnaires employed to assess motivation. In discussing their results, which contradicted SDT-based hypotheses, Gillet et al. (2009) suggested that the measurement instrument
they employed (i.e. the French version of the Sport Motivation Scale [SMS]; Briere, Vallerand,
Blais, & Pelletier, 1995) may not adequately tap the more controlling aspects of controlled motivation. This suggestion echoes previous concerns raised on the psychometric properties of the controlled motivation items of the SMS (e.g. Lonsdale et al., 2008; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis,
2003). To provide clarication regarding their ndings, Gillet et al. proposed that the Behavioural
Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (BRSQ; Lonsdale et al., 2008) could be used in future research
to provide an alternative examination of the potential buffering or additive effects of high autonomous and controlled motivation.
In this study, we accepted recommendations by Gillet et al. (2009) by employing an alternative measurement instrument (i.e. BRSQ) as well as the SMS to re-examine the SDT-based, buffering, and additive hypotheses. Specically, we sought to compare results obtained using the
BRSQ with those derived from the same participants responses to the SMS. The BRSQ and
SMS were selected because they are the most widely used measures of motivational regulations
in sport. In doing so, we sought to gain insight into the importance of measurement when examining the effects of controlled and autonomous forms of motivation; consequently, the choice of
outcome variables was crucial when examining adaptive and maladaptive outcome variables.
Given that research has highlighted a relationship between motivational quality and ow and
burnout, we were interested in exploring the content of the motivational quality (i.e. various combinations of controlled and autonomous motivation) and the subsequent relationships with adaptive (i.e. ow) and maladaptive (i.e. burnout) outcomes.
We tested three competing hypotheses:
H1: Controlled motivation would have a maladaptive inuence on motivational consequences, such
that athletes with high levels of autonomous and controlled motivation would have lower ow and
higher burnout scores compared with athletes reporting high levels of autonomous and low levels
of controlled motivation (SDT-based hypothesis).
H2: Autonomous motivation would serve a protective function, such that athletes with high levels of
autonomous and controlled motivation would have similar ow and burnout scores when compared
with athletes reporting high levels of autonomous and low levels of controlled motivation (Buffering
hypothesis).
H3: Controlled motivation would serve an additive function, such that athletes with high levels of
autonomous and controlled motivation would have higher ow and lower burnout scores compared
with athletes reporting high levels of autonomous and low levels of controlled motivation (Additive
hypothesis).

Method
Participants
The sample included 395 competitive male adolescent Gaelic football players. Gaelic football is
an amateur 15-person team sport played mainly in Ireland. Woods, Tannehill, Quinlan, Moyna,

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

and Walsh (2010) reported that Gaelic football is the most popular extra-curricular sport among
boys (1018 years of age) in Ireland. The participants ages ranged from 12 to 15 years (M =
13.36, SD = 0.76) and their experience playing Gaelic football ranged from 1 to 10 years (M =
6.7, SD = 2.3). Participants stated that they trained or competed in Gaelic football for an
average 4.2 hours per week (SD = 2.93 hours).

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

Measures
Motivation
The BRSQ (Lonsdale et al., 2008) included six 4-item subscales designed to measure amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identied regulation, integrated regulation, and
intrinsic motivation. Athletes responded using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not true at all),
4 (somewhat true), to 7 (very true). Previous research involving competitive athletes has supported the reliability, as well as the factorial and nomological validity of the BRSQ scores (Lonsdale et al., 2008) in particular when adapting and modifying the BRSQ for use with a youth
population (Viladrich et al., 2013).
The SMS (Brire et al., 1995) consisted of 28 items, with four items per subscale designed to
assess intrinsic motivation to know, intrinsic motivation to experience stimulation, intrinsic
motivation towards accomplishments, identied regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation (the SMS does not include an integrated regulation subscale). Athletes
responded to items based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Does not correspond at
all) to 7 (Corresponds exactly). While some research has supported the validity and reliability
of the SMS (Pelletier et al., 1995), others have questioned the evidence supporting its psychometric properties (Mallett, Kawabata, Newcombe, Otero-Forero, & Jackson, 2007). Other
researchers have successfully used the SMS with a youth sport population (Ullrich-French &
Smith, 2006).
The external and introjected regulation items from the BRSQ and SMS were of particular
importance to this study because Gillet et al. (2009) have suggested that BRSQ items from
these subscales tap more controlling regulation than items from the SMS subscales. By assessing
external and introjected forms of motivation using both questionnaires, we were able to examine
how subscales, which potentially tap differing levels of controlled motivation, might inuence
results.
Athlete burnout
Athletes completed the 15-item Athlete Burnout Questionnaire (ABQ; Raedeke & Smith, 2001).
This questionnaire included three subscales: (a) emotional/physical exhaustion; (b) devaluation;
and (c) reduced sense of accomplishment, which were summed to produce a global athlete
burnout score. Only this global score was considered in the current study. Athletes responded
using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Almost Never) to 5 (Almost Always). Previous research
with youth sport samples has supported the reliability, as well as the factorial and convergent/
divergent validity of the ABQ scores (e.g. Raedeke & Smith, 2001).
Dispositional ow
Athletes also completed the Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2; Jackson & Eklund, 2004).
The DFS-2 is a 36-item questionnaire, with 4 items intended to assess each of the 9 ow
dimensions. The DFS-2 allows for scores on each of the nine subscales, as well as an
overall global score. Only the global score was considered in this study. Participants responded
using a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Previous research has

E. Langan et al.

supported the reliability and validity of DFS-2 scores (Jackson & Eklund, 2004) in particular
with a youth population (Gonzalez-Cutre, Sicilia, Moreno, & Fernandez-Balboa, 2009).
Procedure
The university ethics committee granted approval for the study. Secondary schools were contacted via publicly available contact details. Consent forms and information leaets were
posted to head coaches of 23 Gaelic football teams in participating schools. Initially, 633 information/consent forms were provided to players (and their parents); 395 provided written informed
consent and completed questionnaires (62.4% response rate). The third, fourth, and fth authors
collected the data from players prior to a training session.

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

Analysis strategy
Cluster analyses
The data were screened for univariate and multivariate normality and outliers. Descriptive statistics were then calculated. Bivariate correlations were also inspected. To identify motivational
proles, we adopted a cluster analysis approach (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). We
employed two sets of analyses in order to assess the stability of the emergent clusters. First, we
randomly divided the sample of 395 athletes into two groups. We performed an exploratory
hierarchical cluster analysis using Wards linkage method (Alenderfer & Blasheld, 1984)
with the squared Euclidian distance measure on Sample A (n = 198). The clustering variables
were BRSQ external regulation, BRSQ introjected regulation, BRSQ identied regulation,
BRSQ integrated regulation, and BRSQ intrinsic motivation. Notably, amotivation was
excluded from the main analyses. Amotivation can be seen as the relative lack of motivation
to engage in a certain behaviour (Vallerand, 1997, p. 1162), and as we were interested in the
quality of motivation (i.e. controlled versus autonomous motivation) rather than the quantity of
motivation, we decided to complete the analyses without amotivation scores. To verify the
results, we utilised the clusters emerging from the exploratory analysis of Sample A as the
basis for the K-Mean cluster analysis (Norusis, 2008) of Sample B (n = 197).
The second approach involved conducting an exploratory cluster analysis on the entire data
sample (N = 395). To interpret and label the motivational content of each group, we inspected
mean scores. All motivational variables shared the same metric, so we maintained the raw
scores throughout the analysis. We developed criteria to describe the level of each of the motivation regulations. This decision was in line with the methodologies employed by Gillet et al.
(2009, 2012) and Vlachopoulos et al. (2000), and allowed us to not only compare scores
across groups, but also understand whether or not scores were high or low in an absolute
sense. More specically, we labelled a mean score of 1.02.5 as low, 2.513.5 as low to moderate,
3.514.5 as moderate, 4.515.5 as moderate to high, and 5.517 as high level of motivation. Such
cut-offs were clearly arbitrary; however, they allowed us to describe the motivational proles.2
Using scores from the BRSQ as the dependent variables, we conducted a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to determine if the motivational variables showed signicant differences among the cluster groups. To examine the relationship between the groups and
adaptive and maladaptive outcomes, we also conducted a MANOVA with the groups as the independent variable and constructs representing motivation consequences (i.e. ow and burnout) as
the dependent variables. In order to use this latter MANOVA to test the veracity of the SDT-based,
buffering, and additive hypotheses, we needed to identify a group of athletes with high autonomous and relatively low controlled motivation (i.e. a self-determined motivational prole)
and then compare them with a group of athletes with high autonomous motivation and higher

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

controlled motivation than the athletes with the self-determined motivational prole. This comparison would allow us to compare the effect of low versus high controlled motivation in the presence of high autonomous motivation.
In order to understand the inuence that differing measures of controlled motivation may
have on empirical support for these hypotheses, we then repeated the analyses using SMS controlling items (i.e. external and introjected regulation), as well as the BRSQ autonomous items
(i.e. intrinsic motivation, identied and integrated regulation) to form the motivational proles.
Holding the measurement of autonomous forms of motivation constant across the two sets of
analyses allowed us to isolate and investigate the inuence that differing measures of controlled motivation may have on the results. The BRSQ autonomous items were chosen over
the SMS as the BRSQ autonomous subscale is aligned with Deci and Ryans (2000) original
conceptualisation of autonomous motivation, as opposed to the three types of intrinsic motivation
in SMS.
The variables used in this second set of analyses were: SMS external regulation, SMS introjected regulation, BRSQ identied regulation, BRSQ integrated regulation, and BRSQ intrinsic
motivation. Once again, we conducted a MANOVA to explore cluster group differences in the
motivational variables. We also conducted a MANOVA with the group as the independent
variable, and ow and burnout as the dependent variables. Signicant multivariate effects were
followed by univariate tests.
Unfortunately, interpretations regarding additive and buffering effects were limited
because the group with high autonomous and high controlled motivation could not be compared with a group with high autonomous and lower controlled motivation. Such ndings
are unfortunate, but not altogether surprising given the data-driven nature of the cluster analysis technique. Indeed, previous research has often not identied clusters with similar levels of
autonomous motivation and differing levels of controlled motivation (e.g. Gillet et al., 2009,
2012).

Results
Data screening analyses
Data screening procedures did not identify any variables distribution as non-normal (Skewness
and Kurtosis > 2), with the exception of BRSQ intrinsic motivation subscale, which had a kurtosis
score of 2.60. Following Tabachnick and Fidells (2001) recommendation, this score was not considered an issue due to the large sample size. No extreme cases of univariate or multivariate outliers were identied (p > .001). Missing data were treated via marginalisation, as suggested by
Wagstaff (2004). Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 1.
There was no evidence of multicollinearity, as all correlations were below 0.70 (Tabachnick
& Fidell, 2001). Bivariate correlations were in theoretically expected directions, except for the
correlations between ow and the SMS controlling subscale scores (i.e. introjected and external
regulation), which were signicantly positive (r = .17 to .23, p < .05). Athletes scores on all
subscales demonstrated good internal reliability ( > 0.70), with the exception of the BRSQ
identied regulation ( = 0.66), SMS introjected ( = 0.58), and SMS external regulation (
= 0.54) subscales, which were marginal. Further analysis revealed that deleting items did not
improve the reliability of these subscale scores; hence, all items were included in the analysis.
Considering the remaining low reliability caution is warranted when interpreting the results
relating to scores derived from these subscales (especially the two subscales below 0.60).
Cohens d (1988) values of 0.2 (small), 0.5 (moderate), and 0.8 (large) were used as guidelines
for interpreting effect sizes.

E. Langan et al.

Table 1. Correlations and descriptive statistics for the study variables.

1. BRSQ intrinsic motivation

2. BRSQ integrated regulation
3. BRSQ identied regulation
4. BRSQ introjected regulation
5. BRSQ external regulation
6. SMS introjected regulation
7. SMS external regulation
8. DFS-2 ow
9. ABQ athlete burnout
M
SD

0.48
0.43
0.05
0.26
0.01
0.13
0.35
0.19
6.15
1.03
0.72

0.53
0.19
0.01
0.27
0.33
0.42
0.05
4.96
1.43
0.74

0.15
0.11
0.24
0.27
0.38
0.10
5.20
1.32
0.66

0.45
0.40
0.34
0.03
0.28
3.21
1.72
0.74

0.29
0.25
0.12
0.39
2.31
1.41
0.75

0.63
0.17
0.22
4.51
1.21
0.58

0.24
0.13
4.56
1.11
0.54

0.15
3.80
0.52
0.89

2.41
0.62
0.82

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

Note: Underlined correlations are not signicantly different from zero. All other correlations are signicant at p < .05.

BRSQ autonomous and BRSQ controlled motivation-based cluster analysis

The results of the hierarchical cluster analysis were conrmed because visual inspection of the
nal centroids in the k-means analysis revealed they were similar to the initial seed points.
Given the two analyses were consistent in both the magnitude and pattern of nal prole
centres, thus supporting the stability of the generated proles, only the full sample results are
reported. Contact the rst author for details.
The exploratory cluster analysis identied a three-group solution (see Table 2). The rst group
was labelled Moderate Autonomy, Low-Moderate Control (n = 124), as it was characterised by
moderate to high intrinsic motivation, low to moderate integrated regulation, and moderate
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for proles.

BRSQ AU
&C

BRSQ AU
& SMS
C

Intrinsic
BRSQ
M (SD)

Integrated
BRSQ
M (SD)
3.39
(0.95)ab

Proles

(1) Moderate autonomy,

lowmoderate controlled
motivation
(2) High autonomy,
moderate controlled
motivation
(3) High autonomy, low
controlled motivation
(1) Moderate autonomy,
moderate controlled
motivation
(2) High autonomy,
moderatehigh
controlled motivation
(3) Moderatehigh
autonomy, low
moderate controlled
motivation

124

5.44
(1.19)ab

110

6.16
(0.97)ac

161

Identied Introjected
BRSQ
BRSQ
M (SD)
M (SD)

External
BRSQ
M (SD)

3.97
(1.10)ab

2.57
(1.22)ab

2.40
(1.46)ab

5.64
(0.97)a

5.56
(1.15)ac

5.34
(1.10)ac

3.31
(1.50)ac

6.68
(0.48)bc
4.90
(1.13)ab

5.71
(0.95)b
3.36
(0.98)ab

5.84
(0.90)bc
3.91
(1.13)ab

2.25
(0.95)bc
4.53
(1.02)ab

1.55
(0.71)bc
4.38
(0.95)ab

189

6.57
(0.60)a

5.98
(0.83)ac

5.94
(0.95)ac

5.17
(0.91)ac

5.16
(0.90)ac

110

6.50
(0.57)b

4.60
(1.07)bc

4.96
(1.07)bc

3.36
(0.94)bc

3.67
(0.92)bc

96

Notes: For each dependent variable, mean scores with the same superscript letters indicate a signicant difference at p < .05
using Fishers LSD test. AU, autonomous motivation; C, controlled motivation.

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

identied regulation (i.e. autonomous motivation), as well as low to moderate introjected regulation and low external regulation (i.e. controlled regulation). The second group was labelled
High Autonomy, Moderate Control (n = 110) as it was characterised by high autonomous
motivation (i.e. intrinsic motivation, identied and integrated regulation), as well as moderate
to high introjected regulation and low to moderate external regulation. The third group was
labelled High Autonomy, Low Control (n = 161) as it was characterised by high autonomous
motivation (i.e. intrinsic motivation, identied and integrated regulation) and low controlled
motivation (i.e. external and introjected regulation).
A MANOVA was conducted to investigate the motivational content of the cluster groups (see
Table 2). Signicant group differences were found on all motivational variables (Wilks = 0.14,
F(10,776) = 129.96, p < .05, 2 = 0.62) except for integrated regulation (p = .54). To test the hypotheses, the High Autonomy, Moderate Control group (Group 2) and the High Autonomy, Low
Control group (Group 3) were selected for comparison because both groups had relatively
similar levels of high autonomous motivation and dissimilar levels of controlled motivation.
More specically, although the High Autonomy, Moderate Control group had signicantly
higher levels of intrinsic motivation (p < .05, d = 0.6) and identied regulation (p < .05, d = 0.2)
than the High Autonomy, Low Control group, no signicant differences existed between the
groups on their levels of integrated (p > .05, d = 0.07) regulation. The groups differed signicantly
in their levels of controlled motivation, with the High Autonomy, Moderate Control group displaying much higher levels of both introjected (p < .05, d = 3.03) and external regulation (p < .05, d =
1.52) than the High Autonomy, Low Control group. Hence, differences in controlled motivation
across the groups were large and differences in autonomous motivation were much smaller. Therefore, comparing these groups allowed us to analyse the inuence of less controlling and more controlling levels of motivation alongside relatively similar levels of high autonomous motivation.
A MANOVA was performed with cluster group as the independent variable and ow and
burnout as the dependent variables (see Table 3). There was a signicant multivariate betweengroups effect (Wilks = 0.80, F[4,782] = 22.26, p < .01, 2 = 0.10). Univariate analyses indicated
that there were between-group differences for burnout (F[2,392] = 26.10, p < .01, 2 = 0.12) and
ow (F[2,392] = 19.66, p < .01, 2 = 0.09). Specic comparison of the High Autonomy, Low
Control and the High Autonomy, Moderate Control groups revealed that the latter group
had signicantly higher levels of burnout (p < .05, d = 0.8). The two groups did not differ signicantly in their levels of ow (p > .05, d = 0.1).

Table 3. Prole differences on ow and burnout.

BRSQ
AU & C
BRSQ AU
& SMS C

Proles

Burnout
M (SD)

Flow
M (SD)

(1) Moderate autonomy, lowmoderate

controlled motivation
(2) High autonomy, moderate controlled motivation
(3) High autonomy, low controlled motivation
(1) Moderate autonomy, moderate
controlled motivation
(2) High autonomy, moderatehigh
controlled motivation
(3) Moderatehigh autonomy,
lowmoderate controlled motivation

124

2.50 (0.63)ab

3.57 (0.54)ab

110
161
96

2.69 (0.70)ac
2.20 (0.46)bc
2.52 (0.59)a

3.88 (0.50)a
3.93 (0.46)b
3.49 (0.55)ab

189

2.43 (0.65)

3.98 (0.43)ac

110

2.29 (0.59)a

3.76 (0.51)bc

Note: For each dependent variable, mean scores with the same superscript letters indicate a signicant difference at p < .05
using Fishers LSD test. AU, autonomous motivation; C, controlled motivation.

10

E. Langan et al.

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

BRSQ autonomous and SMS controlled motivation-based cluster analysis

The exploratory cluster analysis identied a three-group solution (see Table 2 for details of these
proles). The rst group was labelled Moderate Autonomy, Moderate Control (n = 96), as it
was characterised by moderate to high intrinsic motivation, low to moderate integrated regulation
and moderate identied regulation, along with moderate external regulation and moderate to high
introjected regulation. The second group was labelled High Autonomy, Moderate-High Control
(n = 189), as it was characterised by high autonomous motivation (i.e. intrinsic motivation, integrated and identied regulation) and moderate to high controlled motivation (i.e. external and
introjected regulation). The third group was labelled Moderate-High Autonomy, Low-Moderate
Control (n = 110), as it was characterised by high (i.e. intrinsic motivation) and moderate to high
(i.e. identied and integrated regulation) autonomous motivation, moderate external regulation,
and low introjected regulation.
A MANOVA was conducted to identify differences in motivation scores across the cluster
groups (see Table 2). Signicant group differences were found on all motivational variables
(Wilks = 0.17, F(10,776) = 111.6, p < .05, 2 = 0.59), except for intrinsic motivation
(p = .45). To test the hypotheses, the Moderate-High Autonomy, Low-Moderate Control and
the High Autonomy, Moderate-High Control groups were selected for comparison because
both had relatively similar levels of autonomous motivation and dissimilar levels of controlled
motivation. No signicant differences existed between the groups on their intrinsic motivation
(p > .05, d = 0.1), but the Moderate-High Autonomy, Low-Moderate Control group had signicantly lower identied (p < .05, d = 0.9) and integrated regulation (p < .05, d = 1.4) than the High
Autonomy, Moderate-High Control group. The High Autonomy, Moderate-High Control
group displayed signicantly higher levels of both introjected (p < .05, d = 2.0) and external regulation (p < .05, d = 1.64). Hence, comparing these groups allowed us to analyse the inuence of
less controlling and more controlling items in the presence of relatively similar, albeit not identical, levels of high autonomous motivation.
A MANOVA was conducted with ow and burnout as the dependent variables and cluster
group as the independent variable (see Table 3). There was a signicant multivariate betweengroups effect (Wilks = 0.84, F[4,782] = 17.45, p < .01, 2 = 0.08). Univariate analyses indicated
that there were between-group differences for ow (F[2,392] = 32.69, p < .01, 2 = 0.14) and
burnout (F[2,392] = 3.65, p < .01, 2 = 0.02). Specically, the High Autonomy, ModerateHigh Control group had signicantly higher ow (p < .05, d = 0.5) than the Moderate-High
Autonomy, Low-Moderate Control group. No signicant difference between groups was
revealed for burnout (p > .05, d = 0.2).

Discussion
Gillet et al. (2009, 2012) suggested that high levels of autonomous motivation might serve a protective or additive effect with controlled motivation leading to adaptive outcomes for athletes.
These hypotheses contradict SDT propositions, which suggest that controlled motivation will
lead to maladaptive outcomes, even when autonomous motivation is high. In this study, we
sought to understand the inuence that differing measures of controlled motivation may have
on empirical support for these hypotheses.

Findings from analyses employing the BRSQ

Results from analyses employing the BRSQ controlled motivation subscales provided mixed
support for the SDT-based and buffering hypotheses. Autonomous motivation did not appear

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

11

to buffer the maladaptive effects of controlled motivation on burnout scores. This result supported
the SDT-based hypothesis and previous research (e.g. Briere et al., 1995; Pelletier et al., 1995)
showing that controlled motivation was associated with negative sport outcomes. In particular,
the results agreed with previous research that also utilised the BRSQ, and found that high
levels of controlled motivation were associated with high levels of burnout (e.g. Lonsdale
et al., 2008, 2009; Lonsdale & Hodge, 2011).
There was also some support for the buffering hypothesis, as the two groups of interest did not
differ in terms of their ow scores, suggesting that controlled motivation was not maladaptive (or
adaptive) when autonomous motivation was high. While failure to reject the null hypothesis does
not provide conclusive evidence that no difference existed, the evidence suggested that when
combined with high levels of autonomous motivation, a relatively high level of controlled motivation was not associated with lower levels of adaptive consequences. In contrast, controlled
motives appeared to inuence player maladaptive experiences, as higher levels of burnout
were reported. One could interpret these ndings as suggesting autonomous motives may serve
a protective function, but only for adaptive experiences.
When using the BRSQ, no support was found for the additive hypothesis. Indeed, the presence of controlled motivation, in combination with high autonomous motivation, yielded no
apparent benet. Caution regarding the cluster analysis-based results is warranted because no proles with statistically equivalent levels of autonomous motivation and differing levels of controlled motivation were identied.
Referring to the previously described yin and yang analogy, the BRSQ-based ndings suggest
these two motivation types are not complementary. Specically, the ndings suggest that presence
of controlled motivation (i.e. yin), regardless of the accompanying levels of autonomous motivation (i.e. yang), is likely to result in maladaptive outcomes, with no evidence suggesting a complementary or additive effect.
Findings from analyses employing the SMS
Analyses conducted using the SMS controlled motivation subscales provided mixed support for
the additive and buffering hypotheses. The group with relatively higher controlled motivation
reported signicantly higher ow than the group with lower controlled motivation, thereby supporting the additive hypothesis. The nding that controlled motivation combined with autonomous motivation appeared to contribute to, rather than inhibit, an adaptive outcome is in
agreement with research in both a non-elite adult sport sample (see Vlachopoulos et al., 2000)
and an elite junior sample (Gillet et al., 2009, 2012). Both of these studies also employed the
SMS as the measure of behavioural regulations. Additionally, the group in the current study
with relatively higher controlled motivation did not have higher burnout scores than the group
with lower controlled motivation, thereby supporting the buffering hypothesis. This nding is
in agreement with research in the educational domain (e.g. Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, &
Senecal, 2007) which revealed that academic achievement did not differ when comparing
college students with high levels of both types of motivation to students with high autonomous
but low controlled motivation.
There was no support for the SDT-based hypothesis that controlled motivation would be maladaptive even when autonomous motivation was high, which is in agreement with the ndings by
Gillet et al. (2009).
In sum, the SMS ndings suggest that, much like yin and yang energies, the two motivation
types may be complementary. Specically, autonomous (i.e. yang) and controlled (i.e. yin) motivation appear to combine to produce either an additive or, at worst, a protective effect against
potential maladaptive outcomes.

12

E. Langan et al.

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

Comparing BRSQ and SMS-based results

Assessing controlled motivation using items from the BRSQ and SMS was of particular importance in this study. Overall, results from BRSQ-based cluster analyses suggested that when combined with high autonomous motivation, controlled motivation was either maladaptive (e.g.
greater burnout) or had its effect buffered (e.g. no effect on ow). In contrast, SMS-based
cluster analyses provided support for the additive (e.g. greater ow) and buffering (e.g. no
effect on burnout) hypotheses. A plausible explanation for the results lies in an examination of
the content of the two questionnaire items. Previously, Standage et al. (2003) raised concerns
over the content validity of some of the SMS controlled motivation items. Additionally, Gillet
et al. (2009) suggested that the SMS external regulation subscale did not assess the more controlling dimensions of external rewards or punishments, but rather focused on elements dealing with
seeking prestige and regard. Furthermore, it could be argued that the controlled items of the SMS
assess introjected approach motivation (i.e. self-worth strivings), whereas the BRSQ items
mostly assess avoidance aspects of introjected motivation (i.e. attempts to avoid pressure from
others or negative affect and cognitions). Assor, Vansteenkiste, and Kaplan (2009) found that
introjected approach motivation was experienced as more autonomous than introjected avoidance
motivation. Therefore, such differences in item content might explain why the BRSQ-based
results showed no support for the additive hypothesis, while the SMS-based analysis indicated
that controlled motivation might be adaptive.
It should also be noted that the SMS external and introjected subscale scores in this study produced alpha coefcients that were substantially lower (< 0.60) than the typically accepted threshold
of 0.70. Similar ndings have been found in previous research (see Mallet et al., 2007; and Lonsdale
et al., 2008 for reviews). These low internal consistency scores suggested that the SMS introjected
and external regulation items were measuring heterogeneous constructs. Unfortunately, it is unclear
exactly what type of controlled motivation was being assessed; however, it did appear to be more
adaptive, or at least less maladaptive, in the sample in this study.
Future research
Gillet et al. (2009, 2012) examined the relationship between motivational proles, a behavioural
variable (i.e. sport performance), and a negative cognitiveaffective variable (i.e. burnout). In this
study, positive and negative cognitiveaffective variables (i.e. ow and burnout) were examined.
It could be argued that the quality of the athlete experience (e.g. cognitive and affective outcomes)
are more important than the outcome of the experience, at least in terms of implications for the
athletes psychosocial development (Holt, 2008). However, behavioural outcomes, such as performance, are also important and therefore future researchers are encouraged to explore the potential effect that different measurement scales of controlled and autonomous motivation may have
on cognitive/affective versus behavioural variables.
Recently, Pelletier et al. (2013) developed the SMS-II and suggested that compared with the
original SMS, this new scale is more theoretically aligned with SDT. Lonsdale and colleagues
have suggested that conclusions regarding the relative merits of the SMS-II and the BRSQ are
premature (Lonsdale, Hodge, Hargreaves, & Ng, 2014). Consequently, future researchers may
wish to employ the SMS-II and the BRSQ when testing the three competing hypotheses (i.e. buffering, additive, and SDT-based) examined in our study.
Strengths and limitations
This study was one of the rst to explore these three competing hypothesis: (1) SDT-based
hypothesis, (2) additive hypothesis, and (3) buffering hypothesis. Each of these hypotheses
was centred on the combined inuence of controlled and autonomous motivation. Previous

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

13

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

studies have often examined high versus low motivation, thus making it difcult to draw conclusions regarding these hypotheses. By holding the measurement of autonomous forms of motivation constant across the two sets of cluster analyses, we were able to isolate and investigate the
inuence that differing measures of controlled motivation had in support for these competing
hypotheses.
However, given the lack of statistically equivalent levels of autonomous motivation across the
comparison groups, the testing of competing hypotheses using cluster analyses was somewhat
limited; hence, conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Additionally, given the research
was cross-sectional in nature causality cannot be inferred from the ndings. Further research
should look to experimentally manipulate autonomous and controlled motivation and/or utilise
cross-lagged longitudinal designs to measure motivations and outcomes together at multiple
time intervals. Furthermore, the present ndings were obtained with a male youth Gaelic football
population. Future research is needed to replicate the present ndings with athletes from different
sports and genders.

Conclusions
In summary, the ndings add further stimulus to the debate regarding whether it is possible for
high levels of autonomous motivation to serve an additive or protective effect against the negative consequences of controlled motivation. This study highlighted the importance of measurement and statistical analysis issues when evaluating the inuence of controlled motivation. The
ndings suggested that when using the SMS, controlled motivation could be viewed as adaptive,
or at least innocuous, when autonomous motivation was high. In contrast, when using the
BRSQ, controlled motivation was more likely to be viewed as maladaptive, or at best innocuous,
when autonomous motivation was high. While these ndings do not indicate that one measure
produces controlled motivation scores that are more valid than the other, compared with the
SMS-based results, the BRSQ-based ndings are more in line with SDT tenets.

Notes
1.

2.

It is important to note that in the current study, we have not presented results relating to amotivation
scores. We made this decision because we were interested in the quality of motivation (i.e. controlled
versus autonomous motivation) rather than the quantity of motivation. For the sake of comparison
with previous studies, we also ran the analyses with amotivation scores included and they were
highly similar to those obtained when amotivation subscale scores were excluded.
Some researchers employing cluster analysis have chosen to standardise scores and then use arbitrary
cut-offs (Ullrich-French & Cox, 2009) to identify relatively high and low scores. We decided not to
take this approach because it could mask important patterns in the absolute scores, such as Gillet
et al.s (2009, 2012) observation that none of the groups in their study displayed a true self-determined
prole (i.e. high autonomous and low controlled motivation).

References
Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blasheld, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amiot, C. E., Gaudreau, P., & Blanchard, C. M. (2004). Self-determination, coping, and goal attainment in
sport. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 396411. Retrieved from http://journals.
humankinetics.com/jsep
Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identied versus introjected approach and introjected
avoidance motivations in school and in sports: The limited benets of self-worth strivings. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 101, 482497. doi:10.1037/a0014236

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

14

E. Langan et al.

Briere, N. M., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., & Pelletier, L. G. (1995). Development and validation of a scale
on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and lack of motivation in sports: The scale on motivation in sports.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 465489. Retrieved from http://www.ijsp-online.com/
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2005a). Changes in athlete burnout and motivation over a 12-week league
tournament. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37, 19571966. doi:10.1249/01.mss.
0000176304.14675.32
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2005b). Motivation and burnout among top amateur rugby players.
Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 3, 469477. doi:10.1249/01.MSS.0000155398.71387.C2
Cresswell, S. L., & Eklund, R. C. (2005c). Motivation and burnout in professional rugby players. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 370376. doi:10.1080/02701367.2005.10599309
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington, MA: Health.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227268. Retrieved from http://www.
selfdeterminationtheory.org
Dingbo, W. & Murphy, P. D. (1994). Handbook of Chinese popular culture. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Gillet, N., Berjot, S., Vallerand, R. J., Amoura, S., & Rosnet, E. (2012). Examining the motivation-performance relationship in competitive sport: A cluster-analytic approach. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 43(2), 79102. Retrieved from http://www.ijsp-online.com
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Rosnet, E. (2009). Motivational clusters and performance in a real-life setting.
Motivation and Emotion, 33(1), 4962. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9115-z
Gonzalez-Cutre, D., Sicilia, A., Moreno, J. A., & Fernandez-Balboa, J. M. (2009). Dispositional ow in physical education: Relationships with motivational climate, social goals, and perceived competence. Journal
of Teaching in Physical Education, 28, 422440. Retrieved from http://journals.humankinetics.com/jtpe
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Proles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A person-centered
approach to motivation and achievement in middle school. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 371383.
doi:10.1007/s11031-010-9181-x
Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behaviour in sport: The role of coaching style,
autonomous vs. controlled motivation, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 33, 527547. Retrieved from http://journals.humankinetics.com/jsep
Holt, N. L. (2008). Positive youth development through sport. London: Routledge.
Jackson, S. A., & Eklund, R. C. (2004). The ow scales manual. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information
Technology.
Jackson, S. A., Ford, S. K., Kimiecik, J. C., & Marsh, H. W. (1998). Psychological correlates of ow in sport.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 4, 358378. Retrieved from http://journals.humankinetics.com/
jsep
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated: A closer look at
introjection, identication, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination research (pp. 101121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the
classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184196.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184
Lonsdale, C., & Hodge, K. (2011). Temporal ordering of motivational quality and athlete burnout in elite sport.
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43, 913921. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181 ff56c6
Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. A. (2008). The behavioural regulation in sport questionnaire (BRSQ):
Instrument development and initial validity evidence. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30,
323355. Retrieved from http://journals.humankinetics.com/jsep
Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., & Rose, E. A. (2009). Athlete burnout in elite sport: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Sport Sciences, 27, 785795. doi:10.1080/02640410902929366
Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., Hargreaves, E. A., & Ng, J. Y. (2014). Comparing sport motivation scales: A
response to Pelletier et al. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(5), 446452.
Mallett, C., Kawabata, M., Newcombe, P., Otero-Forero, A., & Jackson, S. (2007). Sport motivation scale-6
(SMS-6): A revised six-factor sport motivation scale. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 600614.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.12.005

Downloaded by [80.111.30.91] at 06:43 05 April 2015

International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

15

Norusis, M. (2008). SPSS 16.0 guide to data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Prentice-Hall.
Ntoumanis, N. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on motivation in sport and physical education: Current trends and possible future research directions. In G. C. Roberts & D. C. Treasure
(Eds.), Motivation in sport and exercise: Volume 3. (pp. 91128). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
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(1), 3553. Retrieved from http://
journals.humankinetics.com/jsep
Pelletier, L. G., Rocchi, M. A., Vallerand, R. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). Validation of the revised
sport motivation scale (SMS-II). Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 329341. doi:10.1016/j.
psychsport.2012.12.002
Raedeke, T. D., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Development and preliminary validation of an athlete burnout
measure. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 23, 281306. Retrieved from http://journals.
humankinetics.com/jsep
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Sencal, C. (2007). Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
99, 734746. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for
acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749761. Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/psp/
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic denitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 5467. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). To be happy or to be self-fullled: A review of research on hedonic and
eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske (Ed.), Annual review of psychology (pp. 141166). Palo Alto, CA:
Annual Reviews.
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. 333).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education:
Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity
intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 97110. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.97
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Ullrich-French, S., & Cox, A. (2009). Using cluster analysis to examine the combinations of motivation
regulations of physical education students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 358379.
Retrieved from http://journals.humankinetics.com/jsep
Ullrich-French, S., & Smith, A. L. (2006). Perceptions of relationships with parents and peers in youth sport:
Independent and combined prediction of motivational outcomes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7,
193214. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.006
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271360). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational proles from a
self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. Journal of Educational Psychology,
101, 671688. doi:10.1037/a0015083
Viladrich, C., Appleton, P. R., Quested, E., Duda, J. L., Ntoumanis, N., Alcaraz, S., Zourbanos, N. (2013).
Measurement invariance of the behavioural regulation in sport questionnaire across ve European
countries. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2013.
830434
Vlachopoulos, S. P., Karageorghis, C. I., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Motivation proles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 71, 387397. doi:10.1080/
02701367.2000.10608921
Wagstaff, K. (2004). Clustering with missing values: No imputation required. Proceedings of the Meeting of
the International Federation of Classication Societies, Chicago, IL, pp. 649658.
Woods, C.B., Tannehill, D., Quinlan, A., Moyna, N., & Walsh, J. (2010). Childrens Sport Participation and
Physical Activity Study (CSPPA) (Research Report 1). Retrieved from Dublin City University, http://
www4.dcu.ie/shhp/downloads/CSPPA.pdf