Selfdeterminering en prestasieverskille by 'n groep universiteitsrugbyspelers
Van Antwerpen, Ruan
MetadataShow full item record
Over the past 25 years, the role of motivation in sport has increasingly received attention in scientific research. A model that is central to this research, is Ryan and Deci’s (2000b) Self–determination Theory (SDT), which is based on the assumption that human behaviour is motivated by the extent to which it satisfies the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Surprisingly little research has been done to date on the relation between self–determination and performance among South African rugby players. An improved understanding of the role of motivation in performance among university rugby players, as well as the role of bursary awards, can generate better knowledge and may help to identify, manage and motivate players better at an early stage. The goal of this study was to explore the relation between self–determination and performance among a group of university rugby players. The first objective was to establish whether there are performance differences between players who are intrinsically motivated (IM), extrinsically motivated (EM) and amotivated. A second objective was to establish whether players who receive bursaries are more intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated or amotivated, and how this relates to their performance. Participants were an availability sample of 51 u/19 and u/21 university rugby players of the North–West University Rugby Institute who completed the Behavioural Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (BRSQ) (Lonsdale et al., 2008) and who were assessed in terms of performance by themselves, the principal researcher, a sport scientist and the coach. Data was analysed by means of the Spearman ranking correlation coefficient, cluster analyses, the t–test and Chi Square test, to determine the differences in terms of performance between the intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated and amotivated participants, and also between bursary holders and non–bursary holders. Because an availability sample was used, the meaningfulness of results according to effect sizes and their guiding values were determined for practical meaningfulness, rather than focusing on statistical inference and p values. Firstly, it was found that IM correlates positively and practically meaningful with autonomous EM and that it correlates negatively (small to practically visible) with controlled EM and amotivation. Autonomous and controlled EM correlate negatively, and with a small effect. These correlations in general fit appropriately in with Ryan and Deci’s (2000b) self–determination continuum. It was found that IM, autonomous EM and bursary awards correlate positively with performance, in contrast with controlled EM and amotivation. It was indicated that both IM and autonomous EM could possibly contribute to a feeling of agency and subsequently to better performance. However, it is important to note that no cause–effect deductions can be made, and that the results cannot necessarily be generalised to other rugby players. The contribution of this study is that it indicates that all forms of EM are not necessarily bad for performance, and that autonomous EM and discerning bursary awards can appropriately motivate rugby players towards performance. The exact nature and mechanism according to which autonomous EM influences performance should, however, be investigated by means of larger random samples in future research.
- ETD@PUK