Content uploaded by Miran Kondric
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Miran Kondric
Content may be subject to copyright.
©Journal of Sports Science and Medicine (2013) 12, 10-18
http://www.jssm.org
Received: 09 May 2012 / Accepted: 02 November 2012 / Published (online): 01 March 2013
Participation Motivation and Student’s Physical Activity among Sport Students
in Three Countries
Miran Kondrič 1, Joško Sindik 2, Gordana Furjan-Mandić 3 and Bernd Schiefler
4
1 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Slovenia; 2 Institute for Anthropology, Zagreb, Croatia; 3 University of Za-
greb, Faculty of Kinesiology, Croatia; 4 Deutsche Sporthochschule, Cologne, Germany
Abstract
The main aim of this study was to examine the differences in
motivation to participate in sport activities among sports stu-
dents from three different countries. On a sample of 390 sports
students from Slovenia, Croatia and Germany we studied what
motivates an interest in being sports active. The sample was
stratified across the choice to attend table tennis lessons at all
three institutions and all students have completed the Participa-
tion Motivation Questionnaire (PMQ). The results revealed that
the latent structure of the types of sports students’ motives con-
sisted of six factors (sport action with friend, popularity, fitness
& health, social status, sports events, relaxation through sports).
We also found significant sex differences in motivation to par-
ticipate in sport activities for all sports students from the three
different countries. We did not find relevant age-based differ-
ences among the students, and this is the only initial hypothesis
that we can reject.
Key words: Sports activities, school, cross-cultural study.
Introduction
Cross-cultural comparison of the motivation for sport
activities of sports students in three countries could pro-
vide us the information about the differences in their
motivation, as well as about their differences compared
with non-sport population. Motivation is a complex phe-
nomenon that is impossible to simply subsume under a
single model (Bosnar and Balent, 2009). Petz (2005)
defines it as a condition where we are driven from the
“inside” by some needs, impulses, desires, wishes, or
motives, and directed towards achieving a goal that from
the outside functions as a stimulus for behaviour. In a
context of a motive to engage in physical activities and
sports, the authors most often focused on a difference
between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic moti-
vation refers to everything that drives us from the inside,
i.e. the activities representing a goal as such, while extrin-
sic motivation refers to what drives us from the outside,
i.e. when the activities represent the means for achieving
some other goal. Differences in motivation for engaging
in a physical activity between genders, age, frequency and
duration of a physical activity have been found in previ-
ous researches (Egli et al., 2011; Moreno et al., 2008;
2010; Verloigne et al., 2011). With the student popula-
tion, Egli et al. (2011) obtained data that male students are
more motivated by intrinsic factors, or in other words by a
need for power, competition and challenge, while female
students are in majority driven by extrinsic motives, such
as body weight control and appearance.
Specifically, the experience of sport appears to be
attractive to students for the following types of reasons:
fun, enjoyment, improving skills, learning, being with
friends, success, winning and health (e.g. Bandura 1997;
Gaston-Gayles, 2005; Mouratadis et al., 2008; Murcia et
al., 2010; Waldron and Dieser, 2010). In an attempt to
solve one of the problems of assessing achievement moti-
vation, sport psychologists developed specific assessment
instruments adapted to sport activity and different sport
situations (Gill, 2000; Jones, 2006; Mallett et al., 2007;
Lonsdale et al., 2008; Spray et al., 2006). Motivation
greatly influences an individual’s performance in situa-
tions where one is physically capable of performing the
task but is uncertain about his/her capabilities, which in
many cases is a problem that drives people not to begin
with a chosen sports activity. In general terms, motivation
refers to the intensity and direction of behaviour. Ulti-
mately, it always essentially means whether or not some-
one expects they will be successful when they attempt a
particular skill.
The reasons one gives for participating and drop-
ping out of sport have received extensive attention over
the past few years in terms of recreation and as a competi-
tive sport. Understanding why individual participate in
sport is not a simple matter. One of most important issues
is that people have many reasons for getting involved, and
some of their reasons change from different point of view.
Drawing on excellent reviews of the literature (Barnett et
al., 2008; Biddle et al., 2003; Fraser-Thomas et al., 2008;
Gould et al., 1996; Koivula, 1999; Smith et al., 2006;
Tsorbatzoudis et al., 2006; Yan and McCullagh, 2004;
Zaharidis et al., 2006), the reason sportspeople give for
participating and dropping out are multiple and diverse.
Weiss and Petlickhoff (1989), for example, categorized
the major motives for participation into competence (e.g.
to learn and improve skills), affiliation (e.g. to make
friends be part of a team), fitness (e.g., to be physically
active, get in shape), and fun. Some past research indi-
cates that people have different achievement goals with
regard to sports participation (Cervello et al., 2007;
Whitehead et al., 2004) and it is reasonable to suggest that
their attainment is a constituent of enjoyment. Among the
several reasons given for decreased interest and a subse-
quent withdrawal from sport was a lack of fun, issues
with the coach, the time commitment required, lack of
playing time, an overemphasis on winning, and greater
interest in other activities (Weiss and Ferrer-Caja, 2002).
Sedentary living is a leading cause of a poor qual-
Research article
Kondrič et al.
11
ity of life, disability, and death in many countries around
the world. Numerous well-conducted research studies on
this topic have been completed over the past few years
and they provide convincing evidence of the important
physiological and psychological changes that occur dur-
ing and following exercise training programs (Biddle et
al., 2000; Haapanen et al., 1996). Many of the techniques
used to promote physical activity originated from psycho-
logical theories of motivation and behaviour change
(Wang and Biddle, 2001). In fact, the positive relationship
between motivation, self-confidence and success is one of
the most consistent findings in research about being in-
volved in sports activities (Vlachopoulos et al., 2000).
But, like with any other activity of an individual, the
motivation must come from within – intrinsic motivation
– to be effective and meaningful for someone. Motivation
is all-important for success in sport – both in recreation
and in competitive sport (Matsumoto and Takenaka,
2004).
Studies around the world have shown that young
people are not as physically active as they need to be to
enjoy the health benefits of physical activity (Duda, 1992;
Dwyer, 1992; Fang, 2007; Goudas and Hassandra, 2006;
Lutz et al., 2008; Strel and Sila, 2010). It is clear that
more developmental research is needed to understand
variations in reasons for participating in and withdrawing
from sport and physical activity. The present study at-
tempted to examine the possibility of differences in the
motivation of sports students in three different countries.
In times of globalisation the aspects of cultural diversity
and cross cultural communication become every day more
and more important also in sports activities among differ-
ent countries. Western country Germany has about 82
million inhabitants and is fourth largest economy by
nominal GDP. According to Germany Info
(www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/life/sports.htm)
almost half of population is sports active. Slovenia with
2.2 million inhabitants has according to Retar (2006)
around 57% sports active people and Croatia with 4.4
million inhabitants more than 400 thousand active sports-
people (Perman, 2011) - both countries are part of ex-
Yugoslavia where economic output is dominated by the
service sector.
The aims of this study were to establish:
• the latent structure of the types of the sports students’
motivations;
• differences in motivation to participate in sport activi-
ties among the sports students from the three different
countries; and
• age and sex differences in the motivation to participate
in sport activities for all sports students from the three
different countries.
It was intended that the results would serve as a ba-
sis for further in-depth studies.
Methods
Participants
The participants in our research were 135 students from
the Faculty of Sport in Ljubljana (age 22.4 years
[SD=2.10]), 138 from Faculty of Kinesiology in Zagreb
(age 21.86 years [SD=1.81]), and 117 from the German
Sports School in Cologne (age 22.03 years [SD=2.01]).
The sample was stratified across the choice to attend table
tennis lessons at all three institutions. At all three institu-
tions participants could choose one of the racket sports in
sixth semester of their study. Data were collected during
lessons and exercises for each group. At the time the
questionnaires were distributed these students had ob-
tained basic lessons in table tennis.
Procedure
In this project, 390 questionnaires were disseminated
among students at the Faculty of Sport in Ljubljana, the
Faculty of Kinesiology in Zagreb and the German Sports
School in Cologne. According to the instructions pro-
vided, all 390 students returned the questionnaires – 262
male (59.1%) and 128 (28.9%) female students (more
detailed information is presented in Table 1). The students
were attending a table tennis course in the 6th semester of
study and the average age of the respondents was 23
years.
Table 1. Gender data for the participants.
Faculty of
Sport,
Ljubljana
Faculty of
Kinesiology,
Zagreb
German Sports
School,
Cologne
N % N % N %
Male 70 51.9 114 82.6 78 66.7
Female 65 48.1 24 17.4 39 33.3
All 135 100.0 138 100.0 117 100.0
Instruments
Within this project we employed the Participation Moti-
vation Questionnaire (PMQ; Gill et al., 1983) which has
been widely used in several studies of motives to partici-
pate in youth sports. The students completed the PMQ
(Gill et al., 1983), namely, a 30-item list of possible rea-
sons students have to participate in sport. A five-point
Likert scale was used. Respondents answered the stem "I
participate in sport because ...", indicating their prefer-
ences from 1 ("not at all important") to 5 ("extremely
important"). Results of the factor analysis of the PMQ
revealed the factors of achievement/status, team atmos-
phere, fitness, energy release, skill development, friend-
ship and fun as basic motives for involvement (Gill et al.,
1983). In other research, Zaharidis et al. (2006) found six
factors: skill development and competition motives
(Cronbach’s α reliability = 0.89), status/recognition (α =
0.85), energy release (α = 0.77), team atmosphere mo-
tives (α = 0.82), friendship and having fun through social
interaction (α = 0.63) and, finally, motives for fitness (α
= 0.83).
Data analysis
The data were processed with the IBM SPSS Statistics
(19.0) software. The basic descriptive parameters were
calculated (mean, standard deviation, frequency of an-
swers). Univariate ANOVA was used to test for differ-
ences among the students in all three institutions for each
item in the questionnaire. We then performed a factor
Cross-cultural motivation for sport
12
analysis (the Principal Components method with a Vari-
max rotation) for all examined participants (in three
groups together), and the factor scores were used in a one-
way MANOVA and discriminant analysis to determine
differences among the students in all three institutions in
their motives to participate in youth sports. In the post-
hoc analysis, by using the Bonferroni method we sought
to gain an insight into individual differences among stu-
dents of the different institutions in the motivational struc-
ture of participating in a physical activity (sport).
Results
Important goals of our research program were: to create a
rich database, develop a theoretical approach to allow a
better understanding of the process underlying participa-
tion in sport and compare the motivation of the sports
students with the motivation of high-school students and
students of so-called non-sports faculties. Based on the
results of the study, it can be presumed which motives are
important for sports students for their participation in
sports activities (Table 2).
In order to better define the latent motivational
structure of all respondents together, Principal Com-
ponent’s analysis (hereinafter “factor analysis”) with a
Varimax Rotation was used in the following step, and six
significant factors were extracted, which in total explain
62.69% of the entire space for the observed variables. In
previous surveys PMQ have been adapted and used in
many sports (Trembath et al., 2002), physical activities
(Kolt et al., 2004) and school physical education settings
(Zahariadis and Biddle, 2000). The number of factors and
indeed the component items identified through factor
analysis have varied dependent upon the sample under
investigation (Gill et al., 1983; Koivula, 1999). As such,
whilst a basic 6 to 8 factor structure has been found, any
use of the questionnaire requires identification of these
factors and subsequent scale reliability support before the
factors can be deemed as appropriate in the sample in-
volved (Jones et al., 2006).
As Table 3 shows, 35.17% of the total space for
variables can be explained by the first factor, about 14%
by the second factor, about 12% by the fourth factor, and
the other three factors interpret the remaining explained
variance. The percentage of explained variance is practi-
cally equal to the share (63%) quoted by Zaharidis et al.
(2006).
The reliability of the questionnaire in our research
varies (for certain factors) from 0.568 to 0.877. Two fac-
tors (the fifth and sixth) are only defined with two cells
each; therefore their low reliability was not unexpected.
After the Varimax Rotation converged in 19 itera-
tions with a Kaiser Normalization, all six factors were
named (Table 3).
The main projections of the statements offered in
the questionnaire on the first factor are those related to
action and friendship. This encompasses motives such as:
I like the action, I like to have something to do, I like to
have fun, I like the team spirit, I like being on a team, I
like the challenge, I like to get exercise, I like to get out of
the house. Therefore, this factor was named sport action
with friends.
Table 2. Comparison among students of all three institutions for items of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.
Ljubljana Zagreb Köln Items
X SD X SD X SD
F - sign
.
p<
1. I want to improve my skills 4.25 .76 4.52 .69 3.56 .97 .01
2. I want to be with my friends 3.71 .93 4.30 .90 3.96 1.09 .01
3. I like to win 3.57 1.16 4.43 .70 3.74 1.07 .01
4. I want to get rid of energy 4.24 .87 4.35 .68 3.91 .94 .01
5. I like to travel 3.82 1.10 4.08 1.05 3.16 1.27 .01
6. I want to stay in shape 4.60 .57 4.72 .52 4.13 1.03 .01
7. I like the excitement 3.90 .84 4.52 .62 3.66 1.04 .01
8. I like the teamwork 3.34 .99 4.14 .84 3.10 .85 .01
9. My parents or close friends want me to play 1.67 .90 3.05 1.25 2.38 1.32 .01
10. I want to learn new skills 4.22 .76 4.17 .97 3.96 .90 .05
11. I like to meet new friends 3.82 .90 4.35 .82 3.72 .94 .01
12. I like to do something I'm good at 4.41 .77 4.70 .51 3.95 1.00 .01
13. I want to release tension 4.02 .95 4.11 .91 3.28 1.51 .01
14. I like the rewards 2.99 1.25 4.12 1.10 2.72 1.11 .01
15. I like to get exercise 4.16 .95 4.57 .70 4.31 .99 .01
16. I like to have something to do 4.06 .98 4.33 .75 4.32 1.10 .05
17. I like the action 3.99 .97 4.44 .73 4.30 1.06 .01
18. I like the team spirit 3.62 1.05 4.28 .90 3.94 1.09 .01
19. I like to get out of the house 4.21 .88 4.32 .75 3.75 .94 .01
20. I like to compete 3.64 1.10 4.32 .75 3.50 1.00 .01
21. I like to feel important 3.12 1.18 3.70 1.12 2.49 1.11 .01
22. I like being on a team 3.63 1.02 4.15 .89 3.80 1.02 .01
23. I want to go on to a higher level 4.44 .66 4.43 .73 4.12 1.03 .01
24. I want to be physically fit 4.81 .46 4.78 .46 4.27 1.06 .01
25. I want to be popular 2.77 1.12 3.55 1.10 2.42 1.07 .01
26. I like the challenge 3.82 .88 4.43 .72 3.85 .96 .01
27. I like the coaches or instructors 3.10 1.06 3.64 1.09 3.56 .95 .01
28. I want to gain status or recognition 3.37 1.13 4.02 .89 2.68 1.12 .01
29. I like to have fun 4.48 .68 4.60 .59 4.25 1.14 .01
30. I like to use the equipment or facilities 3.46 1.07 4.54 .72 3.49 1.10 .01
Kondrič et al.
13
Table 3. Factor structure of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire for students from all three institutions (Principal
Components, Varimax Rotation).
Component
Items 1 2 3 4 5 6
VP 17 I like the action .762
VP16 I like to have something to do .730
VP29 I like to have fun .602 .402
VP18 I like the team spirit .556 .551
VP22 I like being on a team .532 .481
VP26 I like the challenge .517
VP15 I like to get exercise .488
VP19 I like to get out of the house .464
VP25 I want to be popular .824
VP21 I like to feel important .814
VP14 I like the rewards .763
VP28 I want to gain status or recognition .709
VP20 I like to compete .411 .681
VP3 I like to win .464 .590
VP23 I want to go on to a higher level .406 .723
VP10 I want to learn new skills .718
VP1 I want to improve my skills .701
VP24 I want to be physically fit .421 .678
VP6 I want to stay in shape .608
VP12 I like to do something I'm good at .490
VP9 My parents or close friends want me to play .613
VP8 I like the teamwork .607
VP27 I like the coaches or instructors .568
VP11 I like to meet new friends .522
VP2 I want to be with my friends .446 .471
VP30 I like to use the equipment or facilities .459
VP5 I like to travel .670
VP7 I like the excitement .632
VI13 I want to release tension .766
VP4 I want to get rid of energy .409 .562
Cronbach’s alpha .868 .877 .856 .765 .568 .572
Eigenvalues 4.55 4.16 3.58 3.06 1.87 1.582
Variance explained (%) 15.15 13.88 11.94 10.21 6.24 5.28
Legend: Component: 1 – Sport action with friends; 2 – Popularity; 3 – Fitness & Health; 4 – Social status: 5 – Sports events; 6 – Relaxation
through sports
The second factor is defined by motives related to the
popularity and importance sportspeople achieve through
sports, i.e. victory (I want to be popular, I like to feel
important, I like the rewards, I want to gain status or rec-
ognition, I like to compete, I like to win). Therefore, that
factor was named popularity.
At first sight, we might wonder about such a high
percentage of that variance since statements related to
health were ranked the highest, but obviously the ques-
tions in the questionnaire were not evenly represented,
namely, there was more questions related to success,
competition and popularity than those relating to health
and good physical condition. Such a lowered variability
diminishes the correlation between the variables, which is
a consequence of the first and second factor variance
quantity extraction.
The third factor, determined by intrinsic motives
related to a good condition and health, is named fitness &
health. (I want to go on to a higher level, I want to learn
new skills, I want to improve my skills, I want to be phys-
ically fit, I want to stay in shape, I like to do something
I'm good at). If we connect intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-
tions with three basic goals of sports achievements, then
we would observe the motives directed to competitive
abilities and social approval as extrinsic motivation,
whereas the motives directed to improving sports skills
are observed as intrinsic motivation (Bosnar and Balent,
2009).
The fourth factor, named social status, is defined
by statements such as: (My parents or close friends want
me to play, I like the teamwork, I like the coaches or
instructors, I like to meet new friends, I want to be with
my friends, I like to use the equipment or facilities).
The fifth factor is mostly determined by conclu-
sions in relation to travelling, but also to exciting events,
and is named sports events.
The reason for practicing sports, not being listed in
any of extracted factors that explain the sixth best factor is
intrinsic, i.e. I'd like to be relaxed; I'd like to free my
energy; is named relaxation through sports. (For simplic-
ity of expression, hereinafter the factors will be called
dimensions of the Participation Motivation Question-
naire.)
Differences among students in the three countries in
dimensions of the Participation Motivation Question-
naire
A discriminant analysis was conducted in order to estab-
lish factors of difference among the students from
the various faculties. In Table 4 is obvious that both
Cross-cultural motivation for sport
14
Table 4. Differences among students from all three institutions (discriminant analysis).
Discrimination Function
Significance Eigenvalue Wilks’ λ Canonical
Correlation
χ2-test (Degrees
of Freedom) P
Discriminant Function 1 .752 .406 .655 339.23 (12) <.01
Discriminant Function 2 .406 .711 .537 128.19 (5) <.01
discrimination functions, that indicate factors of
differences among students in the three countries in the
dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire,
are statistically significant. In other words, there are two
factors of differences which statistically significantly
differentiate participants from the different faculties in
our study in relation to the dimensions of the Participation
Motivation Questionnaire.
The group centroids are statistically significant dif-
ferent and distant (the highest centroid 0.605 is for Ljubl-
jana, the middle is 0.520 for Zagreb and the lowest is -
1.323 for Cologne) for the first discriminant function. For
the second discriminant function the highest centroid
value was held by students from Zagreb, the middle value
by students from Cologne (-0.040), while the lowest cen-
troid value was for Ljubljana (-0.740). On the basis of the
discriminant functions, 72.3% of the originally grouped
cases are correctly classified.
On the basis of ANOVA on the regression factor
scores, i.e. overall results for individual dimensions (Ta-
ble 5), it is noted that students from all three faculties
(Ljubljana, Zagreb, Cologne) vary statistically signifi-
cantly in all dimensions obtained by the factor analysis.
By using post-hoc tests (one-way MANOVA), we estab-
lished at which faculties there are statistically significant
differences for individual dimensions among the students,
and in what direction. In the first dimension (Sport Action
with Friends), as well as the fourth dimension (Social
Status), students from Ljubljana statistically significantly
vary from students from Zagreb and Cologne. In the re-
maining four dimensions, statistically significant differ-
ences exist among all of the participants groups. In the
third dimension (Fitness & Health), the most distant re-
sults are those from Ljubljana (the highest value) and
Cologne (the lowest value). In the second dimension
(Popularity), fifth dimension (Sport Events), and sixth
dimension (Relaxation through Sports), the most distant
results are those from Zagreb (the highest value) and
Cologne (the lowest value).
Differences among students’ age groups in all three
countries in dimensions of the Participation Motiva-
tion Questionnaire
A discriminant analysis was conducted in order to estab-
lish factors of difference between younger and older stu-
dents from all faculties together. Table 6 shows that the
discriminant function, indicating the factor of difference
between age groups of students in dimensions of the Par-
ticipation Motivation Questionnaire, is not statistically
significant. In other words, the factor of difference does
not statistically significantly differentiate the younger and
older participants in our research regarding the dimen-
sions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.
Considering that the discriminant function is statis-
tically insignificant and that we did not find even one
single statistically significant difference between the
cities, we can assume that a relatively narrow age range
does not differentiate participants regarding their motiva-
tion to participate in physical activities.
Sex differences among students in all three countries
in dimensions of the Participation Motivation Ques-
tionnaire
To determine the factors of gender differences in students
from the different faculties, we conducted a discriminant
analysis. In Table 7 is obvious that the discriminant func-
tion, which indicates factors of gender differences among
students in the three countries in dimensions of the
Table 5. Comparison between students from all three institutions (ANOVA) using regression factor scores of the Participa-
tion Motivation Questionnaire.
Ljubljana (1) Zagreb (2) Köln (3)
Dimension X SD X SD X SD F R1 R2
Differences between
Groups
1 Sport Action with Friends -.28 .85 .07 .66 .24 1.36 9.22** .440 -.180 1.2**
1.3**
2 Popularity -.16 1.05 .56 .72 -.48 .91 44.91** .352 -.188
1.2**
1.3*
2.3**
3 Fitness & Health .37 .96 .08 .74 -.53 1.08 30.08** .346 .272
1.2*
1.3**
2.3**
4 Social Status -.50 .93 .33 .98 .19 .87 30.50** -.174 .583 1.2**
1.3**
5 Sport Events .01 .98 .37 .81 -.44 1.05 22.71** .391 .549
1.2**
1.3**
2.3**
6 Relaxation through Sports .33 1.11 .03 .71 -.43 .99 20.36** -.194 .225
1.2*
1.3**
2.3**
Legend: F= F-test in ANOVA; R1= correlation with the first discrimination factor; R2= correlation with the second discrimination factor. * = signifi-
cant at p < 0.05; ** = significant at p < 0.01
Kondrič et al.
15
Table 6. Differences between students in younger and older age groups separated by median (discriminant analysis).
Discrimination Function
Significance Eigenvalue Wilks’ λ Canonical
Correlation
χ2-test (Degrees
of Freedom) P
Discriminant Function .030 .971 .170 11.10 (6) >.10
Participation Motivation Questionnaire, is statistically
significant. In other words, there is one factor of differ-
ence which significantly differentiates participants by
gender in our study in relation to dimensions of the Par-
ticipation Motivation Questionnaire.
The group centroids are statistically significant dif-
ferent with the distant higher centroid of 0.236 being for
the male students and the lower centroid of -1.480 being
for the females. On the basis of the discriminant function,
64.9% of the originally grouped cases are correctly classi-
fied.
On the basis of ANOVA of the regression factor
scores, i.e. overall results for individual dimensions (Ta-
ble 8), it is noted that male and female students from all
three faculties (Ljubljana, Zagreb, Cologne) vary among
each other statistically significantly in the second and
sixth dimensions (Popularity and Relaxation through
Sports). As could be expected, sport potentially means
more to men as a tool for achieving popularity in society
and among friends, while women experience sport more
as a means of relaxation, which is in principle congruent
with traditional male and female stereotypes and roles.
Discussion
Sports psychology deals with manifold psychological
characteristics of sports activities. It is perhaps motivation
that represents the most important field within the disci-
pline (Tušak, 1997). In order to understand motivation in
sport, one has to approach the problem with specific
sports models which, on one hand, use scientific discover-
ies of general psychological motivation and, on the other,
combine them with the specifics of the sport, the training
process and the competition.
Table 2 shows one can conclude that for all vari-
ables of the questionnaire there are significant
differences in reasons why students at the three surveyed
faculties want to participate in sports. We assumed that
one of the reasons students of sports faculties enrol in that
faculty is that they wish to improve their motor abilities
and satisfy their need for exercise. In other words, in view
of motivation to participate in sports, already at the very
beginning they probably achieve above-average results
relative to those of students from other faculties. How-
ever, we cannot use this fact to interpret the results we
obtained because it is evident that there are statistically
significant differences in motivation to participate in
physical activities, depending on the faculty
(state/country) that the students come from. We can only
speculate whether the differences are conditioned by the
different faculty programs, specific standpoints on prac-
ticing sports, or wider cultural influences.
Considering that the interpretation of individual
differences in the results for students from the different
faculties regarding the questionnaire items would be quite
complex, we tried to establish latent dimensions of the
questionnaire and carried out further analyses of the factor
scores we obtained.
Taking into consideration that, for the purpose of
this research, students from sports faculties were sur-
veyed, the assumption is that the reason for their inconsis-
tency can be explained by cultural differences (Yan and
McCullagh, 2004). Maslow (1970) compared needs for
being a member of something, love and other social
needs, which include giving and accepting and are more
dominant in Western society. Athletes are content to be
part of a team where they can fulfil such needs; they are
content to be noticed, to have a certain status.
Differences regarding the students from Ljubljana
in terms of their lower values for the Sport Action with
Friends and Social Status dimensions can potentially be
interpreted with the greater individualism of the Slove-
nian students in relation to the students from Zagreb or
Cologne. Entirely speculatively, we can assume there is a
specific set of values in Slovenia which intensifies the
distinction between the collectivist culture of former so-
cialist countries and the individualism of Western coun-
tries. That is to say, the fact that Slovenia is part of the
Table 7. Sex differences among the students (discriminant analysis).
Discrimination Function
Significance Eigenvalue Wilks’ λ Canonical
Correlation
χ2-test (Degrees
of Freedom) P
Discriminant Function .114 .898 .320 40.645 (6) <.01
Table 8. Comparison between male and female student’s at all three institutions (ANOVA) using regression
factor scores of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.
Male (1) Female (2)
Dimension X SD X SD F R1
1 Sport Action with Friends .045 1.001 -.091 .996 1.550 .189
2 Popularity .169 .910 -.344 1.087 23.547 ** .738
3 Fitness & Health -.049 .977 .099 1.041 1.831 -.206
4 Social Status .016 1.025 -.033 .951 .201 .068
5 Sport Events -.032 .950 .066 1.096 .818 -.138
6 Relaxation through Sports -.126 .949 .256 1.054 12.691 ** -.542
Legend: F= F-test in ANOVA; R1= correlation with first discriminant factor; R2= correlation with second
discriminant factor. ** = significant at p < 0.01
Cross-cultural motivation for sport
16
European Union might affect the stronger need for Slove-
nians to be different from inhabitants of other socialist
countries even in relation to motivation for physical ac-
tivities. In that context, Slovenians could find physical
activity (sport) important for their health, but not as
means for socializing. However, the biggest differences
were found between Zagreb and Cologne, in the direction
of higher results for the students from Zagreb, in up to
three dimensions: the second, fifth and sixth. Clearly,
physical activity holds greater significance for the stu-
dents from Zagreb than for the students from Cologne.
One potential reason could also be found in physical ac-
tivity being an extremely important means of an individ-
ual’s affirmation in Croatia. Considering that in the condi-
tions of a recession it is more difficult to find affirmation
in other fields of work (which is potentially more pro-
nounced in Croatia than in Germany or Slovenia), sport is
a field where an individual, regardless of economic cir-
cumstances, can accentuate his/her qualities.
Activity trait in sports has had a significant effect
on both exercise intention and exercise behaviour (Rho-
des et al., 2004). Thus, the motivational factors that con-
tributed to participating in sports at all three institutions
vary amongst each other although, conversely, there are
some which characterize all of them: motivational words,
parent/relatives, friends, supporters, environmental fac-
tors, popularity of the sport, fitness and health. Further,
understanding extrinsic motivation also helps teachers
understand more about the surroundings that will enhance
students’ motivations. Another aspect concerning the lack
of activity in students despite positive sports motivation
might also be the increasing amount of time students have
to spend on study, work and duties. Therefore, individual
time management strategies for an active lifestyle need to
be offered at all levels of student sport.
In conclusion, by using MANOVA in the final part
of the analysis we tested whether there were interactive
effects between gender and the institution students attend,
the students’ gender and age, their age and the institution
which students attend, and an overall interaction of all
three factors (institution, gender, age group). However,
the results unmistakably revealed no statistically signifi-
cant interactions.
At the end, we must be aware that some limits of
this paper exist, especially due to the methodology. In our
case, the factor analysis of the motivational structure was
applied to a relatively small sample.
Principle Components Analysis, performed on all
the participants together (from all three countries) may
not be the appropriate analysis for this study. In multi-
group cross-cultural comparisons, typically the measuring
instruments has been translated from the language of the
“source” country in which it was developed and normed
into the language of the “target” country in which it is to
be used. It is typically assumed that the instrument of
measurement is operating in exactly the same way and
that the underlying construct(s) has the same theoretical
structure and meaning across the groups of interest. Van
de Vijver and Leung (2001) define bias as a generic term
for all nuisance factors threatening the validity of cross-
cultural comparisons. In our research, we adjusted our
instrument only according to language, but neglected
three primary sources (types) of bias: (a) the construct of
interest (construct bias), (b) the methodological procedure
(method bias), and (c) the item content (item bias) (Van
de Vijver and Tanzer, 2004). Among all correct data
analysis methods that are usually used for avoiding the
bias, we used the simplest one (comparing cross-cultural
samples only with language adjustment). However, in
future research we have to use more sophisticated meth-
ods, such as structural equations modelling (Byrne and
Watkins, 2003).
Additionally, the Participation Motivation Ques-
tionnaire (Gill et al., 1983) may be out dated and therefore
not the optimal instrument with which to examine the
motivational orientation of sports students. Rather, the
Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 2001) or the Be-
havioural Regulation in Sport Questionnaire (Lonsdale et
al., 2008) might be more insightful alternatives with
which to examine the research questions.
The potential implications of the results can be in
better understanding the relationship between different
motivational orientations – in particular, extrinsic motiva-
tion – and sport participation among school-aged indi-
viduals may help those in leadership positions (i.e., coach,
teacher, trainer) to develop strategies that will foster sport
participation. In the context of Self Determination The-
ory, students can be encouraged in developing more
autonomous orientations for sport activity, rather than
controlled and impersonal, especially in certain countries.
For example, the aspect Sport action with friends, Fitness
& Health and Relaxation through sports can be described
as more desirable (autonomous). The novelty and scope
of the research might compel a qualitative research de-
sign, which might offer further insight regarding the mo-
tivational orientations of sports students from different
countries (Lonsdale et al., 2009). In past years motivation
has been a very important object of study among sports
and exercise psychologists around the world. Achieve-
ment Goal Theory (Nicholls, 1989) and Self-
Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985; 1991; 2000;
Ryan and Deci, 2000) are among PMQ the most promi-
nent current theories of motivation in the sport psychol-
ogy literature and each has had considerable success in
explaining motivational patterns in sport settings (Murcia
et al., 2007).
The first and utmost limitation of this survey is the
generalizability of the results. This current study adopted
a convenient sampling method due to the difficulty in
obtaining college action sports participants in all three
countries. Therefore, it should be careful when generaliz-
ing the results of this study. The results of this current
study might not be generalized beyond the population of
other students at the same universities. However, the
study still added more information in the understanding of
globalization in different countries to the existing litera-
ture. Therefore, the results obtained in this survey will
above all serve research purposes. A recommendation and
further part of this project is that the results should be
confirmed in a larger investigation of different faculties
and of all students.
Kondrič et al.
17
Conclusion
Motivation for sport activities has become a very popular
area of interest among sport psychologists. In our research
we found the latent structure of sports students’ types of
motives as consisting of six factors (dimensions), similar
as in other researches. We found statistically significant
factors of differences in motivation to participate in sport
activities among sports students from three different
countries. We also found significant sex differences in
motivation to participate in sport activities for all sports
students from three different countries. We did not find
relevant age-based differences among the students, and
this is the only initial hypothesis that we can reject.
This study also reinforced the importance of the
pleasure to be gained from participating in sports.
References
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
Freeman.
Barnett, L., Van Beurden, E., Morgan, P., Brooks, L. and Beard, J.
(2008) Does childhood motor skill proficiency predict adoles-
cent fitness? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40,
2137-2144.
Biddle, S.J.H., Fox, K.R., and Boutcher, S.H. (2000) Physical activity
and psychological well-being. London: Routledge.
Biddle, S.J.H., Wang, C.K.J., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. and Spray, C.M.
(2003) Motivation for physical activity in young people: entity
and incremental beliefs about athletic ability. Journal of Sports
Sciences 21, 973-989.
Bosnar, K. and Balent, B. (2009) Uvod u psihologiju sporta: Priručnik
za sportske trenere. [Introduction to Psychology of Sports:
Manual for sports coaches]. Zagreb: Odjel za izobrazbu trenera
Društvenog veleučilišta u Zagrebu i Kineziološki fakultet Sveu-
čilišta u Zagrebu. (In Croatian).
Byrne, B. M. and Watkins, D. (2003) The Issue Of Measurement Invari-
ance Revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34, 155-
175.
Cervelló, E. M., Escartí, A. and Guzmán, J. F. (2007). Youth sport
dropout from the achievement goal theory. Psicothema 19, 65-
71.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self determination
in human behavior. Plenum, New York.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (1991) A motivational approach to self: Integra-
tion in personality. In: Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol.
38. Perspectives on motivation. Ed: Dienstbier, R. Lincoln. NE:
University of Nebraska Press. 237-288.
Deci, E. and Ryan, R. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psycho-
logical Inquiry 11, 227-268.
Duda, J.L. (1992) Motivation in sport settings: A goal perspective
approach. In: Motivation in sport and exercise. Ed: Roberts,
G.C. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 57-91.
Dwyer, J.M.J. (1992) Internal structure of Participation Motivation
Questionnaire completed by undergraduates. Psychological Re-
ports 71, 283-290.
Egli, T., Bland, H.W., Melton, B.F. and Czech, D.R. (2011) Influence of
age, sex and race on college students' exercise motivation of
physical activity. Journal of American College Health 59(5),
399-406.
Fang, J. (2007) Research on motivation, attribution, self-efficacy and
sport learning effects. Journal of Beijing Sport University 30,
1691-1692.
Fraser-Thomas, J., Cote, J. and Deakin, J. (2008) Examining adolescent
sport drop-out and prolonged engagement from a developmental
perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20, 318-333.
Gaston-Gayles, J.L. (2005) The Factor Structure and Reliability of the
Student Athletes' Motivation toward Sports and Academics
Questionnaire (SAMSAQ), Journal of College Student Devel-
opment 46, 317-327.
Gill, D. L., Gross, J.B. and Huddleston, S. (1983). Participation motiva-
tion in youth sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology
14, 1-14.
Gill, D.L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise. Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Goudas, M. and Hassandra, M. (2006) Greek students' motives for
participation in physical education. International Journal of
Physical Education 43, 85-89.
Gould, D, Tuffey, S., Udry, E. and Loehr, J. (1996) Burnout in competi-
tive junior tennis players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport
Psychologist 10, 322-340.
Haapanen, N., Miilunpalo, S., Vuori, I., Oja, P. and Pasanen, M. (1996)
Characteristics of leisure time physical activity associated with
decreased risk of premature all-cause and cardiovascular mortal-
ity in middle-aged men. American Journal of Epidemiology
143, 870-880.
Jones, G.W., Mackay, K.S. and Peters, D.M. (2006) Participation moti-
vation in martial artists in the West Midlands region of England.
Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 5, 28-34.
Koivula, N. (1999) Sports participation: differences in motivation and
actual participation due to gender typing. Journal of Sport Be-
havior 22, 360-376.
Kolt, G.S., Driver, R.P. and Giles, L.C. (2004) Why older Australians
participate in exercise and sport. Journal of Aging and Physical
Activity 12, 185-98.
Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K. and Rose, A. E. (2008) The behavioral regula-
tion in sport questionnaire (brsq): Instrument development and
initial validity evidence. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol-
ogy 30, 323-355.
Lonsdale, C, Sabiston, C.M., Raedeke, T.D., Ha, A.S.C. and Sum,
R.K.W. (2009) Self-determined motivation and students' physi-
cal activity during structured physical education lessons and
free choice periods. Preventive Medicine 48, 69-73.
Lutz, R S., Karoly, P. and Okun, M.A. (2008) The why and the how of
goal pursuit: Self-determination, goal process cognition, and
participation in physical exercise. Psychology of Sport & Exer-
cise 9, 559-575.
Mallett, C., Kawabata, M., Newcombe, P., Otero-Forero, A. and Jack-
son, S. (2007) Sport motivation scale-6 (SMS-6): A revised six-
factor sport motivation scale. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 8,
600-614.
Maslow, A.H. (1970) Motivation and personality. 2nd edition. New
York: Harper & Row.
Matsumoto, H. and Takenaka, K. (2004) Motivational profiles and
stages of exercise behavior change. International Journal of
Sport and Health Science 2, 89-96.
Moreno, J. A., Gonzales-Cutre, D., Martin-Albo, J. and Cervello, E.
(2010) Motivation and performance in physical education: An
experimental test. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 9,
79-85.
Moreno, J. A., Lopez de San Roman Blanco, M., Martinez Galindo, C.,
Alonso Villodre, N. and Gonzales-Cutre Coll, D. (2008) Effects
of the gender, the age and the practice frequency in the motiva-
tion and the enjoyment of the physical exercise. Fitness & Per-
formance 6(3), 140-146.
Murcia, J.A.M, Gimeno, E.C. and Coll, D.G-C. (2007) Young athlets’
motivational profiles. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 6,
172-179.
Murcia, J.A.M, Coll, D.G-C., Martin-Albo, J. and Gimeno, E.C. (2010)
Motivation and performance in physical education: An experi-
mental test. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 9, 79-85.
Mouratadis, M., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W. and Sideridis, G. (2008)
The motivating role of positive feedback in sport and physical
education: Evidence for a motivational model. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology 30, 240-268.
Nicholls, J.G. (1989) The competitive ethos and democratic education.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MASS.
Pelletier, L.G., Fortier, M.S., Vallerand, R.J. and Briére, N.M. (2001)
Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-
regulation, and persistence: a prospective study. Motivation and
Emotion 25, 279-306.
Perman, B. (2011) Is sports system fair? JAHR (University of Rijeka)
2(3), 159-171.
Petz, B. (2005) Psihologijski rječnik [Psychological dictionary]. Jastre-
barsko: Naklada Slap. (In Croatian).
Retar, I. (2006) Uspešno upravljanje športnih organizacij [Succesfull
management of sport organisations]. Koper: Založba Annales.
Cross-cultural motivation for sport
18
(In Slovenian).
Ryan, R. and Deci, E. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilita-
tion of intrinsic motivation, social development and wellbeing.
American Psychologist 55, 68-78.
Rhodes, R.E., Courneya, K.S. and Jones L.W. (2004) Personality and
social cognitive influences on exercise behavior: adding the ac-
tivity trait to the theory of planned behavior. Psychology of
Sport and Exercise 5, 243-254.
Smith, A., Ullrich-French, S., Walker II, E. and Hurley, K.S. (2006).
Peer relationship profiles and motivation in youth sport. Journal
of Sport and Exercise Psychology 28, 362 -382.
Spray, C.M., John Wang, C.K., Biddle, S.J.H., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D.
and Warburton, V.E. (2006) An experimental test of self-
theories of ability in youth sport. Psychology of Sport & Exer-
cise 7, 255-267.
Strel, J. and Sila, B. (2010) Športne dejavnosti slovenske mladine med
15. in 18. letom starosti [Sport activity of Slovenian adolescents
aged between 15 and 18]. Šport 58, 124-129. (In Slovenian:
English abstract).
Trembath, E.M., Szabo, A. and Baxter, M.J. (2002) Participation mo-
tives in leisure center physical activities. Athletic Insight: the
Online Journal of Sports Psychology 4(3). Available from URL:
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss3/LeisureCenterParticipa
tionMotives.htm
Tsorbatzoudis, H., Alexandris, K., Zahariadis, P. and Grouios, G. (2006)
Examining the relationship between recreational sport participa-
tion and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Per-
ceptual & Motor Skills 103, 363-374.
Tušak, M. (1997) Razvoj motivacijskega sistema v športu [Development
of the Motivation System in Sport]. Ljubljana: Univerza v
Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za psihologijo. (In Slo-
venian).
Van de Vijver, F.J.R. and Leung, K. (2001) Personality in cultural
context: Methodological issues. Journal of Personality 69,
1007-1032.
Van de Vijver, F. and Tanzer, N.K. (2004) Bias and equivalence in
cross-cultural assessment: an overview, European Review of
Applied Psychology 54, 119-135.
Verloigne, M., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Tanghe, A., D'Hondt, E., Theuwis,
L., Vansteenkiste, M. and Deforche, B. (2011) Self-determined
motivation towards physical activity in adolescents treated for
obesity: an observational study. International Journal of Behav-
ioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 8(97), 2-11.
Vlachopoulos, S.P., Karageorghis, C.I. and Terry, P.C. (2000) Motiva-
tion profiles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71, 387-397.
Waldron, J.J. and Dieser, R.B. (2010) Perspectives of fitness and health
in college men and women. Journal of College Student Devel-
opment 51, 65-78.
Wang, C.K.J. and Biddle, S.J.H. (2001) Young people’s motivational
profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology 23, 1-22.
Weiss, M. R. and Ferrer-Caja, E. (2002) Motivational orientations and
sport behaviour. In: Advances in sport psychology. Ed: Horn,
T.S. 2nd edition. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 101-183.
Weiss, M.R. and Petlickhoff, L.M. (1989) Children’s motivation for
participation in and withdrawal from sport: Identifying the miss-
ing link. Pediatric Exercise Science 1, 195-211.
Whitehead, J., Andrée, K. and Lee, M.L. (2004) Achievement perspec-
tives and perceived ability: How far do interactions generalize
in youth sport? Psychology of Sport and Exercise 5, 291-317.
Zahariadis, P.N. and Biddle, S.J.H. (2000) Goal Orientations and par-
ticipation motives in Physical Education and Sport: Their rela-
tionships in English schoolchildren. Athletic Insight: the Online
Journal of Sports Psychology 2(1). Available from URL:
http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol2Iss1/English_Children.htm
Zaharidis, P., Tsorbatzoudis, H. and Alexandris, K. (2006) Self-
determination in sport commitment. Perceptual & Motor Skills
102, 405-420.
Yan, J.H. and McCullagh, P. (2004) Cultural influence on youth's moti-
vation of participation in physical activity. Journal of Sport Be-
havior 27, 378-390.
Miran Kondrič, PhD
University in Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Gortanova 22, 1000
Ljubljana, Slovenia
Key points
• The potential implications of the result can be in
better understanding the relationship between differ-
ent motivational orientations – in particular, extrin-
sic motivation – and sport motivation among school-
aged individuals.
• In the context of Self Determination Theory, stu-
dents can be encouraged in developing more
autonomous orientations for sport activity, rather
than controlled and impersonal, especially in certain
countries.
• Significant factors of differences have been found in
motivation to participate in sport activities among
sports students from three different countries and
also some significant sex differences have been
found in motivation to participate in sport activities
for all sports students.
AUTHORS BIOGRAPHY
Miran KONDRIČ
Employement
Associated professor. Faculty of Sport, Uni-
versity of Ljubljana, Slovenia
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Motivation in physical education; racket
sports, substance use and misuse.
E-mail: miran.kondric@fsp.uni-lj.si
Joško SINDIK
Employement
Assisstant professor. Institute for Anthropo-
logical Research Zagreb, Croatia.
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Motivation in physical education, sport and
exercise
E-mail: josko.sindik@inantro.hr
Gordana FURJAN-MANDIĆ
Employement
Professor. Faculty of Kinesiology, University
of Zagreb, Croatia.
Degree
PhD
Research interests
Motivation in physical education, sport and
exercise; rythmic gymnastics, aerobic
E-mail: gfurjan@kif.hr
Bernd SCHIEFLER
Employement
Research fellow. German Sports School,
Cologne, Germany.
Degree
Assistant
Research interests
Motivation in physical education; table
tennis
E-mail: schiefler@dshs-koeln.de