Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
125
Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae
Vol. 57 No 2 2017
PERFORMANCE MOTIVATION OF ELITE ATHLETES, RECREATIONAL
ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES
Pavel Šmela, Petra Pačesová, Stanislav Kraček, Dan Hájovský
Department of Sport Educology and Sport Humanities, Faculty of Physical Education and Sports,
Comenius University in Bratislava
Abstract: The aim of the paper is to widen knowledge about motivation of elite, recreational athletes and non-
athletes. Participants from the elite athletes group (n = 35, 16.7 ± .70 years old) were football players of the
Slovak national team. Recreational athletes (n = 31, 16.8 ± .80 years old) and non-athletes (n = 29, 15.7 ± .60
years old) are visiting Grammar School in Zvolen. D-M-V standardized questionnaire was used to determine
performance motivation. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov's test disconfirmed the null hypothesis on the normality of
data. We used the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests to determine the statistical
significance of the differences. The results showed that there were significant (p .0.01) differences with large
effect size (η2 ≥ .14) in all the three (the performance motives scale, the anxiety inhibiting performance scale and
the anxiety supporting performance scale) dimensions among the research groups. The motivation of elite
athletes is significantly higher (p = .048; r = .25) compared to the recreational athletes. Also, compared to the
non-athletes, the level of performance motivation is significantly higher (p = .002; r = .51) in the elite athletes.
Based on the results of the study we can formulate the statement that the level of performance motivation is
contingent on the level of sport activity.
Key words: performance motivation, sport activity, adolescence
_______________________________________________________________________
DOI 10.1515/afepuc-2017-0012
© Acta Facultatis Educationis Physicae Universitatis Comenianae
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
126
Introduction
We can understand motivation as a process of pursuing action that further leads to the
achievement of personal goals or goals of the group (Zinčenko & Meščerjakova 1996). Performance
motivation represents a personality characteristic, a sufficiently stable tendency of a person to achieve
the best possible performance (Bedrnová & Nový 2007). According to Hrabal (1989), two
independent needs are the basis of the performance motivation. It is a need for successful performance
and the need to avoid failure, which is updated in every situation requiring performance behavior.
According to Kačániová (1992), the effort to assert oneself is a part of the performance needs.
Through them, the need for autonomy and competence (the need to "understand something", “be
somebody” or “someone who knows something”) is formed. In general, we can talk about a
motivational tendency to "achieve success" and "avoid failure". The study of individual theories
clarifies that performance motivation cannot be perceived as a bounded phenomenon with detail
individual aspects that create it. The approach of Schuler & Prochaska (2003) is considered the latest
view on the concept of performance motivation. They present it as one of the personal characteristic
feature understood in a wider context. This is why performance motivation falls under the dimensions
of personality, such as perseverance, dominance, commitment, and trust in success. Křivohlavý
(2003) says that success mostly fulfils a strengthening function. It leads to the development of a
positive side of personality and to a better quality of life that is essential and determinant for a person
in a particular situation. Macák, Hošek and Boroš (In Šerešová 2012) states that the more regular and
intense the current psychological conditions are in connection with success, the higher is the stabilized
aspiration level of the athletes, which may have a positive effect on their performance, but the deeper
and more intense the conflict will be after a failure. The Elliot & Church (1997) hierarchical
motivation model contains three components. Those are mastery-approach, performance-approach
and performance-avoidance. Research by Conroya and Elliot (2004), confirmed the validity of the
hierarchical model not only in academic environment but also in sport. The eligibility of their
trichotomy division as well as the relationships between the different levels of the model was
confirmed. The fourth type of goals is based on the 2 x 2 model proposed by Conroy, Elliot &
Coatsworth (2007) avoiding mastery-avoidance. Such an orientation is aimed at not making mistakes
and not performing worse than in the past. It may occur, for example, in the perfectionists, or in
individuals recovering from injuries, in older athletes trying to maintain performance, or in players
trying to "play safely" and not to make mistakes.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
127
Methods
The research samples were elite athletes (n = 35, 16.7 ± .7 years old), members of the Slovak
national football team, recreational athletes (n = 31, 16.8 ± .8 years old) and non-athletes (n = 29,
15.7 ± .6 years old) attending Ľudovít Štúr Secondary Grammar School in Zvolen.
Performance Motivation Questionnaire (DMV)
The performance motivation questionnaire contains 52 items, where the respondent evaluates
the level of consent to the statement on the Likert scale. The questionnaire consists of three scales:
the performance motives scale, the anxiety (weakening) inhibiting performance scale and the anxiety
(facilitating) supporting performance scale.
1. The performance motives scale corresponds with the complex and multifaceted nature of the
performance motives and consists of four aspects: the aspect of performance behaviour, the
aspiration aspect, the aspect of endurance at work, the aspect of time orientation in the future.
2. The anxiety inhibiting performance scale can be described as a recognition of the weakening
performance, loss of speed and activation in the states that cause tension in stressful, new and
critical situations. In other words, the anxiety inhibiting performance can be characterized as a
certain tendency to avoid situations that require a high performance in order not to experience the
feeling of failure.
3. The anxiety supporting performance scale is characterized by a link between an average, in other
words optimal sense of tension and the mobilization of activity as a favorable condition for a
quality performance. In other words, we can define it as an effort to avoid failure.
Statistical Methods
We used basic mathematical-statistical methods to process the results. We detected normality
by using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to test the significance of
differences between the individual scales of the sample divided into groups according to the sporting
activities. The significance of the differences between individual independent samples was tested
using the Mann-Whitney U test. The significance level was set at α ≤ .05 and α ≤ .01. The importance
of the relationship or dependence between two groups was expressed using the coefficient r (Pett
1997). The magnitude of the coefficient r is evaluated in the following ranges: r ≥ .90 (extremely
large dependence, relation), r = .70 - .90 (large dependence, relation), r = .50 - .70 (medium
dependence, relation), r = .30 - .50 (low dependence, relation, r < .30 (weak dependence, relation).
Effect size, the coefficient η2, effect size, expresses the effect of the independent variable (sport
activity) on the dependent variable (performance motivation). The magnitude of coefficient η2 is
evaluated according Morse (1999) in the following ranges: η2 ≥ .14 (large effect), η2 = .06 - .14
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
128
(medium effect), η2 = .01 - .06 (small effect). For better interpretation, we have presented the results
in box-plots.
Results
Performance motives scale (Figure 1)
The mean value of the elite athletes in the performance motives scale was 102 ± 13.2 points.
For the recreational athletes it was 95 ± 11.6 points and for the non-athletes 90.4 ± 10.2 points. The
Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistical significance between H (2) = 18.372, p = .000, η2 = .206. The
Eta squared assessed the effect size as a large effect. Using the Mann Whitney test, a significant
difference between a group of the elite and recreational athletes was recorded (U = 397.0, p = .048, r
= .25). The coefficient r has expressed weak dependence. There also was a statistically significant
difference in the performance motives scale between a group of the recreational athletes and non-
athletes (U = 269.0, p = .008, r = .35). Calculated coefficient r expressed low dependence. In
comparison to the elite athletes and non-athletes in this dimension, we registered a significant
difference (U = 205.0; p = .000; r = .51). The effect size of the r coefficient has expressed medium
dependence.
Figure 1
Score of the performance motives scale in elite athletes, recreational athletes and non-athletes
Anxiety supporting performance scale (Figure 2)
The mean value of the elite athletes in the anxiety supporting performance scale was 35.3 ±
8.2 points, 31.1 ± 7.6 points for the recreational athletes and 25.4 ± 8.2 points for the non-athletes.
The Kruskal-Wallis test values (H (2) = 12.008, p = .002, η2 = .146) demonstrated a significant
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
129
difference in anxiety supporting performance amongst the individual research groups. Effect size
pointed to a big effect. The difference in mean values between the elite athletes and recreational
athletes was significant (U = 386.5, p = .045, r = 0.25). At the 1 % level of statistical significance,
the difference between the mean values between the recreational athletes and non-athletes (U = 269.0,
p = .008; r = 0.35) and between the elite athletes and non-athletes (U = 209.5, p = .001, r = .42). Effect
size, expressed by the coefficient r, speaks of low dependencies.
Figure 2
Score of the anxiety supporting performance scale in elite athletes, recreational athletes and non-athletes
Anxiety inhibiting performance scale (Figure 3)
The mean value in the anxiety inhibiting performance scale of the elite athletes was 30.05 ±
8.0 points, the recreational athletes 36.29 ± 9.22 points and 41.17 ± 12.7 for the non-athletes. The
results of the Kruskal-Wallis test showed a significant difference (H (2) = 15.508, p = .000, η2 =
.177) of the mean values between the groups. Effect size was large. The Mann Whiney U test
confirmed a significant difference (U = 330.5, p = .006, r = .34) between the elite athletes and the
recreational athletes. The elite athletes had lower anxiety inhibiting performance compared to the
recreational athletes. The difference in mean values of the recreational athletes and the non-athletes
was statistically insignificant (U = 351.0, p = .145, r = .19). The elite athletes also had significantly
(U = 237.0; p = .000, r = .46) lower anxiety inhibiting performance compared to the non-athletes.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
130
Figure 3
Score of the anxiety inhibiting performance scale in elite athletes, recreational athletes and non-athletes
Discussion
There are two basic sub-motives in the performance motivation of athletes: hope of success
and fear of failure. Athletes can be driven by the desire to perform well and be successful. On the
other hand, part of their motivation can also be an effort to avoid failure. The motivation of athletes
can acquire various target orientations. According to the concept of performance goals (Grant &
Dweck 2003), performance motivation can include learning goals or performance goals. The athletes,
for whom the learning goals are dominant, are constantly trying to improve their abilities. Therefore,
they compare their current performances with past or possibly with some objective criteria. The
athletes who prefer performance goals try to demonstrate their abilities in front of the others. They
try to perform better than the others or not to perform worse than the others. They are therefore more
focused on comparing with their competitors. Our research group was composed of respondents aged
16.4 ± .7 years. This period can be considered late adolescence in terms of development stages
according to Slepička, Hošek & Hátlová (2011). Performance motivation in adolescence is not
constant. This assertion was verified in Castillo et al. (2009) conducting research on 967 Spanish
students from various fields of sport. The study found changes in performance motivation in
adolescence. The results of their study showed that performance motivation increases significantly in
course of adolescence. Another factor that may affect the instability of performance motivation
among athletes is the periodization of the training and the competition period during the year.
However, Fernandez-Rio et al. (2008) did not notice a significant decrease in performance motivation
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
131
and increase of inhibiting effects during their yearlong research and did not confirm this fact. Pfoff
(2015) did research on performance motivation of canoeists and he recorded statistically significant
differences between sprint canoeists and average population norms. As well as our research, the
author has confirmed the thesis on the higher motivation of performance among elite athletes
compared to recreational athletes or non-athletes. Long distance canoeist even had a 10 % higher
performance boost compared to sprint canoeists. Kuračka (2008), in his study, presented findings
that elite athletes recorded a higher average value on the performance motivation scale, but the
difference compared to non-elite sport respondents was not statistically significant. This is where our
study differs from the aforementioned. We have recorded significantly higher performance
motivation of the elite athletes compared to the non-athletes and recreational athletes. We can explain
the variations in the results by possible differences (age, sporting practice, performance level) in the
elite athletes' research sample. According to Pardel, Marshalova & Hrabovska (1992), performance
patterns, aspirations, persistence in work and time orientation for the future are included in the
performance motives scale. Kuračka (2008) also focused on the correlation of performance
motivation with personality characteristics in his research. The results of the work suggest that the
performance motives relate in a substantial way to consciousness and anxiety that inhibits
performance relates to neuroticism. The "Big Five" scale of consciousness measures the level of the
organization and endurance in behavior aimed at a goal, purpose, ambition, hard work (Ruisel &
Halama 2007). The scale of neuroticism, among other things, measures the extent to which people
experience fear, feel unease, nervousness, anxiety, and how they deal with stressful situations. Also
in these aspects, the nature of anxiety inhibiting performance is implicitly and explicitly present. We
can expect a higher performance motives in consciousness people. On the contrary, neuro and
emotionally unstable persons should have a higher degree of anxiety inhibiting performance. We can
observe these relationships both in groups of the elite athletes and non-athletes. There was recorded
no unambiguous pattern of relationships with personality traits in anxiety supporting performance. In
the group of the elite athletes, it correlated to the highest level with extroversion and in the group of
the non-athletes with neurosis. In sport, therefore, it may not be sufficient to examine what is the
level of an individual's performance motivation. It is necessary to work with multiple sub-motives
and dimensions of performance motivation. An ultimate sport performance as the ultimate effect of
the motivation process is the result of a range of motives that stimulate, maintain, form and strengthen
various levels of beginning, process and result of a sport performance (Blahutková & Pacholík 2008).
Conclusion
The presented study points to significant (p ≤ .01) differences with a large effect size (η2 ≥
.14) in the performance motivation of the elite, recreational athletes and non-athletes. The elite
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
132
athletes, compared to the recreational athletes, have a significantly higher (p ≤ .05) performance
motives and anxiety supporting performance. In the performance inhibiting performance scale, the
score is significantly lower (p ≤ .01) in favor of the elite athletes. A significantly higher (p ≤ .01)
performance motives and anxiety supporting performance or lower anxiety inhibiting performance
attain the elite athletes compared to non-athletes. Based on the presented results, sport activity can be
considered as one of the factors influencing the motivation to perform. For better work with
performance motivation in the training process, we suggest that it is necessary to concentrate more
on performance motivation, especially in relation to the personality characteristics of elite athletes,
recreational and non-athletes. Further research in this area could focus on more detailed testing of the
performance sub-motives in the performance of elite athletes. It would be beneficial to explore the
relationship between the individual components of performance motivation and actual performance
in terms of individuals and entire teams. In the relationship of these variables we may point to the
importance of the effort to achieve success and the need to influence and manage performance
motivation in terms of its structure. In elite sport, we mostly deal with the issue how to raise
motivation. However, we do not sufficiently emphasize the correct structure of performance
motivation. Efforts to limit the fear of failure and to promote the pursuit of success should be evident
from the work of sport psychologists, coaches and athletes themselves.
The study was funded by the project of the Ministry of Education, science and research of Slovak Republic
VEGA 1/0726/17: Motivačný profil športovania rôznych skupín populácie a vplyv diferencovanej športovej
aktivity na zlepšenie subjektívnej dimenzie kvality života.
References
1. BEDRNOVÁ, E. & I. NOVÝ et al., 2007. Psychologie a sociologie řízení. Praha: Management
Press. ISBN 978-80-7261-169-0.
2. BLAHUTKOVÁ, M. & V. PACHOLÍK, 2008. Výkonová motivace a vrcholový sport. In:
Současný sportovní trénink. Praha: Olympia a ČOV, s. 252-257. ISBN 978-80-7376-079-3.
3. CASTILLO, I., J. L. DUDA, I. BALAGUER & I. TOMÁS, 2009. Cross domain generality of
achievement motivaton across sport and the classroom. In: The case of Spanish adolescent.
44(175), pp. 569-580.
4. CONROY, D. E. & A. J. ELLIOT, 2004. Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport:
Addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg. In: Anxiety, Stress, and Coping. 17(3), pp. 271-
285. ISBN 978-0-7360-9081-0.
5. CONROY, D. E., A. J. ELLIOT & J. D. COATSWORTH, 2007. Competence Motivation in Sport
and Exercise. In: CHATZISARANTIS, H. (Eds.). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
133
Exercise and Sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, pp. 181-192. ISBN 978-0-7360-
6250-3.
6. ELLIOT, A. J. & M. A. CHURCH, 1997. A Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance
Achievement Motivation. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 72(1), pp. 218-232.
ISBN 978-0-8058-6019-1.
7. FERNANDEZ-RIO, J., A. J. CECCHINI ESTRADA, A. MENDEZ-GIMÉNEZ, B.
FERNÁNDEZ-GARCIA & P. SAAVEDRA, 2014. Dominant achievement goal profiles in high-
level swimmers. In: European Journal of Sport Science. 14(3), pp. 265-272.
8. GRANT, H. & C. S. DWECK, 2003. Clarifying Achievement Goals and Their Impact. In: Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology. 85(3), pp. 541-553.
9. HRABAL, V. et al., 1989. Psychologické otázky motivace ve škole. Praha: SPN. ISBN 80-04-
23487-9.
10. KAČÁNIOVÁ, J., 1992. Psychológia pre učiteľov. Bratislava: VŠE. ISBN 8022503444.
11. KŘIVOHLAVÝ, J., 2003. Psychologie zdraví. Praha: Portál. ISBN 80-7178551-2.
12. KURAČKA, P., 2008. Vzťah medzi výkonovou motiváciou a osobnostnými charakteristikami
v rámci modelu „big five“. Bakalárska práca. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.
13. MORSE, D. T., 1999. Minsize2: A computer program for determining effect size and minimum
sample for statistical significance for univariate, multivariate, and nonparametric tests. In:
Educational and Psychological Measurement. 59(3), pp. 518-531.
14. PARDEL, T., L. MARŠÁLOVÁ & A. HRABOVSKÁ, 1992. Dotazník motivácie výkonu.
Bratislava: Psychodiagnostika.
15. PETT, M. A., 1997. Nonparametric statistics for health care research: Statistics for small
samples and unusual distributions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. IBN 978-1-4522-8196-4.
16. PFOFF, M., 2015. Temperamentové vlastnosti a výkonová motivace závodníků v rychlostní
kanoistice. Diplomová práca. Praha: Karlova Univerzita.
17. RUISEL, I. & P. HALAMA, 2007. NEO-FFI. NEO päťfaktorový osobnostný inventár. Praha:
Testcentrum-Hogrefe.
18. SCHULER, H. & M. PROCHASKA, 2003. Dotazník motivace k výkonu – DMI – príručka. Praha:
Testcentrum Praha.
19. SLEPIČKA, P., V. HOŠEK & B. HÁTLOVÁ, 2011. Psychologie sportu. Praha: Karolinum.
20. ŠEREŠOVÁ, E., 2012. Záujmy, motivácia a výkonová motivácia v osobnosti športovca. In: Acta
Facultatis Iuridicae Universitatis Comenianae XXX. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského
v Bratislave vo Vydavateľstve UK, pp. 103-111. ISBN 978-80-223-3282-8.
21. ZINČENKO, V. P. & B. G. MEŠČERJAKOVA, 1996. Psychologičeskij slovar. Moskva:
Pedagogika – Press.
Unauthenticated
Download Date | 11/11/17 1:25 AM
