The Task vs. Ego Oriented Athlete and Goal Setting
The Task vs. Ego oriented athlete (Chris Harwood)
– Success or failure depend on an athlete’s perception of goal attainment (Nichols)
– Task Oriented Athletes (TO):• Focus on development of competence, effort levels and
improving abilities, enjoy practice
– Ego Oriented Athletes (EO):• Focus on demonstration of ability (fixed/stable) relative
to others, enjoy only competitions
How do athletes become TO or EO?
• Athletic experiences lead to TO or EO development
• Peers, parents, coaches all help create the “motivational climate” for TO/EO to develop– TO = praise for effort, improvement, mistakes are
part of growth, success = mastery, effort and responsibility
– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4aUMBGujY0 (John Wooden, UCLA basketball coach)
• EO = praise only for wins, ability over effort, success = winning regardless of effort or performance
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjYeREIHCsw
• Orientations believed to be stable and enduring, starting from early adolescence
• Athletes generally have aspects of both orientations, though one usually is dominant
• Situational factors can shift TO to EO and vice versa
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSDAGthQ-cs
Which is Better?• High TO + low EO
– most consistent, advantageous for skill development/improvement, long term participation; perceptions of ability tied to effort/improvement (Phelps)
• High TO + high EO– potentially highest achievers, skill work and improvement
compliments competition; perceptions of ability tied to effort and competitive performance (old Agassi, Tiger)
• High EO + low TO– end result is all that matters, fragile, high burnout risk;
perceptions of ability tied only to positive outcomes (young Agassi)
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-zO-4953KA
• TO athletes report enjoyment, satisfaction, intrinsic interest and FLOW at higher rates than EO athletes
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1bsRiEPgls (Kobe Bryant, LA Lakers)
• EO athletes report higher levels of anxiety and negative coping behaviors than TO athletes
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcWNsS6wEps (John McEnroe, tennis legend)
The Achievement Goal Perspective
• 3 Types of Goals:• Outcome: focus on competitive results (unable to control
all aspects of outcome) (EO)• Performance: focus on achievement independent of
competition (TO)• Process: focus on actions/behaviors/results (TO & EO)
• Research supports a combo of all 3 is optimal• Direct Mechanist View: focus on skill development =
increased dedication and persistence through sub goals• Locke and Latham (1981) conscious goal setting
positively impacted performance• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zadPWIYRULQ
SMART Goals• SPECIFIC: vague goals = vague outcomes•MEASUREABLE: able to monitor progress• ACTION ORIENTED: detailed behavior for
achievement• REALISTIC: within the realm of possibility• TIMELY: attainable in a reasonable
amount of time• Goals must be athlete owned to be effective
• RESEARCH: Weinberg et al. (1994), Goal setting and performance in Lax– Season long, college level, matched pairs design of
lax players randomly assigned to either a “goal setting” group or control group (coaches were blind to group assignments).
– Goal groups set short, long and seasonal goals w/weekly feedback from researchers
– Goals group consistently scored higher on offensive and defensive performance ratings
Cognitive Evaluation Theory CET (Deci, 1975)
• Events that effect feelings of competence and self determination effect levels of intrinsic motivation– Events can have 2 different aspects• 1. Controlling Aspect
– Less control over WHY athlete does the sport = less motivation (play for love of game, or to keep dad happy)
• 2. Informational Aspect– Changes in an athlete’s feelings of competence (all league
recognition vs negative coaching)
Research in CET• Ryan (1977): Does a scholarship effect college
football players’ motivation?– Scholarship players reported low intrinsic MO, high
dissatisfaction– Reports may be result of negative coaching/threats of
revoking scholarship (Amorose, Horn, 2000)
• Guest (2007): Culture and Motivation—Soccer in US and Malawi– Subjects: US and Malawi soccer teams– US (Individual culture) Malawi (Collective culture)– Results/Discussion• 70% of US players cited competition as primary source
of motivation; Malawi players:0%• Malawi players cited increased status and chance to
show skill as main motivators• Shows culture must be taken into account when
addressing motivation