Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Sports Science & Medicine logoLink to Journal of Sports Science & Medicine
. 2013 Mar 1;12(1):10–18.

Participation Motivation and Student’s Physical Activity among Sport Students in Three Countries

Miran Kondric 1,✉, Joško Sindik 2, Gordana Furjan-Mandic 3, Bernd Schiefler 4
PMCID: PMC3761756  PMID: 24149720

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to examine the differences in motivation to participate in sport activities among sports students 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 Participation Motivation Questionnaire (PMQ). The results revealed that the latent structure of the types of sports students’ motives consisted 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 participate in sport activities for all sports students from the 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.

Key points.

  • The potential implications of the result can be in better understanding the relationship between different motivational orientations - in particular, extrinsic motivation - and sport motivation among school-aged individuals.

  • In the context of Self Determination Theory, students 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.

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 provide us the information about the differences in their motivation, as well as about their differences compared with non-sport population. Motivation is a complex phenomenon 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 motivation refers to everything that drives us from the inside, i.e. the activities representing a goal as such, while extrinsic 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 previous researches (Egli et al., 2011; Moreno et al., 2008; 2010; Verloigne et al., 2011). With the student population, 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 motivation, 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 situations 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. Ultimately, it always essentially means whether or not someone expects they will be successful when they attempt a particular skill.

The reasons one gives for participating and dropping out of sport have received extensive attention over the past few years in terms of recreation and as a competitive 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 indicates 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 subsequent 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 quality 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 during and following exercise training programs (Biddle et al., 2000; Haapanen et al., 1996). Many of the techniques used to promote physical activity originated from psychological 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 involved 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 attempted 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 different 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 sportspeople (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 activities 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 basis 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 institutions 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 obtained 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 provided, 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
Open in a new tab

Instruments

Within this project we employed the Participation Motivation Questionnaire (PMQ; Gill et al., 1983) which has been widely used in several studies of motives to participate in youth sports. The students completed the PMQ (Gill et al., 1983), namely, a 30-item list of possible reasons students have to participate in sport. A five-point Likert scale was used. Respondents answered the stem “I participate in sport because ...”, indicating their preferences 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 atmosphere, fitness, energy release, skill development, friendship 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 motives (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 answers). Univariate ANOVA was used to test for differences among the students in all three institutions for each item in the questionnaire. We then performed a factor analysis (the Principal Components method with a Varimax 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 students of the different institutions in the motivational structure 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 participation 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).

Table 2.

Comparison among students of all three institutions for items of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.

Items Ljubljana Zagreb Köln F - sign.
p<
X SD X SD X SD
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
Open in a new tab

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 involved (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 practically equal to the share (63%) quoted by Zaharidis et al., 2006.

Table 3.

Factor structure of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire for students from all three institutions (Principal Components, Varimax Rotation).

Items Component
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
VP3I 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
VP1I want to improve my skills .701
VP24 I want to be physically fit .421 .678
VP6I want to stay in shape .608
VP12 I like to do something I'm good at .490
VP9My parents or close friends want me to play .613
VP8I like the teamwork .607
VP27 I like the coaches or instructors .568
VP11 I like to meet new friends .522
VP2I want to be with my friends .446 .471
VP30 I like to use the equipment or facilities .459
VP5I like to travel .670
VP7I like the excitement .632
VI13 I want to release tension .766
VP4I want to get rid of energy .409 .562
Cronbach’salpha .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
Open in a new tab

Legend: Component: 1 – Sport action with friends; 2 – Popularity; 3 – Fitness & Health; 4 – Social status: 5 – Sports events; 6 – Relaxation through sports

The reliability of the questionnaire in our research varies (for certain factors) from 0.568 to 0.877. Two factors (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 iterations 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. 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 recognition, 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 questions 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 physically fit, I want to stay in shape, I like to do something I'm good at). If we connect intrinsic and extrinsic motivations 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 conclusions 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 simplicity of expression, hereinafter the factors will be called dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.)

Differences among students in the three countries in dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire

A discriminant analysis was conducted in order to establish factors of difference among the students from the various faculties. In Table 4 is obvious that both 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.

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
Open in a new tab

The group centroids are statistically significant different and distant (the highest centroid 0.605 is for Ljubljana, 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 centroid 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 (Table 5), it is noted that students from all three faculties (Ljubljana, Zagreb, Cologne) vary statistically significantly in all dimensions obtained by the factor analysis. By using post-hoc tests (one-way MANOVA), we established 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 remaining four dimensions, statistically significant differences exist among all of the participants groups. In the third dimension (Fitness & Health), the most distant results 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).

Table 5.

Comparison between students from all three institutions (ANOVA) using regression factor scores of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.

Dimension Ljubljana (1) Zagreb (2) Köln (3) F R1 R2 Differences between
Groups
X SD X SD X SD
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**
Open in a new tab

Legend: F= F-test in ANOVA; R1= correlation with the first discrimination factor; R2= correlation with the second discrimination factor.

* = significant at p < 0.05

** = significant at p < 0.01

Differences among students’ age groups in all three countries in dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire

A discriminant analysis was conducted in order to establish factors of difference between younger and older students 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 Participation 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 dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.

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
Open in a new tab

Considering that the discriminant function is statistically 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 motivation to participate in physical activities.

Sex differences among students in all three countries in dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire

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 function, which indicates factors of gender differences among students in the three countries in dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire, is statistically significant. In other words, there is one factor of difference which significantly differentiates participants by gender in our study in relation to dimensions of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.

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
Open in a new tab

The group centroids are statistically significant different 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 classified.

On the basis of ANOVA of the regression factor scores, i.e. overall results for individual dimensions (Table 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.

Table 8.

Comparison between male and female student’s at all three institutions (ANOVA) using regression factor scores of the Participation Motivation Questionnaire.

Dimension Male (1) Female (2) F R1
X SD X SD
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
Open in a new tab

Legend: F= F-test in ANOVA; R1= correlation with first discriminant factor; R2= correlation with second discriminant factor.

** = significant at p < 0.01

Discussion

Sports psychology deals with manifold psychological characteristics of sports activities. It is perhaps motivation that represents the most important field within the discipline (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 discoveries 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 variables 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. However, 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 practicing 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 surveyed, the assumption is that the reason for their inconsistency 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 Slovenian 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 socialist countries and the individualism of Western countries. That is to say, the fact that Slovenia is part of the European Union might affect the stronger need for Slovenians to be different from inhabitants of other socialist countries even in relation to motivation for physical activities. 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 students from Zagreb than for the students from Cologne. One potential reason could also be found in physical activity being an extremely important means of an individual’s affirmation in Croatia. Considering that in the conditions of a recession it is more difficult to find affirmation in other fields of work (which is potentially more pronounced in Croatia than in Germany or Slovenia), sport is a field where an individual, regardless of economic circumstances, can accentuate his/her qualities.

Activity trait in sports has had a significant effect on both exercise intention and exercise behaviour (Rhodes et al., 2004). Thus, the motivational factors that contributed 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 factors, 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 significant 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 multigroup 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 methods, such as structural equations modelling (Byrne and Watkins, 2003).

Additionally, the Participation Motivation Questionnaire (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 Behavioural 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 motivation - and sport participation among school-aged individuals 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 Theory, 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 design, which might offer further insight regarding the motivational 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. Achievement Goal Theory (Nicholls, 1989) and Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985; 1991; 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000) are among PMQ the most prominent current theories of motivation in the sport psychology 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 generalizing 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 literature. 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.

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.

Biographies

graphic file with name jssm-12-10-g001.gif

Miran Kondric

Employement

Associated professor. Faculty of Sport, University 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

graphic file with name jssm-12-10-g002.gif

Joško Sindik

Employement

Assisstant professor. Institute for Anthropological Research Zagreb, Croatia.

Degree

PhD

Research interests

Motivation in physical education, sport and exercise

E-mail: josko.sindik@inantro.hr

graphic file with name jssm-12-10-g003.gif

Gordana Furjan-Mandic

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

graphic file with name jssm-12-10-g004.gif

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

References

  1. Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman [Google Scholar]
  2. Barnett L., Van Beurden E., Morgan P., Brooks L., Beard J. (2008) Does childhood motor skill proficiency predict adolescent fitness? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 40, 2137-2144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Biddle S.J.H., Fox K.R., Boutcher S.H. (2000) Physical activity and psychological well-being. London: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  4. Biddle S.J.H., Wang C.K.J., Chatzisarantis N.L.D., 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 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bosnar K., 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 Sveučilišta u Zagrebu. In Croatian [Google Scholar]
  6. Byrne B. M., Watkins D. (2003) The Issue Of Measurement Invariance Revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34, 155-175 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cervelló E. M., Escartí A., Guzmán J. F. (2007). Youth sport dropout from the achievement goal theory. Psicothema 19, 65-71 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Deci E., Ryan R. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human behavior. Plenum, New York [Google Scholar]
  9. Deci E., Ryan R. (1991) A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In: Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation. Ed: Dienstbier R. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press; 237-288 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Deci E., Ryan R. (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry 11, 227-268 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dwyer J.M.J. (1992) Internal structure of Participation Motivation Questionnaire completed by undergraduates. Psychological Reports 71, 283-290 [Google Scholar]
  13. Egli T., Bland H.W., Melton B.F., 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 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Fang J. (2007) Research on motivation, attribution, self-efficacy and sport learning effects. Journal of Beijing Sport University 30, 1691-1692 [Google Scholar]
  15. Fraser-Thomas J., Cote J., Deakin J. (2008) Examining adolescent sport drop-out and prolonged engagement from a developmental perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 20, 318-333 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 Development 46, 317-327 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gill D. L., Gross J.B., Huddleston S. (1983). Participation motivation in youth sports. International Journal of Sport Psychology 14, 1-14 [Google Scholar]
  18. Gill D.L. (2000). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics [Google Scholar]
  19. Goudas M., Hassandra M. (2006) Greek students’ motives for participation in physical education. International Journal of Physical Education 43, 85-89 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gould D, Tuffey S., Udry E., Loehr J. (1996) Burnout in competitive junior tennis players: II. Qualitative analysis. The Sport Psychologist 10, 322-340 [Google Scholar]
  21. Haapanen N., Miilunpalo S., Vuori I., Oja P., Pasanen M. (1996) Characteristics of leisure time physical activity associated with decreased risk of premature all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in middle-aged men. American Journal of Epidemiology 143, 870-880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones G.W., Mackay K.S., Peters D.M. (2006) Participation motivation in martial artists in the West Midlands region of England. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 5, 28-34 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Koivula N. (1999) Sports participation: differences in motivation and actual participation due to gender typing. Journal of Sport Behavior 22, 360-376 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kolt G.S., Driver R.P., Giles L.C. (2004) Why older Australians participate in exercise and sport. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity 12, 185-98 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Lonsdale C., Hodge K., Rose A. E. (2008) The behavioral regulation in sport questionnaire (brsq): Instrument development and initial validity evidence. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 30, 323-355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lonsdale C, Sabiston C.M., Raedeke T.D., Ha A.S.C., Sum R.K.W. (2009) Self-determined motivation and students’ physical activity during structured physical education lessons and free choice periods. Preventive Medicine 48, 69-73 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lutz R S., Karoly P., 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 & Exercise 9, 559-575 [Google Scholar]
  28. 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 & Exercise 8, 600-614 [Google Scholar]
  29. Maslow A.H. (1970) Motivation and personality. 2nd edition New York: Harper & Row [Google Scholar]
  30. Matsumoto H., Takenaka K. (2004) Motivational profiles and stages of exercise behavior change. International Journal of Sport and Health Science 2, 89-96 [Google Scholar]
  31. Moreno J. A., Gonzales-Cutre D., Martin-Albo J., Cervello E. (2010) Motivation and performance in physical education: An experimental test. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 9, 79-85 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Moreno J. A., Lopez de San Roman Blanco M., Martinez Galindo C., Alonso Villodre N., Gonzales-Cutre Coll D. (2008) Effects of the gender, the age and the practice frequency in the motivation and the enjoyment of the physical exercise. Fitness & Performance 6(3), 140-146 [Google Scholar]
  33. Murcia J.A.M, Gimeno E.C., Coll D.G-C. (2007) Young athlets’ motivational profiles. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 6, 172-179 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Murcia J.A.M, Coll D.G-C., Martin-Albo J., Gimeno E.C. (2010) Motivation and performance in physical education: An experimental test. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 9, 79-85 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Mouratadis M., Vansteenkiste M., Lens W., 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 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Nicholls J.G. (1989) The competitive ethos and democratic education. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MASS [Google Scholar]
  37. Pelletier L.G., Fortier M.S., Vallerand R.J., Briére N.M. (2001) Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: a prospective study. Motivation and Emotion 25, 279-306 [Google Scholar]
  38. Perman B. (2011) Is sports system fair? JAHR (University of Rijeka) 2(3), 159-171 [Google Scholar]
  39. Petz B. (2005) Psihologijski rječnik [Psychological dictionary]. Jastrebarsko: Naklada Slap; (In Croatian [Google Scholar]
  40. Retar I. (2006) Uspešno upravljanje športnih organizacij [Succesfull management of sport organisations]. Koper: Založba Annales. (In Slovenian) [Google Scholar]
  41. Ryan R., Deci E. (2000) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and wellbeing. American Psychologist 55, 68-78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Rhodes R.E., Courneya K.S., Jones L.W. (2004) Personality and social cognitive influences on exercise behavior: adding the activity trait to the theory of planned behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 5, 243-254 [Google Scholar]
  43. Smith A., Ullrich-French S., Walker II E., Hurley K.S. (2006). Peer relationship profiles and motivation in youth sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 28, 362-382 [Google Scholar]
  44. Spray C.M., John Wang C.K., Biddle S.J.H., Chatzisarantis N.L.D., Warburton V.E. (2006) An experimental test of self-theories of ability in youth sport. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 7, 255-267 [Google Scholar]
  45. Strel J., 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) [Google Scholar]
  46. Trembath E.M., Szabo A., Baxter M.J. (2002) Participation motives in leisure center physical activities. Athletic Insight: the Online Journal of Sports Psychology 4(3). Available from URLhttp://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol4Iss3/LeisureCenterParticipationMotives.htm [Google Scholar]
  47. Tsorbatzoudis H., Alexandris K., Zahariadis P., Grouios G. (2006) Examining the relationship between recreational sport participation and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Perceptual & Motor Skills 103, 363-374 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. 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 Slovenian) [Google Scholar]
  49. Van de Vijver F.J.R., Leung K. (2001) Personality in cultural context: Methodological issues. Journal of Personality 69, 1007-1032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Van de Vijver F., Tanzer N.K. (2004) Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment: an overview, European Review of Applied Psychology 54, 119-135 [Google Scholar]
  51. Verloigne M., De Bourdeaudhuij I., Tanghe A., D'Hondt E., Theuwis L., Vansteenkiste M., Deforche B. (2011) Self-determined motivation towards physical activity in adolescents treated for obesity: an observational study. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 8(97), 2-11 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Vlachopoulos S.P., Karageorghis C.I., Terry P.C. (2000) Motivation profiles in sport: A self-determination theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 71, 387-397 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Waldron J.J., Dieser R.B. (2010) Perspectives of fitness and health in college men and women. Journal of College Student Development 51, 65-78 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wang C.K.J., 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 [Google Scholar]
  55. Weiss M. R., 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 [Google Scholar]
  56. Weiss M.R., Petlickhoff L.M. (1989) Children’s motivation for participation in and withdrawal from sport: Identifying the missing link. Pediatric Exercise Science 1, 195-211 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Whitehead J., Andrée K., Lee M.L. (2004) Achievement perspectives and perceived ability: How far do interactions generalize in youth sport? Psychology of Sport and Exercise 5, 291-317 [Google Scholar]
  58. Zahariadis P.N., Biddle S.J.H. (2000) Goal Orientations and participation motives in Physical Education and Sport: Their relationships in English schoolchildren. Athletic Insight: the Online Journal of Sports Psychology 2(1). Available from URLhttp://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol2Iss1/English_Children.htm [Google Scholar]
  59. Zaharidis P., Tsorbatzoudis H., Alexandris K. (2006) Self-determination in sport commitment. Perceptual & Motor Skills 102, 405-420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Yan J.H., McCullagh P. (2004) Cultural influence on youth’s motivation of participation in physical activity. Journal of Sport Behavior 27, 378-390 [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Sports Science & Medicine are provided here courtesy of Dept. of Sports Medicine, Medical Faculty of Uludag University

RESOURCES