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