SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY Examining the interrelationships between motivation, conscientiousness, and individual endurance sport performance Joanne Perry, M.S., Michael Ross, Ph.D. ABPP, Jeremiah Weinstock, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Gfeller, Ph.D. SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY The interaction between personality traits and motivation are important factors in predicting athletic success. More specifically, it is hypothesized that the personality trait of conscientiousness along with intrinsic motivation (IM) and extrinsic motivation (EM) positively predict athletic performance, while amotivation (AM) has a negative impact upon performance. Method: In this study, seventy-three (N = 29 men, N = 44 women) athletes completed a questionnaire assessing these variables. Both subjective and objective performance ratings of a recent performance(s) were assessed. Objective performance reflected a comparison between recent performance(s) and lifetime best performance from similar competitive environments. Results: Regression analyses tested study hypotheses and indicated that conscientiousness positively predicted IM and negatively predicted AM. AM negatively predicted subjective performance. IM and EM were not significant predictors of subjective performance. None of the variables significantly predicted objective performance. Discussion: Results support the deleterious role of AM in subjective performance. Compared to IM and EM, AM might be a more relevant construct when predicting performance in a sample of athletes with varying degrees of commitment. This construct may be of particular interest to clinicians due to its association with athletic burnout. Conscientiousness may serve as a protective factor against burnout. Abstract Understanding the relationship between personality traits, individual difference variables, and athletic performance is fundamental for predicting athletic success and can provide valuable information to athletes, coaches, and other athletic support personnel. Conscientiousness is related to being task and goal oriented, as well as being able to delay immediate gratification. Individuals with high levels of conscientiousness are described as orderly, industrious, and disciplined. Research demonstrates that conscientiousness is related to higher levels of sport achievement, better training and preparation, and higher levels of success. IM is related to participating in an activity for the pleasure and satisfaction derived from doing the activity. EM is defined as engaging in behavior in order to attain external rewards. Finally, AM can be described as the absence of motivation. Past research has found positive relationships between both IM and EM in terms of athletic performance; meanwhile, AM is negatively associated with athletic performance The current study sought to better understand the role of conscientiousness and motivation in predicting individual endurance sport performance. The present study assessed levels of motivation and conscientious, in addition to recent athletic performance(s) in a sample of individual endurance sport athletes. Introduction Participants 73 regularly competitive athletes (male = 29, female = 44) participated in the study (18-65 years old, M = 28.11, SD = 12.52) 56.1% identified as runners, 19.2% swimmers, 6.8% triathletes, 2.7% rowers, and 15.1% who identified with multiple sports of competition. Twenty-three participants were collegiate athletes. Of the remaining 50 athletes, 34 reported training between 3 and 6 times per week. 94.3.1% identified as Caucasian/White, 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander, 1.4% African-American/Black, 1.4% Biracial, and 1.4% Middle Eastern/Arab-American Measures Demographic Questionnaire International Personality Item Pool – Conscientiousness (Goldberg, 1992) Sport Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al., 1995) Athletic Performance Subjective Rating Scale Athletic Performance Objective Score (see procedure) Analyses ANOVAs were conducted to examine differences between collegiate and non-collegiate athletes among study variables Univariate regression analyses were conducted in order to determine the predictive ability of conscientiousness, IM, EM, and AM on subjective and objective athletic performance. Procedure Collegiate participants were recruited from a mid-sized university in the Midwest. Non-collegiate participants were contacted via direct email and recruitment posts on internet forums related to sports of interest. Participants were administered questionnaires. Objective performance was computed by subtracting the athlete’s current performance time (in seconds) from their previous season time/personal best time (in seconds). The difference was then divided by the athlete’s previous season time/personal best time. If an athlete’s current time was slower than their personal best time, they received a positive score. If the athlete’s current performance time was faster than their best time, they received a negative score. In the presence of multiple events and/or performances, the average score was used. Methods Amotivation: Clinical Implications Findings suggests that AM is a more relevant construct when predicting performance in a heterogeneous sample of athletes. AM may be of particular interest due to its association with athlete burnout. High levels of AM are related to high levels of athlete burnout, which is characterized by decreases in performance. AM has also demonstrated positive correlations with all three components of this condition. Research has established preventative measures for burnout, yet fewer studies have examined treatment options for athletes already experiencing burnout. Given the strong associations between AM and burnout, interventions aimed at increasing motivation (i.e., motivational interviewing) may serve as an appropriate treatment approach. For example, developing discrepancy between current practice behaviors and desired practice behaviors could serve as a way to increase motivation for change. Other Findings Findings regarding the predictive ability of IM and EM on subjective athletic performance were not consistent with previous literature. In our sample, these variables may have been less relevant for predicting athletic success. In line with past research, conscientiousness significantly predicted IM and AM. These results might be important when attempting to identify athletes at risk for burnout; in other words, conscientiousness may serve as a protective factor for this condition. Limitations The objected measure of performance was limited by the variability in race conditions. The subjective measure of performance may have been limited by differences in expectations for performance between the collegiate and non-collegiate group. Results may have been more valid if a sport-specific measure of conscientiousness was administered. Summary Results suggest that motivation is necessary but not sufficient for successful athletic performance. This is a significant finding, especially when considering the relationship between AM and burnout. Future research should focus on this area, particularly among collegiate athletes. Research suggests that collegiate athletes are at risk for experiencing burnout due to high levels of personal stress. Discussion Predicting Athletic Performance Conscientiousness, IM, EM, and AM did not significantly predict objective athletic performance Conscientiousness, IM, and EM did not significantly predict subjective athletic performance AM significantly predicted subjective athletic performance, F(1, 60) = 4.562, p = .037. This finding suggests that 5.5% of the variance in subjective athletic performance can be explained by AM. Lower scores on AM were expected to have higher subjective athletic performance. Conscientiousness Predicting Motivation Types Conscientiousness significantly predicted IM, F(1, 66) = 11.469, p = .001. This suggests that 13.5% of the variance in IM can be explained by conscientiousness. Higher scores on conscientiousness were expected to have higher scores on IM. Conscientiousness was approaching significance relating to EM, F(1, 69) = 3.88, p = .053; however, this relationship was not confirmed. Conscientiousness significantly predicted AM, F(1, 69) = 5.19, p = .026, demonstrating that 5.7% of the variance in AM can be explained by conscientiousness. Higher scores on conscientiousness were expected to have lower scores on AM. Results