The effects of athletic scholarships on motivation in sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of rewards has been found to undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, \n1999). This conclusion is primarily based on research conducted in non-sporting \nenvironments. The purpose of this study was to examine perceived motivational changes \nresulting from the hypothetical manipulation of a reward (i.e., athletic scholarships). \nDifferences in "present" motivation between scholarship and non-scholarship athletes \nwere also assessed. Gender, life roles, and sport experience were also examined in \nrelation to scholarship status. Basketball players from four Ontario (n = 70) and seven \nU.S. Division I universities (n = 46) were examined. All athletes completed a set of \ndemographic questions, as well as questions from the Sport Motivation Scale (SMS; \nPelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995) which assessed their "present" \nmotivation. Athletes also completed the SMS to evaluate their "perceived future" \nmotivation based on a hypothetical manipulation of the scholarship status. For Ontario \nnon-scholarship athletes, extrinsic regulation (an extrinsic motive) increased with the \nintroduction of a scholarship and the intrinsic motive to experience stimulation decreased. \nFor U.S. scholarship athletes, the intrinsic motive to accomplish things decreased when \nscholarships were removed. When the two scholarship status groups were compared \nacross "present" levels of motivation, U.S. scholarship males reported significantly \nhigher levels of introjected regulation compared to Ontario non-scholarship males. \nOntario non-scholarship females reported significantly higher levels of introjected \nregulation compared to U.S. scholarship females. U.S. scholarship athletes reported \nsignificantly higher levels of external regulation compared to Ontario non-scholarship \nathletes. Results offer partial support for self-determination theory. Implications for \nfuture research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".