A review of competitive sport motivation research

ObjectivesThe purpose of this review was to synthesise contemporary research on competitive sport motivation (1995–2016) with a view to identifying trends and gaps in sample characteristics, research designs and analytical strategies, and classifying associated topics.DesignNarrative review.MethodFour databases were searched using a focused search strategy, leading to 63 studies that met the inclusion criteria. These were then evaluated in five sections: Theoretical Frameworks, Sample Characteristics, Research Designs, Analytical Strategies and Topics.ResultsA total of 63 studies comprising 12,440 participants were appraised. The average sample size and participant age were 197 and 22.6 years, respectively. Just over half of the studies described their sample as high-level. The majority of studies were quantitative and employed a cross-sectional design. A range of innovative statistical analyses were used, with structural equation modelling being increasingly adopted. In addition to studies focusing on motivation as a stand-alone topic, researchers in the area also investigated its relationship with motivational climate, burnout, doping, perfectionism, injury, and several other related variables.ConclusionsAfter reviewing the body of research on this specific topic area, promising directions for future research are presented. The focused approach particularly seeks to encourage researchers to employ different methodologies, and prioritise underused topics in future research on competitive athlete groups. Furthermore, the review points to several practical implications for competitive sport stakeholders.     

Changing Perspective: Building Creative Mindsets

The search for new ideas often frustratingly cycles back to old ones, a phenomenon known as fixation. Recent research has shown ways to kick-start finding new uses for familiar objects, a prototypical creativity task: wandering in the mind or the world or working on a messy desk. Those techniques seem to succeed by helping break fixation, but do not guide the search for new ideas. The perspective-taking or human-centric or empathic mindset championed by many in HCI and in design firms does provide a search strategy. We compared the mind-wandering mindset to a perspective-taking mindset, the latter priming thinking of ways that people in different roles (gardener, artist, etc.) might use the objects. In two studies, the Perspective-Taking mindset yielded more ideas and more original ideas than Mind-Wandering, which did not differ from a No-Mindset control. Original ideas came late, rewarding persistence. The perspective-taking mindset is productive for problem-solving, forecasting, and social interactions as well as innovation.