ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 1
Athletic scholarships are negatively associated with intrinsic motivation for sports, even decades
later: Evidence for long-term undermining
Arlen C. Moller Kennon M. Sheldon
Illinois Institute of Technology University of Missouri-Columbia &
Lomonosov Moscow State
University
©American Psychological Association, 2019. This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal.
Please do not copy or cite without author's permission. The final article is available, upon publication, at: https://doi.org/ 10.1037/mot0000133
Moller, A. C., & Sheldon, K. M. (2019). Athletic scholarships are negatively associated with intrinsic motivation for sports, even decades later: Evidence for long-term undermining. Motivation Science. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000133 ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 2
Funding: This study was partially funded by a Russian Academic Excellence Project '5-100' grant awarded to Kennon M. Sheldon.
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements: The authors are grateful to Mark White for help identifying appropriate measures, to Pooja Agarwal for her help designing the web survey, to Tom Boren, Director of
Advancement Services at the University of Missouri, for provided key assistance with participant recruitment, and to Rachel Kornfield for feedback on an earlier version of this manuscript. The data from this study can be found at: https://osf.io/a53vn/? view_only=35c9ce94dfd44248865293d11845d74a
Running head: ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 3
Abstract
In the U.S., many colleges offer some student athletes scholarships contingent on maintaining high-level performance at a particular sport. Consistent with the well-supported “undermining effect,” studies have demonstrated that such scholarships can reduce athletes’ intrinsic motivation for their sport during their college playing career. The present study examines what happens to former college athletes’ intrinsic motivation after college, even decades later. 348 former Division I college athletes completed an on-line survey (67.5% men, M age = 49.2, 76% formerly on scholarship). Even after controlling for time elapsed since college, scholarship
(versus no scholarship) status was positively related to felt external motivation during college, and negatively related to present-day enjoyment of the target sport. Our findings suggest that undermining effects may persist much longer than previously documented (i.e., for decades, as opposed to hours, weeks, or months). ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 4
Key words: the undermining effect; self-determination theory; intrinsic motivation; motivational crowding out; the overjustification effect
Athletic scholarships undermine intrinsic motivation, even decades later:
Evidence for long-term undermining
Over 40 years ago, Deci (1971) published two of the first studies demonstrating that offering tangible extrinsic rewards for intrinsically motivated activities (i.e., because they are enjoyable) could reduce individuals’ future intrinsic motivation for those activities (see also
Deci, 1972a, 1972b; Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeevi, 1971; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).
This finding came to be called the undermining effect, and has subsequently been replicated in
100s of studies with varied tasks, samples, and contexts (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Moller & Deci,
2014). The target activity in the majority of these studies has typically been a puzzle or game identified as intrinsically motivating for the average person by earlier pilot testing (e.g., Soma puzzles; other activities have included making artwork, balancing on a balancing board, and finding words embedded in illustrations).
Unfortunately, few studies have addressed the question of how long the undermining effect persists. Although no study has documented undermining for longer than 17 weeks after a tangible reward contingency was removed (Moller et al., 2012), self-determination theory (SDT;
Ryan & Deci, 2017) predicts that, if people experience incentives as strongly controlling, undermining may persist indefinitely. By contrast, Goswami and Urminsky's (2017) effort- balancing account of dynamic post-reward behavior predicts that undermining effects are short- lived. In a series of five brief (30 minute) experiments conducted on the MTurk platform, the authors found undermining effects that disappeared after a short break, and became weaker when incentives were relatively large ($0.50 vs. $0.05). ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 5
The present research examines the potential for studying the undermining phenomenon in a real world context, involving large incentives, and over a far greater duration of time than previously studied (many years, as opposed to minutes, hours, weeks, or months). Specifically, we investigate the potential for athletic scholarships to continue undermining the intrinsic motivation of former college athletes long after their college athletic careers have ended.
College scholarships and evidence of undermining while in college
One of the few research contexts in which intrinsic motivation has been assessed during an extended period of “payment” involves the provision of athletic scholarships to college athletes. Athletic scholarships are regularly used by U.S. universities that are members of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division 1, where 50-75% of athletes receive a full or partial athletic scholarship (10-100% of their tuition/room/board). At these NCAA
Division 1 colleges, less than 10% of the undergraduate students participate in a varsity-level sport, and those who participate make a serious commitment to their participation, averaging approximately 40 hours per week toward playing, practicing, or training (Jacobs, 2015).
This context represents a form of quasi-experiment, as a proportion of student athletes receive athletic scholarships while another proportion do not. Those who receive athletic scholarships are those with greater potentials or performance levels relative to their teammates.
To the extent that people tend to enjoy activities more when they excel at them thus satisfying the need for competence (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Ryan & Moller, 2016), this sets up the possibility that students with athletic scholarships enjoy participation more than non-scholarship athletes.
However, despite scholarship recipients presumably feeling more competent, at least seven studies have found that these athletes enjoy playing their sports less than their non- scholarship teammates (E. D. Ryan, 1977, 1980; Wagner et al., 1989; Medic et al., 2007). E. D. ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 6
Ryan (1977, 1980) found that men's football players on athletic scholarships reported more extrinsic (versus intrinsic) motivation and less enjoyment of playing football. Wagner et al.
(1989) replicated the athletic scholarship undermining pattern in 393 high school and college varsity basketball players. Kingston et al. (2006) collected a sample of 172 U.S. student athletes from a range of sports and schools, and found overall that receiving athletic scholarships was inversely correlated with intrinsic motivation. Medic, Mack, Wilson, and Starkes (2007) studied student athletes at universities in the U.S. and Canada and found that NCAA Division 1 men's basketball players in U.S who received athletic scholarships reported higher extrinsic motivation compared to women with scholarships, and compared to non-scholarship athletes (men and women). Cremades et al. (2012) studied track and field athletes at U.S. universities (n = 162); they found that receiving athletic scholarships was inversely correlated with intrinsic motivation, and that the association was stronger for women. Summarizing this literature, Vallerand (2007) explains that the crux of this issue through the lens of SDT and CET: “unfortunately, scholarship recipients may come to feel that they play more to justify the scholarship they have received than for the pleasure of the game” (p. 69). One exception to this general pattern was reported by E. D.
Ryan (1980), who found the expected negative association for men's football, but the opposite for men's wrestlers and female athletes. Consistent with CET, E. D. Ryan suggested the mixed results might be explained by differences in the functional significance of their scholarships, that relative rareness of scholarships for men's wrestling and female athletes at the time might have made them more informational and less controlling.
The present investigation assessed the current motivation of former college athletes
(scholarship and non-scholarship) for playing, watching, or otherwise being involved in the sports they had played in college. To our knowledge, this is the first such study. ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 7
Hypothesis 1: Guided by SDT, our primary hypothesis was that having had an athletic scholarship during college (yes or no) would predict less intrinsic motivation for participating in the athlete’s target sport at the time of the study, years after graduation. Intrinsic motivation was operationalized in three different ways, including self-reported current enjoyment of: playing the target sport (H1a), watching the target sport (H1b), and otherwise participating in the target sport after college, e.g., coaching, refereeing, score-keeping (H1c).
Hypothesis 2: A closely related primary hypothesis was that reporting having felt less relative autonomy (RAI) while playing college sports would predict less intrinsic motivation for participating in the target sport after college. This included self-reported current enjoyment of: playing the target sport (H2a), watching the target sport (H2b), and otherwise participating in the target sport after college, e.g., coaching, refereeing, scoring (H2c).
Material and Methods
Participants
We were able to persuade the athletics department at the University of Missouri to help with the survey. Inclusion criteria required that participants had previously played a varsity-level sport at the University of Missouri (total undergraduate enrollment in 2018: 29,443), and were no longer playing that sport at the university-level. Targeted participants received an email invitation to complete the online survey (Qualtrics) sent through the University Athletic
Department's email account. After the email invitation was sent, the survey remained open for 4 weeks.
Four hundred thirty one surveys were started, and 348 surveys were completed. Sample demographic are reported in Table 1. 67.5% of respondents were men. Age ranged was 23 to 80 years old (M = 49.20 years, SD =15.77). Corresponding closely to this (r = .99) were participants ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 8 estimates of years since the completion of their college sports career (M = 26.76 years, SD =
15.70, range 1-62).
Two hundred sixty seven participants (76.7%) reported receiving an athletic scholarship, and 81 (23.3%) reported not receiving any athletic scholarship, a ratio consistent with the
University of Missouri's current ratio of scholarship-to-non-scholarship athletes on varsity sport teams. The sample included participants representing Football (n = 96), track and field (n = 43), swimming (n = 42), baseball (n = 24), wrestling (n = 23), basketball (n = 22), tennis (n = 18), golf (n = 15), cross country (n = 13), softball (n = 11), soccer (n = 11), gymnastics (n = 11), volleyball (n = 10; we did not attempt to compare results between sports). Participation was entirely voluntary, with no tangible compensation provided. No significant associations were found between scholarship status and age, years since completion of college sports career, socioeconomic status (during college or current), gender, or race.
Measures
Demographics. Participants reported their age, sex, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status (SES) and also reported the sport(s) they played in college, how many seasons they played each sport, and whether they received a full or partial athletic scholarship (yes or no).
Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ) for varsity sport participation while in college.
Participants completed a revised version of the previously validated Self-Regulation
Questionnaire for Exercise (SRQ-E; Ryan & Connell, 1989) in order to assess different types of motivational regulation toward playing sports while in college. Participants were asked to rate reasons why they participated in college sports on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true). The four reasons for participating in college sports (items) were:
"Because it was fun" (intrinsic), "Because I valued being in good physical condition" (identified), ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 9
"Because I would have been ashamed of myself if I quit" (introjected), and "Because of money or scholarships I received in exchange for playing" (external). An aggregated unweighted Relative
Autonomy Index (RAI) was computed to locate participants on the internalization continuum:
RAI = intrinsic + identified – introjected – external (see Sheldon, Osin, Gordeeva, Suchkov, &
Sychev, 2017).
Current intrinsic motivation for target sport. Current intrinsic motivation related to the participants’ target sport (the outcome measure) was assessed using the four interest/enjoyment items from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). These items were asked with respect to: (i) playing the target sport, (ii) watching the target sport, and (iii) otherwise participating in the target sport (coaching, refereeing, facilitating). Participants rate how true each of 12 statements was for them on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7
(very true).
Results
Given the population and sample size asymmetry between the groups (scholarship vs. non-scholarship), we conducted a Levene's test for homogeneity of variance for the three primary outcome variables: enjoy playing, enjoy watching, and enjoy otherwise participating.
The null hypothesis that the variance is equal across groups was violated for only one of three primary outcomes, enjoy playing (p = .03). However, a closer examination revealed that the variance was smaller for the smaller group, SD = 2.239 (for non-scholarship athletes) versus SD
= 2.4440 (for scholarship athletes), reducing concern. Furthermore, we used the Welch ANOVA test, a more robust test when there is to heterogeneity of variance and unequal groups better account for (Moder, 2010). ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 10
Hypothesis 1. Scholarship status (yes/no) significantly predicted less current enjoyment while playing the target sport (H1a: Ms = 3.66 vs 4.44; Welch statistic F(1, 140.65) = 7.04, p
= .009; ωp² = .017, with or without controlling for years since college. Scholarship status was not significantly related to current enjoyment of watching (H1b), or otherwise participating in the sport (H1c; see Table 2).
Hypothesis 2. Retrospective RAI scores were significantly correlated with currently enjoying playing the target sport (r = .17, p <.001), and otherwise participating in the sport (r
=.11, p = .044), even after controlling for years since college. RAI scores were not significantly related to currently enjoying watching the sport (r = -.01, p = .79). Examining the components of the RAI separately, both retrospective intrinsic motivation (r = .13, p = .01) and external motivation (r = -.17, p < .01) were significantly related to current enjoying playing the target sport, including after controlling for years since college. See Tables 2 and 3.
Mediators. For the reader’s information, we tested whether aggregate retrospective RAI score or any of the four specific motivation variables mediated the effects of scholarship status upon current intrinsic motivation. First we used a series of independent samples t-tests to explore the hypothesis that scholarship status would predict retrospective reports of relative autonomy
(RAI) and its components: intrinsic regulation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation (i.e., X to M, or path a). Those who received athletic scholarships did report lower RAI; this difference was driven by higher levels of external and introjected regulation.
To test the significance of the mediation effect, we used Preacher and Hayes’ (Hayes,
2013) method and calculated 5000 bootstrapped samples to estimate the 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals of the indirect effect. We also conducted the traditional mediation significance test (i.e., Sobel test). Since only current enjoyment for actually playing ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 11 the sport differed between the two groups, we only tested mediation for this variable. Composite
RAI, external regulation, and introjected regulation were tested as potential mediators. For composite RAI, near-significant mediation existed according to the Preacher and Hayes method, indirect b = -.29, 95% CI = -.59, -.003); similar findings were obtained with the Sobel test (z = -
1.92, p = .054). External regulation alone was also a near-significant mediator according to the
Preacher and Hayes method, indirect b = -.09, 95% CI = -.17, -.002); significant according to the
Sobel test (z = -2.08, p = .038). No other RAI component (introjected, identified, or intrinsic regulation) mediated.
Moderators. Supplementary analyses (provided on-line) several potential moderators of the effect of prior scholarship status on current enjoyment of playing the sport: gender, time since college, sport played, and socioeconomic status during college. Two noteworthy findings were that a) more time elapsed since college predicted less enjoyment of playing the target sport
(older participants enjoy playing less), and that b) time elapsed since college moderated the scholarship vs no scholarship effect, such that the undermining effect became slightly but significantly weaker over time. Another noteworthy finding was that gender moderated the scholarship effect, such that the undermining effect was more pronounced in male participants.
Student’s SES at the time of college had no moderator effects, and neither did the student’s sport, dichotomized as football (the biggest money-making sport) versus not football.
Discussion
Hundreds of experiments replicating the undermining effect have been conducted in tightly controlled lab contexts for relatively short periods of time (typically for 30-60 minutes).
By comparison, only a small handful of field studies have been conducted, and to the best of our knowledge, no study has documented undermining for longer than 17 weeks after a tangible ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 12 reward contingency was removed (Moller et al., 2012; but see White & Sheldon, 2015).
Consistent with SDT, but not Goswami and Urminsky's (2017) effort-balancing account of dynamic post-reward behavior, our research found evidence for long-term undermining, much longer than previously documented, given that participants in the present study left college an average of 26 years earlier. Although the negative association between scholarship status and current enjoyment for playing the target sport was somewhat reduced by time since college, the main effect for scholarship status remained consistent even after controlling for this interaction.
The moderation of scholarship status by time since college might represent a cohort effect in which in recent times, scholarship status has become more undermining. It might also represent a decay effect, in which the undermining effect weakens over time. The current data do not permit comparing these two explanations.
We also found that the sense of having strong external motivation while playing in college was significantly stronger in scholarship athletes, which helped explain their reduced interest in playing the sport after college. As such this external reward effect represents a classic undermining effect of intrinsic motivation by external motivation. We also found that the undermining effects were smaller in female athletes than in male athletes, an effect consistent with earlier findings reported by E. D. Ryan (1980). This may reflect the fact that female college athletics have historically received less intense public scrutiny, financial investment, and associated pressure in the U.S (Zimbalist, 2001).
It is interesting that many commentators (Crabtree, 2014; Nocera, 2011; Ukeiley,1996) argue that student athletes should receive more of the financial benefit that they help to produce for their institutions of learning. While this may be true, our findings suggest that paying student athletes might have the undesirable side effect of making them even less interested in playing the ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 13 game after their college days are over. SDT provides mechanisms for explaining how financial rewards may be delivered such that they do not undermine intrinsic motivation (i.e., if they are delivered in a way that conveys competence information, rather than being delivered in a controlling way). However, we did not measure such variables and will not speculate further in this brief report.
Limitations. This study surveyed athletes at only one NCAA Division 1 school, raising questions about generalizability to other schools or programs. Unfortunately, the several other
Universities that we approached were reluctant to help us with the study. It is also possible that a self-selection bias influenced our results, since those who chose to participate might have an axe to grind or may not be representative of all scholarship athletes. Another important limitation involves our reliance on cross-sectional data and retrospective self-reports of scholarship status and RAI while in college. For more than half of the sample, these retrospective reports required reflecting on their experience more than 20 years earlier; such memories are susceptible to both bias and decay. The failure to preregister hypotheses and number of tests are additional limitations. Follow up research using more costly longitudinal designs are still warranted in order to rule out unmeasured 3rd variables and strengthen confidence in casual attributions. We hope that the preliminary research reported here can help justify the significant investment required to career out such research in the future.
ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 14
Compliance with Ethical Standards
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 15
References
Amorose, A. J., & Hom, T. S. (2000). Intrinsic motivation: Relationships with collegiate athletes'
gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 22, 63-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsep.22.1.63
Amorose, A. J., & Hom, T. S. (2001). Pre- to post-season changes in the intrinsic motivation of
first year college athletes: Relationships with coaching behavior and scholarship status.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 13, 355-373.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104132001753226247
Berri, D. (2014, November 14). Exploitation is everywhere in men’s college basketball. Time.
Retrieved from http://time.com/3586037/exploitation-is-everywhere-in-mens-college-
basketball/
Branch, T. (2011, October). The shame of college sports. The Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/10/the-shame-of-college-sports/
308643/
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 140, 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661
Crabtree, J. (July, 22nd, 2014). Recruits support athletes' stipends. ESPN.
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/recruiting/football/story/_/id/11240742/espn-survey-
shows-most-football-recruits-support-stipends-college-players-playoff-system-determine-
champion ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 16
Cremades, J. G., Flournoy, B., & Gomez, C. B. (2012). Scholarship status and gender differences
in motivation among U.S. collegiate track and field athletes. International Journal of
Sports Science & Coaching, 7, 333–344. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.7.2.333
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030644
Deci, E. L. (1972a). Effects of contingent and non-contingent rewards and controls on intrinsic
motivation. Organizational Behavioral and Human Performance, 8, 217-229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90047-5
Deci, E. L. (1972b). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 11-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0032355
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 627-668. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
Dohrmann, G. (2011, November 7). Pay for Play: The mission of our universities is to educate,
but college sports is big business, and no one wants young athletes exploited. Sports
Illustrated. Retrieved from https://www.si.com/vault/2011/11/07/106127622/pay-for-play
Frontline (March 29th, 2011). Money & March Madness: If everyone is profiting from the
multibillion dollar college sports business, why shouldn’t student athletes?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-and-march-madness/
Goswami, I., & Urminsky, O. (2017). The dynamic effect of incentives on postreward task
engagement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 1-19.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000206
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2015). The trans-contextual model of autonomous ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 17
motivation in education: Conceptual and empirical issues and meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 86, 360-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0034654315585005
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a
regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Jacobs, P. (2015). Here’s the insane amount of time student-athletes spend on practice. Business
Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/college-student-athletes-spend-
40-hours-a-week-practicing-2015-1
Kingston, K. M., Horrocks, C. S., & Hanton, S. (2006). Do multidimensional intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation profiles discriminate between athlete scholarship status and gender?
European Journal of Sport Science, 6(1), 53–63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390500440889
Kruglanski, A. W., Friedman, I., & Zeevi, G. (1971). The effects of extrinsic incentive on some
qualitative aspects of task performance. Journal of Personality, 39, 606-617.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1971.tb00066.x
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest
with extrinsic rewards: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035519
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic
Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413
Medic, N., Mack, D. E., Wilson, P. M., & Starkes, J. L. (2007). The effects of athletic
scholarships on motivation in sport. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30, 292-306. ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 18
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413
Moder, K. (2010). Alternatives to F-Test in One Way ANOVA in case of heterogeneity
of variances (a simulation study). Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52,
343-353
Moller, A. C., & Deci, E. L. (2014). The psychology of getting paid: An integrated perspective
(pp.189-211). In E. H. Bijleveld & H. Aarts (Eds.), The psychological science of money,
New York, NY: Springer Press.
Moller, A.C., McFadden, H. G., Hedeker, D., Spring, B. (2012). Financial motivation
undermines maintenance in an intensive diet and activity intervention. Journal of
Obesity, 2012, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/740519
Moller, A. C., Buscemi, J., McFadden, H. G., Hedeker, D., & Spring, B. (2013). Financial
motivation undermines potential enjoyment in an intensive diet & activity intervention.
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 819-27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-013-9542-5.
Moller, A. C., & Sheldon, K. M. (2018, December 21). Athletic scholarships are negatively
associated with intrinsic motivation for sports, even decades later. Retrieved from
osf.io/a53vn
Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural basis of the
undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. PNAS Early Edition, 1-9.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013305107
Nocera, J. (December 20th, 2011). Let’s start paying student athletes. The New York Times. http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/lets-start-paying-college-athletes.html?
pagewanted=all&_r=0 ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 19
Ryan, E. D. (1977). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and athletics. In L. I. Gedvilas & M. E.
Kneer (Eds.), National College Physical Education Association for Men / National
Association for Physical Education of College Women. National Conference (pp. 346-
353). Chicago, IL: Office of Publications Services.
Ryan, E. D. (1980). Attribution, intrinsic motivation, and athletics: A replication and extension.
In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Halliwell, K. M. Newell, & G C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology of
Motor Behavior and Sport (pp. 19-26). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450
Ryan, R.M. & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining
reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
749-761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M. & Moller, A.C. (2016). Competence as a necessary but not sufficient condition for
high quality motivation: A self-determination theory perspective. In A. Elliot, C. Dweck,
& D. Yeager (Eds.) Handbook of Competence Motivation, 2nd Edition, New York:
Plenum Press.
Sheldon, K. M., Osin, E. N., Gordeeva, T. O., Suchkov, D. D., & Sychev, O. A. (2017).
Evaluating the dimensionality of self-determination theory’s relative autonomy
continuum. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1215–1238.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217711915 ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 20
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement. New York, NY: Appleton.
Stauffer, Z. (2014, August 13). O’Bannon ruling raises new questions over future of money in
big-time college sports. Frontline. Retrieved October 11, 2017, from http://www.pbs.org/
wgbh/frontline/article/obannon-ruling-raises-new-questions-over-future-of-money-in-big-
time-college-sports/
Sewart, J. J. (1987). The commodification of sport. International Review of the Sociology of
Sport, 22, 171-190. https://doi.org/10.1177/101269028702200303
Ukeiley, S. L. (1996). No salary, no union, no collective bargaining: Scholarship athletes are an
employer’s dream come true. Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law, 6, 167.
Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: A review
and a look at the future. In G. Tenenbaum & E. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (3rd ed., pp. 59-83). New York: John Wiley.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2004). How to become a persevering
exerciser? Providing a clear, future intrinsic goal in an autonomy-supportive way.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 232–249.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.2.232
Wagner, S. L., Lounsbury, J. W., & Fitzgerald, L. G (1989). Attribute factors associated with
work/leisure perceptions, Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 155-166. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.gl.iit.edu/10.1080/00222216.1989.11969796
White, M. H., & Sheldon, K. M. (2014). The contract year syndrome in the NBA and MLB: A
classic undermining pattern, Motivation and Emotion, 38, 196-205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9389-7
Zimbalist, A. (2001). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 21
sports. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 22
Table 1
Demographics
Overall Scholarship No Scholarship (n = 348; (n = 267; (n = 81; 100%) 76.7%) 23.3%) Age in years (n = 337) M (SD) 49.20 (15.77) 48.64 (15.89) 51.06 (15.31) Range 23 - 80 23 - 80 24 - 80 Gender N (%) (n = 342) Female 110 (32.2%) 90 (34.4%) 20 (25%) Male 231 (67.5%) 171 (65.3%) 60 (75%) Other 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.4%) 0 (0%) Race N (%) (n = 340) White 316 (92.9%) 242 (92.7%) 74 (93.7%) Black 18 (5.3%) 15 (5.7%) 3 (3.8%) Other 6 (1.8%) 4 (1.2%) 2 (2.6%) Years post college (n = 332) M (SD) 26.76 (15.70) 26.28 (15.79) 28.32 (15.39) Range 1 - 62 1 - 62 2 - 59 SES during college (n = 339) (1-9 scale); M(SD) 4.91 (1.85) 4.93 (1.86) 4.82 (1.84) SES now (n = 339) (1-9 scale); M(SD) 6.59 (1.33) 6.57 (1.36) 6.65 (1.19) ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 23
Table 2
Mean Current Intrinsic Motivation and Retrospective Regulation for Former Scholarship and Non-Scholarship Athletes
Outcome Variable n M (SD) t p η2
Current Enjoyment Playing Scholarship 264 3.66 (2.44) 2.53 .01 .018 No Scholarship 80 4.44 (2.24) Current Enjoyment Watching Scholarship 266 5.86 (1.48) 0.54 .59 .001 No Scholarship 80 5.95 (1.30) Current Enjoyment Otherwise Participating Scholarship 262 4.07 (2.52) 0.48 .63 .001 No Scholarship 77 3.91 (2.57)
Retrospective Intrinsic Regulation Scholarship 264 6.12 (1.40) 1.15 .25 .003 No Scholarship 81 6.28 (1.26) Retrospective Identified Regulation Scholarship 264 5.31 (1.81) 0.50 .61 <.001 No Scholarship 80 5.26 (1.78) Retrospective Introjected Regulation Scholarship 264 3.39 (2.45) 3.92 <.001 .027 No Scholarship 81 2.46 (2.08) Retrospective External Regulation Scholarship 264 4.82 (2.20) 13.59 <.001 .394 No Scholarship 80 1.13 (0.56) Relative Autonomy Index Scholarship 263 3.22 (4.42) 3.44 .001 .194 No Scholarship 80 8.01 (3.01) ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 24 ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 25
Table 3
Zero-Order (and Partial) Correlations between Retrospective Self-Regulation for Playing in
College and Current Enjoyment of Target Sport
Current Enjoyment Current Enjoyment Current Enjoyment
Playing Watching Otherwise Participating
Retrospective intrinsic
regulation for playing .13* (.16**) .13* (.17**) .15** (.19**)
Retrospective identified
regulation for playing .07 (.06) <.01 (<.01) .05 (.03)
Retrospective introjected
regulation for playing .01 (-.02) .09t (.07) -.02 (.-.03)
Retrospective external
regulation for playing -.17** (-.18**) .02 (.01) -.04 (-.04)
Composite RAI -.15** (.18**) -.01 (.01) .10t (.11t)
Note. Zero-order correlations (Partial correlations). Partial correlations control for years since college. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001, t p < .10.
Supplemental Material
Mean Current Enjoyment for Playing among Scholarship and Non-Scholarship
Athletes Adjusted for Years Since College ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 26
Scholarship Non-Scholarship Sport Adjusted Adjusted Difference Mean (SE) M (SE) Score
4.94 (0.89) 6.86 (1.69) Volleyball n = 7 n = 2 -1.92 5.14 (0.73) 6.71 (2.26) Soccer n = 9 n = 1 -1.57 4.33 (0.42) 5.67 (1.10) Baseball n = 20 n = 3 -1.34 2.47 (0.45) 3.67 (0.23) Football n = 69 n = 18 -1.20 2.54 (0.61) 3.74 (2.03) Gymnastics n = 11 n = 1 -1.20 3.81 (0.53) 4.46 (2.44) Basketball n = 1 n = 21 -0.65 2.92 (0.46) 3.08 (0.86) Wrestling n = 17 n = 5 -0.16 6.64 (0.20) 6.64 (0.33) Golf n = 10 n = 4 0.00 3.96 (0.39) 3.52 (0.62) Track & Field n = 30 n = 12 +0.44 5.12 (1.07) 4.40 (0.66) Tennis n = 5 n = 12 +0.72 3.46 (1.05) 2.65 (1.86) Softball n = 8 n = 3 +0.81 5.18 (0.37) 3.94 (0.82) Swimming n = 31 n = 7 +1.24 5.49 (1.04) 3.28 (0.82) Cross Country n = 8 n = 5 +2.21
3.66 (0.26) 4.53 (0.14) All Sports n = 247 n = 76 -0.87
Note. Only the 13 sports represented by ≥10 participants are listed individually.
Supplemental Material
Mean Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) & Current Intrinsic Motivation for each Sport ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS & LONG-TERM UNDERMINING 27
Current Current enjoyment Current enjoyment enjoyment otherwise RAI playing watching participating Sport N M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) 7.22 4.69 5.69 3.65 Tennis 18 (4.28) (2.17) (1.31) (2.49) Cross 7.15 3.89 5.11 3.22 13 Country (3.89) (2.29) (2.02) (2.51) Track & 6.47 3.39 5.97 4.27 43 Field (4.38) (2.32) (1.38) (2.58) 6.24 3.24 5.0 2.94 Softball 11 (2.58) (2.58) (1.79) (2.39) 4.82 5.36 5.30 5.09 Soccer 11 (4.12) (3.81) (1.49) (2.12) 4.53 6.67 6.11 6.53 Golf 15 (3.87) (0.59) (0.87) (0.92) 4.46 4.36 6.21 5.06 Baseball 24 (3.18) (2.42) (1.40) (2.35) 4.43 2.91 5.91 4.16 Wrestling 23 (4.27) (2.09) (1.50) (2.72) 3.64 4.88 5.63 4.14 Swimming 42 (4.44) (2.12) (1.63) (2.37) 3.13 2.80 6.29 3.49 Football 96 (4.57) (2.33) (1.18) (2.65) 3.00 5.03 5.43 4.00 Volleyball 10 (5.83) (2.38) (1.49) (2.67) 2.72 2.64 6.33 3.44 Gymnastics 11 (5.41) (2.12) (0.68) (2.32) 2.14 3.94 5.57 4.03 Basketball 22 (5.23) (2.33) (1.36) (2.27)