Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport

Peer motivational climate in youth sport: a qualitative inquiry

Spiridoula Vazou*, Nikos Ntoumanis, Joan L. Duda
School of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Received 12 September 2003; received in revised form 20 February 2004; accepted 26 March 2004
Available online 27 September 2004

Abstract
Objectives: Little is known about the influence and nature of the motivational climate initiated by peer groups
on children’s sport behavior and experiences. To address this research need, in-depth interviews were employed in
order to identify the factors that underpin the motivational climate created by peers in youth sport.
Methods: Individually and in small focus groups, 14 boys and 16 girls (NZ30), aged between 12 and 16 years
old from both individual and team sports, were interviewed regarding peer-induced characteristics of their
motivational climates.
Results: Using content analyses, the following 11 dimensions of peer climate emerged: cooperation, effort,
improvement, mistakes, intra-team competition, intra-team conflict, equal treatment, normative ability, autonomy
support, evaluation of competence and relatedness support.
Conclusions: Some of the resulting dimensions are similar to the factors included in existing instruments
assessing adult (i.e. PE teacher or coach-created) motivational climates. However, some facets of the climate
unique to peer groups were also identified in this study. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed
and suggestions for future research on the peer motivational climate are provided.
q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Content analysis; Peers; Motivational climate; Psychological needs

The social context that youth sport athletes participate in is shaped by both adults and their similarly
aged teammates. However, research on youth sport motivation has mainly focused on the influence of
adults (e.g. parents, coach and physical education (PE) teacher), while peer influence has not received
much attention. This is unfortunate since both adults and peers can influence the motivation of young
athletes (Carr, Weigand, & Jones, 2000; Weigand, Carr, Petherick, & Taylor, 2001). Many researchers

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C44 7816 363952; fax: C44 121 4144121.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Vazou).
1469-0292/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.03.005
498 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

in the past have identified the lack of empirical evidence on peer relationships in physical activity
contexts, however, some research attention has been given during the last decade (Brustad, Babkes, &
Smith, 2001; Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999; Smith, 2003).
Smith (2003) emphasized that peer relationships can contribute to quality physical activity
experiences (and vice versa) and that the physical domain is an ideal context for fostering a deeper
understanding of these relationships. Issues such as the development of social competence (and its link
to perceived athletic competence), peer acceptance and friendship quality are some of the topics that
have attracted research interest in youth sport psychology literature (Brustad, 1996; Smith, 2003). The
findings of this line of research have shown that children’s perceived and actual competence in sport is
strongly related to being successful in peer relations and perceiving acceptance by the peer group (Weiss
& Duncan, 1992). Moreover, children and adolescents who believe that they are regarded as competent
by their peers have been found to exhibit higher performance-related positive affect (Duncan, 1993).
Sport competence is also related to higher peer status (i.e. order of selection and positions in the game;
Evans & Roberts, 1987). Moreover, peers as a source of competence information, have emerged as being
particularly influential during early adolescence (Horn & Amorose, 1998). Furthermore, greater
friendship perceptions have been found to predict choice of tasks and physical activity levels for male
and female adolescents (Smith, 1999). This brief overview of the literature shows that there are some
studies on peer influence in youth sport, however, there are no studies to date which have examined how
peer interactions affect children’s achievement motivation in sport. We believe, that peers can exert
significant influence on children’s motivation and the purpose of this study is to examine some of the
ways in which this influence is exerted.
One of the main theoretical frameworks that have been used to study motivation and behavior in
youth sport is achievement goal theory. According to this social-cognitive framework, (Ames, 1992;
Duda & Hall, 2001; Nicholls, 1989), the major focus in achievement settings is the demonstration of
competence and the avoidance of showing incompetence. Individuals can evaluate their competence in
two different ways, which will manifest in the adoption of two different achievement goal orientations.
The first goal orientation, namely task orientation, is evident when perceptions of competence are self-
referenced and based upon personal improvement and exerting maximum effort. The second goal
orientation, namely ego orientation, is evident when competence is normatively referenced and inferred
by demonstrating superior ability and outperforming others (Nicholls, 1989). A plethora of research
studies has demonstrated that high task orientation, compared to high ego orientation, is related to more
positive outcomes in youth sport (for a review, see Duda and Hall (2001)).
In addition to dispositional achievement goals, situational factors such as the motivational climate
created by significant others can play a substantial role in the activation and direction of children’s
achievement behavior (Ames, 1992). The term motivational climate refers to perceptions of situational
motivational cues and expectations that encourage a particular goal orientation, and at a given point in
time, induce a certain goal involvement state. Variations in achievement behavior can be explained by
the interplay of individuals’ achievement goals and the motivational climate created by significant others
(Ames, 1992).
Ames (1992) distinguished between an ego-involving (performance) motivational climate that fosters
social comparison and emphasizes normative ability, and a task-involving (mastery) motivational
climate, that encourages effort and rewards task mastery and individual improvement. Empirical
research (Newton, Duda, & Yin, 2000; Ommunsdsen, Roberts, & Kavussanu, 1998; Treasure, 1997), as
well as a small-scale meta-analysis (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999), have supported the theoretical
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 499

proposition that a task-involving climate is associated with more adaptive cognitive, affective and
behavioral patterns than an ego-involving climate. In a task-involving motivational climate, the athletes
perceive that the coach emphasizes personal skill improvement, he/she regards errors are part of
learning, and athletes derive satisfaction from personal progress. In contrast, in an ego-involving
motivational climate, because feelings of satisfaction depend on how one compares with others, there is
emphasis on the demonstration of normative ability and competition with teammates. Such emphasis can
create feelings of anxiety, dysfunctional attributions, reduced effort and other maladaptive achievement
strategies and beliefs (Ames & Archer, 1988).
Ames (1992), based on the work of Epstein (1989), proposed that task and ego motivational climates
consist of certain motivational structures. These structures, which create the TARGET acronym, are:
task (design of learning activities), authority (locus of decision-making), recognition (criteria for
rewards), grouping (homogeneous vs. heterogeneous ability), evaluation (criteria for success/failure)
and timing (pace of instruction). In a task-involving climate, activities that make learning interesting and
involve variety and personal challenge are promoted (task), athletes are involved in the decision making
and have a choice of tasks (authority), rewards are perceived as informative and recognition is provided
based on personal improvement and progress (recognition), opportunities for cooperative group learning
and peer interactions are provided (grouping), evaluation is based on personal improvement and task
mastery (evaluation), and the time allocated for completing learning activities is adjusted to meet the
athletes’ needs (time). These structures have been shown to be pertinent to the motivational climate
created by coaches and PE teachers (Solmon, 1996; Theeboom, DeKnop, & Weiss, 1995).
Research has developed instruments to measure the motivational climates created by PE teachers
(Biddle et al., 1995; Papaioannou, 1994), coaches (Newton et al., 2000), parents (White, 1998), as well
as sport heroes (Carr & Weigand, 2001). However, the influence of peers in transmitting task-involving
vs. ego-involving climate cues has not been assessed yet in the sport psychology literature (Ntoumanis &
Biddle, 1999).
Peers become very influential in early adolescence (Brustad et al., 2001) and, therefore, they are likely
to have a significant influence on children’s motivation. Moreover, according to Treasure and Roberts
(1994), motivational climates can override dispositional goals when the latter have not been firmly
established, such as during late childhood and early adolescence. There is no empirical evidence yet to
support these claims. However, there is literature to suggest that peer groups exert significant influence
in youth sport and become progressively more important as children grow older. For example, in terms
of judging physical competence, younger children (under 10 years old) show preference for adult
feedback to judge their competence, while in late childhood and early adolescence, the central source of
competence information is peer comparison and feedback (Horn & Weiss, 1991; Weigand et al., 2001).
Another motivational theory that could give valuable insights into how peer interactions influence
children’s motivation in sport is Deci and Ryan’s (2000) self-determination theory (SDT). SDT
postulates that there are three basic human needs (i.e. competence, relatedness and autonomy), the
satisfaction of which promotes self-determined behavior and well being. The need for autonomy refers
to individuals’ desire to determine their own behavior. The need for competence was described as
individuals’ striving to feel efficacious and achieve desired outcomes. Lastly, the need for relatedness
refers to individuals’ efforts to be accepted by and attached to others within a social context.
According to Ntoumanis and Biddle (1999), a task-involving climate can satisfy these three needs. This
is because a task-involving climate provides choice of tasks and allows athlete input in decision making
(see the authority dimension of TARGET; Ames, 1992) thus nurturing the need for autonomy
500 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

(Sarrazin, Guillet, & Cury, 2001). In contrast, in an ego-involving climate student choice is very limited
or non-existent. Moreover, a task-involving climate is also associated with higher perceptions of
competence and success (Sarrazin et al. (2001), which is another basic human need according to SDT).
This is because it encourages individuals to use self-referenced criteria (i.e. individual effort and
improvement) to judge their competence (see the recognition and evaluation dimensions of TARGET;
Ames, 1992). These criteria are more controllable and, therefore, more easily attained compared to the
normative criteria encouraged by an ego-involving climate. With regard to relatedness, the third basic
need advanced by SDT, it is logical to assume that the constant inter-individual comparison promoted by
an ego-involving climate (Newton et al., 2000) is unlikely to strengthen social links among athletes. In
contrast, a task-involving climate downplays normative comparisons and promotes co-operation among
athletes (see the grouping dimension of TARGET; Ames, 1992), and, therefore, it should promote
relatedness. A study conducted by Sarrazin and co-workers (2001) supported the hypothesized links
between motivational climates and the three needs. In their investigation, competence, autonomy and
relatedness were positively predicted by a perceived task-involving coach climate, whereas perceived
ego-involving coach climate was negatively linked to the satisfaction of these needs.
Given the lack of information in the sport psychology literature on the motivation-related aspects of peer
interactions, the purpose of this study was to use in-depth interviews and identify the structure and
dimensions of peer induced motivational climate in youth sport. In this investigation, we tried to tap the
broader perceived motivational climate that includes aspects of social affiliation and perceived autonomy
as well as issues of achievement and competence. Environmental dimensions relevant to both achievement
goal theory (e.g. emphasis on individual effort, intra-team comparison) and SDT (i.e. support for
competence, autonomy and relatedness needs) were hypothesized to emerge from this qualitative
investigation as identifiable facets of the peer motivational climate. Moreover, some of the TARGET
structures (Ames, 1992; Epstein, 1989) were also hypothesized to be pertinent to induced motivational
climate namely, authority, recognition, evaluation and grouping. That is because peers can choose who to
play with, praise and recognize and the criteria for recognition and evaluation. The task and time TARGET
dimensions were not expected to emerge from the interviews because the structure of tasks and the time
allocation for skill practice are usually determined by the coach. However, it should be stressed that while
we hypothesized certain themes to emerge based on existing theoretical and empirical work on the
perceived motivational climate, our study was also exploratory in nature and, attempted to identify new
dimensions. Moreover, in any study (including qualitative ones), specific research questions and a very
good search of the literature are necessary in order the investigator to know what he wants to find out, to
maintain control of the interview, and to enhance the quality of the responses (Patton, 2002, p. 375). In other
words, our theoretical framework was useful in order to hypothesize, analyze and code some of the themes
(Kvale, 1996), but it did not bias the interviews by formulating leading questions (see Interview schedule
and data analysis below). As a consequence, new themes emerged that we did not hypothesize for.

Method

Participants

The sample (NZ30) consisted of 16 females and 14 males from West Midlands, with ages ranging
from 12 to 16 years (MZ14.13, SDZ1.38). Children above the age of 12 were selected, because most
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 501

children at this developmental stage should be able to distinguish between effort and ability and, thus, are
capable of differentiating between ego- and task-involving achievement criteria (Nicholls, 1989). The
participants were British, predominantly Caucasians (77%), and were recruited from different school,
club and county teams. The participants were involved in both individual (nZ9) and team sports
(nZ21). These sports were basketball (nZ6), hockey (nZ5), rugby (nZ4), judo (nZ4), football
(nZ3), netball (nZ3), swimming (nZ3), and track and field (nZ2). Sport participation history ranged
from 1 to 11 years (MZ4.13, SDZ2.31) and participation level ranged from school teams to county
teams. When sampling, we made an effort to ensure variability in sport experience as well as
participation levels within and across sports. Furthermore, the coaches helped the researchers to target
athletes with different ability level and social status, in order to avoid interviewing the most competent or
popular ones. Prior to the main study, a pilot study was conducted that included 2 females and 2 males
ranging in age from 14 to 16 years (MZ15, SDZ0.82). These athletes were involved in basketball,
rugby, hockey and judo and had a mean sport participation of 4 years.

Interview schedule

The most widely used framework for qualitative inquiry in sport and exercise psychology research is
the employment of the interview method followed by content analysis (Côte, Salmela, Baria, & Russell,
1993). An interview format with open-ended questions was selected as the most appropriate means of
obtaining rich and diverse information regarding the motivational climate created by peers in youth
sport. The content and the design of the interview schedule were devised based on relevant literature
from the developmental and sport psychology literature, methodological sources on qualitative
interviewing (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Kvale, 1996; Mason, 1996; Patton, 2002), and information
gained from the pilot study.
A standardized format was used for the interview schedule. Each participant was asked the same
questions in the same way, except from the follow-up probes that were utilized in order to elaborate and
clarify some responses. However, the sequence of the questions varied according to the flow of the
conversation. Thus, while the interview was structured and standardized, there was flexibility in relating
the interview to the participants and the way they presented their experiences. This allowed greater depth
of information as well as the building of rapport.
The interview guide consisted of three parts. The first part included general information about the
scope of the study, written definitions of motivation and of task- and ego-goals, as well as questions
regarding participants’ background and sport history (age, sport, years of participation and competitive
level). Motivation was described as the why of doing things and the personal meaning of success and
failure. Task and ego goals were described using the following statement: ‘In sport, we have two
different situations which all athletes experience very often. The first is when the athletes feel competent
because they give maximum effort for both easy and difficult tasks, they try to improve their weaknesses
and don’t worry about how good they are compared to others. In the second situation, athletes feel
competent only when doing better than others and they are very aware of how good or bad they are
compares to others’. Those definitions were provided to the participants in a written form in order to be
revisited at any time during the interview. The definitions of the achievement goal states were provided
as an impetus to eliciting details from the interviewees regarding how and when their teammates put
them (or other members in the team) in each of the aforementioned situations. When the interviewees
agreed that they understood these definitions, the second part of the interview commenced.
502 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

In the second major part of the interview, 16 open-ended questions were asked regarding the influence
of peers on the interviewees’ motivation and vice versa. Some example questions from the interview
guide are: (1) ‘Can you describe the atmosphere within your team, in training and in competitions
(what do you and your teammates do and say)?’ (2) ‘Can you tell me when (and how) your teammates
make you or any other member in the team be in situation 1 (or 2)?’ (3) ‘When you make mistakes, what
do your teammates do or say to you?’ (4) ‘Do you think that your teammates’ behavior influences how
you play or how good you think you are?’1 For each question, follow-up, detail-oriented (i.e. when,
what, how and why questions), elaboration (i.e. ‘could you say some more about that?’) and clarification
(i.e. ‘what do you mean by that?’) probes were used. Lastly, the third part of the interview allowed the
participants the opportunity to make additional comments and clarifications about the content of the
interview.

Interview procedure

The study had the approval of the Ethics Subcommittee of a British university. All the interviews
were conducted by the first author. A pilot study was first conducted to determine the clarity of the
interview questions, the total interview time, and to obtain feedback from the young athletes that
could improve the interview schedule. A few changes in the interview schedule were made following
the pilot work. For the main study, a first visit was arranged, after prior agreement with the coach, in
order to inform the athletes about the nature and purposes of the present investigation. In the same
visit, the coach consent form was obtained and the athletes who accepted to participate in the study
received parental and child informed consent forms. Twenty four individual and two group
(in groups of three) interviews were employed and each interview lasted between 30 and 60 min. The
group interviews were conducted in order to try to elicit more in-depth answers regarding peer
influence in sport as well as responses that might not have been revealed in the individual interviews
by using the dynamics and interactions of the group. However, it should be noted that no differences
in the responses from the individual and group interviews emerged and therefore no more group
interviews were conducted.
The interviews with the athletes were held in a second visit in a private room without distractions. In
the interview room, only the interviewer and the interviewee(s) were present. A portable micro-cassette
dictator with a built-in microphone and a notebook were used for the interviews. All interviews were
audiotaped and the participants were informed that the tapes would be destroyed at the end of the study.
Moreover, participants were reminded that their responses were confidential and that they could
terminate the interview at any time. At the end of the interview, the participants were asked to evaluate
their interview experience. All interviewees found the experience very positive and felt appreciative of
the opportunity to discuss in depth the relationship with their teammates.
The interviews were transcribed verbatim by the interviewer. Some (nZ8) of the interview transcripts
were randomly picked and returned to the participants in order to check the content and the quality of the
transcripts. No changes were recommended by the interviewees.

1
The interview guide is available from the first author upon request.
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 503

Data analysis

Content analysis was used to analyze the interview transcripts. Content analysis is a procedure that
organizes transcribed material by coding large amounts of interview data into blocks that represent a
common theme (Côte et al., 1993). There are two ways of conducting content analysis: inductively and
deductively. With inductive analysis, new themes and categories emerge from the interviewee quotes,
while deductive analysis uses a pre-existing set of categories (usually based on existing theory and
research) to organize the quotes (Patton, 2002). In this project, both deductive and inductive content
analyses were used. That is, the analysis started deductively by coding quotes based on the theoretical
framework we outlined in the introduction and continued inductively by combining the remaining
quotes, as well as some of the quotes that had been previously grouped deductively, into new themes and
dimensions. The combination of inductive and deductive content analyses is advanced by qualitative
methodologists (Patton, 2002), as well as by researchers (Meyer & Wenger, 1998), as the most
pragmatic way of conducting content analysis since no researcher formulates a study without some
initial hypotheses stemming from previous research and relevant theory. In the literature, content
analysis has also been labeled as cross-case analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In the present paper, the
term content analysis is used since it has typically been employed in previous qualitative investigations
in sport psychology (Meyer & Wenger, 1998; Scanlan, Ravizza, & Stein, 1989; Weiss, Smith, &
Theeboom, 1996).
Coding process. Firstly, the authors read the 217 single-spaced pages of the transcribed interviews until
they became very familiar with the transcripts. Then, a random sample of six transcripts was selected and
the first two authors independently identified raw data themes that described peer interactions and their
influence on teammates’ motivation and behavior. Raw data themes with similar meaning were combined
into groups. These groups were named lower order themes and represented the basic unit of analysis. Then,
the lower order themes with similar meaning were combined into higher order themes. Finally, the latter
were categorized into dimensions, which represent the highest level of abstraction since no further
meaningful grouping could be formed. Then, the investigators came together and extensively compared
and discussed their analyses until agreement was reached. The content analysis of the remaining
24 interviews was conducted by the first author only. Individual and group interviews were analyzed in the
same manner since no differences on the content of the individual and group interviews emerged. That is,
the responses given by each individual in the group interviews were coded as unique quotes.
After the analysis of the remaining 24 transcripts was completed, it was independently checked by the
second and third authors who provided feedback. The three authors came together again to discuss the
findings. As a result of this meeting, further changes were made until consensus was reached. In a further
step, another researcher who was not aware of the results of the content analysis was asked to cross-
validate the coding process. Specifically, the higher order themes and their respective dimensions were
randomly given to this researcher who was asked to group them together. Her grouping was 86% in
agreement with our coding process. This percentage is high and similar to the percentages of inter-rater
reliability reported in the literature (e.g. 81% in Weiss et al. (1996)). The analysis terminated with the
tabulation of frequencies tables for the higher order themes and dimensions of the total sample. The
frequencies were also broken down by gender, age and type of sport.2 The frequencies were calculated in

2
The frequencies tables for the different subgroups are available from the first author upon request.
504 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

order to determine in this exploratory research the distribution of themes across the participants.
Frequencies tables, along with quotation examples from the interviewees, are the most appropriate and
most common way of presentation of interview data in sport psychology literature (Culver, Gilbert, &
Trudel, 2003).

Results and discussion

The content analyses of the interview responses regarding the motivational climate created by peers in
youth sport yielded 11 dimensions, 27 higher order themes and 113 lower order themes. Table 1 shows
the general categories (i.e. dimensions) and their specific themes (i.e. higher order and lower order
themes), as well as contains the number of participants and the associated percentage in each higher
order theme and dimension. As the percentages indicate, the dimensions of peer motivational climate
were strongly represented across the total sample (percentages range from 43 to 100%), with most
dimensions having a representation rate greater than 70%. The dimensions that emerged from the
interviews were labelled: improvement, equal treatment, relatedness support, mistakes, cooperation,
effort, intra-team competition, normative ability, autonomy support, evaluation of competence and intra-
team conflict.

Dimensions of peer motivational climate

Improvement. The dimension of improvement, reflected in the responses of all the interviewees
(100% of the total sample), is defined as encouraging and providing feedback to teammates to improve.
The higher order themes from which this dimension emerged are: (a) encourage and praise to improve,
and (b) provide feedback. As a 15-year-old boy (rugby) mentioned:
Well, a couple of them, the captain and the people that like give the talks at half time, they say that
“you should usually just think about yourself, cause you have got to concentrate on how good you
are doing not on how other people are doing”.when sometimes we have training for county there
is a few people that run and they like tell you to worry about how to improve yourself.don’t
concentrate on them [others], concentrate on yourself and see how you improve your game.
As can be seen in Table 1, the dimension of cooperation also included items that emphasized
improvement. However, in the case of cooperation the improvement quotes refer to helping teammates
to improve their own weaknesses through teamwork, while the improvement dimension refers to
whether athletes encourage their teammates to concentrate on improving their own performance and not
on the performance of others. Nevertheless, both dimensions are important facets of a task-involving
motivational climate and have been tapped by existing motivational climate measurements (Newton
et al., 2000). According to Ames and Archer (1988), a focus on self-referent improvement leads to more
adaptive beliefs about the causes of success and sustains individual involvement in learning even when
perceived ability is low.
Equal treatment. The equal treatment dimension illustrates a task-involving motivational climate as
everyone has an important role in the team and all athletes treat their teammates in a non-preferential
way. This dimension was indicated by the responses of most of the interviewees (97% of the total
sample). The higher order themes included in this dimension were (a) make everyone feel important,
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 505

Table 1
Content analysis of the dimensions of peer motivational climate
Dimension n %
Higher order themes
Lower order themes
Improvement 30 100
a. Encourage and praise to improve 26 87
1. Encourage their teammates to improve on their weaknesses
2. Encourage their teammates to concentrate on their personal
performance and not on others
3. Encourage their teammates to perform well/to do better
4. Praise their teammates when they improve
b. Provide feedback 21 70
1. Advise their teammates on how to improve
2. Get feedback from their teammates on how they play
3. Advise their teammates what to do
Equal treatment 29 97
a. Make everyone feel important 21 72
1. Feel that everyone is important
2. Make their teammates feel valued
3. Care about everyone’s opinion
b. Treat all teammates equally 28 97
1. Find positive things to say to everyone
2. Talk to each other
care everyone
4. Get everyone involved in the game
Relatedness support 29 97
a. Relate with the teammates 23 79
1. Support their teammates/look out for each other
2. Understand/care about their teammates
3. Have faith in their teammates
4. Are honest to each other
5. Trust their teammates
6. Depend on each other
7. Do not push hard on the weaker teammates
b. Have a sense of unity 15 52
1. Feel as a part of a unit/of a whole
2. Are pleased when all their teammates play as a unit
3. Are pleased/feel successful when the team plays well
4. Are pleased when they contribute to the success of the team
c. Create a friendly atmosphere in the team 23 79
1. Have fun with their teammates
2. Feel comfortable with their teammates
3. Feel relaxed when they play
4. Choose to be in an environment where all teammates get on
well
5. Get on well with all their teammates
6. Do not distinguish between friends and teammates
(continued on next page)
506 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

Table 1 (continued)

Mistakes 29 97
a. Encourage after making mistakes 21 72
1. Encourage their teammates to keep trying after making
mistakes
2. Tell their teammates how to improve after making mistakes
3. Tell their teammates not to worry about making mistakes
4. Joke about it/play it down when their teammates make
mistakes
b. Worry about teammates’ reactions when making mistakes 18 62
1. Worry about what their teammates may think or say after
making mistakes
2. Worry about letting the team down when making mistakes
3. Worry that their teammates may think that they are making
mistakes when playing
4. Worry that their teammates won’t accept them when making
mistakes
c. Respond negatively to the teammates who make mistakes 18 62
1. Criticize/complain when their teammates make mistakes
2. Put their heads down/are not happy when their teammates
make mistakes
3. Laugh at their teammates who make mistakes
Cooperation 27 90
a. Help others/help each other learn 21 78
1. Help each other improve
2. Pleased to help their teammates
3. Teach their teammates new things
4. Give chances to their teammates to be involved in the game
5. Help their teammates improve
b. Work together 22 82
1. Work-play together as a team/there is team effort
2. Work together as a team to improve their weaknesses
3. Concentrate on everyone’s (team’s) strengths
4. Choose to be with teammates who work well together
Effort 26 87
a. Emphasize exerting effort 16 62
1. Emphasize effort
2. Set an example on putting effort
3. Are pleased when their teammates put effort
4. Are dissatisfied when their teammates do not try hard
5. Praise their teammates when they put effort
b. Encourage to put forth maximum effort 18 69
1. Encourage teammates to ‘keep trying’, not to give up
2. Encourage teammates to put forth more effort/give maximum
effort
c. Get along with teammates who try hard and are dedicated 15 58
1. Choose to be in a team with people who are dedicated/who
want to be there
(continued on next page)
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 507

Table 1 (continued)

2. Choose to be in a team with people who put effort in/who try

hard
care those who are committed to training
Intra-team competition 26 87
a. Strive to outperform teammates 15 58
1. Try to do better than their teammates
2. Are pleased when they do better than their teammates
3. Encourage each other to outplay their teammates
b. Compare to others 22 85
1. Compare to each other
2. Compare to better athletes
3. Compare to the new athletes
4. Tell their teammates that they are better than others
5. Tell their teammates that they are not as good as others
Normative ability 25 83
a. Emphasize normative ability 16 64
1. Try to show off their skills
2. Play on their own/do not get others involved in the game
3. Tease the less competent teammates
4. Choose to be with people with similar levels of ability
b. Prefer the most competent teammates 23 92
1. Look up to the most competent teammates to learn
2. Rely on the most competent teammates
3. Listen to/care about the opinion of the most competent
teammates
4. Pay attention to the most competent teammates
5. Praise the most competent teammates
6. Play the most competent teammates more
7. The most competent athletes get more respect
8. Choose to be with the most competent teammates
c. Most competent players play a more central role 11 44
1. Tell their opinion more often
2. Do not involve that much the weaker players
3. Are picked up first by the captain
4. Do not listen to the other athletes
5. Abuse their power over the younger ones
6. Only better players decide what to do
d. Emphasize/care about winning 12 48
1. Complain when the team doesn’t win
2. Do not want to play when they think the team will lose
3. Care about/focus on winning
Autonomy support 25 83
a. Nurture autonomy 11 44
1. Feel free to express their opinion to their teammates
2. Feel free to play as they want
b. Have controlling behaviors/expectations 18 72
1. Feel that they should play according to how their teammates
want them to play
(continued on next page)
508 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

Table 1 (continued)

2. Play in a way that they can please their teammates

3. Expect from their teammates to do specific things
4. Put pressure on their teammates to do specific things
5. Expect from their teammates to behave according to their role
in the team
6. Expect their teammates to do better/attain a higher standard
of performance
7. Put pressure on their teammates to do better
Evaluation of competence 21 70
a. Evaluate based on improvement and mastery 14 67
1. Evaluate their teammates based on individual effort
2. Evaluate their teammates based on individual improvement
3. Think that good athletes are those who are committed to
training
4. Evaluate their teammates based on their overall performance,
identifying both strengths and weaknesses
5. Think those teammates are good who perform a task
successfully
b. Evaluate based on normative criteria 3 14
1. Evaluate their teammates’ performance by comparing them
with others
c. Evaluate based on positive peer interaction 9 43
1. Think they are good when their teammates encourage/
support them
2. Think they are good when they cooperate with their
teammates
3. Think that they are good because they are accepted by their
teammates
Intra-team conflict 13 43
a. Display unsupportive behaviors 13 100
1. Blame each other for poor performance
2. Make negative comments that put their teammates down
3. Emphasize teammates’ weaknesses
4. Misinterpret their teammates willingness to help them
5. Do not care about their teammates
Note. NZ30. The values listed next to the dimensions represent the number of participants (n) and the percentage (%) of the
total sample, while the values listed next to the higher order themes represent the number of participants (n) and the percentage
(%) of the particular dimension.

and (b) treat all teammates equally. An example of a quote that exemplifies this dimension is the
following: ‘They all listen to what you say and everybody listens to everybody else and respects what
they say’ (13-year-old girl, swimming). The first higher order theme is similar to the factor ‘important
role’ measured by the Perceived Motivational Climate in Sport Questionnaire-2 (PMCSQ-2; Newton
et al., 2000), with the difference being that in the present study, the significant others who make everyone
feel important are the peers rather than the coach. When athletes get everyone involved in the team
decision-making a task-involving motivational climate is perceived and feelings of self-determination
are fostered (Ames, 1992).
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 509

Relatedness support. The relatedness support dimension is defined as the fostering and facilitation of
the feeling of belonging and being part of a group as well as the creation of a friendly atmosphere in the
team. This dimension was indicated by the responses of 97% of the sample and as such, it seems to
comprise a very strong factor in peer relations and interactions. The three higher order themes that are
included in relatedness support are: (a) relate with their teammates, (b) have a sense of unity, and (c)
create a friendly atmosphere in the team. The first higher order theme referred to providing moral
support, caring about, having faith and trusting teammates. For example, a 15-year-old female basketball
player said: “If you don’t do as well, they will support you, they will tell you not to worry if you don’t do
as well as the rest of the teammates, because you can get better at it”. A sense of unity, the second higher
order theme, was evident when the children suggested that their teammates make them feel more like a
part of a team and less like an individual.
The third higher order theme refers to the existence of a friendly atmosphere in the team which can
have a positive influence on athletes’ motivational experiences. Those consequences can be clearly seen
in the comments of some young athletes: “They make you really good friends so you don’t compare
yourself to them and how good they are” (13-year-old girl, hockey), and, “Because we all get on so well
we work together, we say things a lot easier to each other” (16-year-old girl, hockey).
Relatedness is one of the three basic human needs, along with competence and autonomy, which have
been advanced by SDT. Relatedness refers to the feeling of being connected to others within a social
milieu, the feeling of belonging to a group and the desire to be accepted by others (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Vallerand, 2001). The analysis of the interview data clearly shows that supporting this need is an
important factor of a task peer climate. Based on the work by Ntoumanis and Biddle (1999) and Sarrazin
et al. (2001), it could be argued that a perceived task-involving motivational climate can support the
need for relatedness. Moreover, based on the interview data, a number of consequences of feeling
accepted or not (part of feeling related) by their teammates were discussed by the young athletes. The
interviewees indicated that peer acceptance resulted in feelings of being a valued member of the team,
the downplaying of inter-individual comparison, increased effort, feelings of friendship, and less
frequent performance worries. On the other hand, a perceived lack of peer acceptance resulted in the
exertion or withdrawing of effort, an emphasis on normative ability, and perceptions of inferior
competence compared to teammates. These findings suggest that peer acceptance can influence the
motivation and self-perceptions of children in the sport context.
Mistakes. The mistakes dimension refers to worries about how teammates might react if athletes make
mistakes, as well as to actual positive and negative reactions from teammates when athletes make
mistakes. Responses reflecting this dimension were given by almost all (97%) of the young athletes. The
higher order themes underpinning this dimension were: (a) encourage teammates after making mistakes,
(b) worry about teammates’ reactions when making mistakes, and (c) respond negatively to teammates
who make mistakes. The following quotation of a 16-year-old girl (hockey) exemplifies the first higher
order theme:
If you have made a mistake and they say “oh, don’t worry about that, you know, carry on, you are
doing fine” that really helps a lot.and also, if they are encouraging you [after making mistakes],
you don’t notice what everyone else is doing and.you are not put down if others are better than
you, you don’t compare yourself because everyone else is saying keep going you are doing well.
Both positive and negative responses to mistakes were described; behaviors that could potentially
create either a task-involving or an ego-involving motivational climate. More specifically, when
510 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

mistakes are viewed as part of the learning process and encouragement is provided by teammates, a task-
involving peer motivational climate would be expected to be in operation. In contrast, when peers
criticize their fellow athletes, make them worry about their mistakes, and evaluate their ability based on
the mistakes they make, a peer ego-involving climate should be perceived. In such a climate, athletes’
perceptions of ability would be expected to be more fragile (Ames, 1992; Newton et al., 2000). Worries
about mistakes are assessed by existing motivational climate measures (Goudas & Biddle, 1994;
Papaioannou, 1994; White, 1996) but, in this case, worries about mistakes reflect athletes’ perceptions of
and affective responses to error-related interactions with peers.
Cooperation. The cooperation dimension is defined here as helping each other and working together
in order to learn new skills. Responses reflecting this dimension were given by 90% of the total sample.
The higher order themes underpinning this dimension were: (a) help others/help each other learn, and
(b) work together. Some example quotes are: ‘We tell each other how to do the throws right and how to
do the hold downs properly’ (12-year-old girl, judo), and ‘When people feel weak the team normally gets
behind them and encourages them and.especially works with them or are close to them to help them
improve’ (14-year-old boy, rugby). This dimension suggests that athletes need and use the help of their
teammates in order to learn new skills and improve. In past research, beliefs that success stems from
cooperation and teamwork have been linked to task orientation (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). The promotion
of athlete cooperation by significant others (e.g. coaches, PE teachers) is measured by existing
motivational climate instruments (Newton et al., 2000; Papaioannou, 1994) as one of the facets of a task-
involving motivational climate. However, the cooperation dimension that is described here taps whether
the athletes themselves are keen to promote cooperation and help each other learn new skills. The
emphasis by adults on cooperation and group learning has been shown to be motivationally beneficial
and to create a task-involving climate that sustains children’s involvement in learning (Ames, 1992;
Ames & Archer, 1988). It would be interesting to examine whether athletes’ emphasis on cooperation in
their interaction with peers also results in similar motivationally adaptive outcomes.
Effort. The effort dimension measures whether athletes emphasize to their teammates the importance
of exerting effort and trying their hardest. Effort was indicated in the responses of 87% of the sample.
Higher order themes under this dimension were: (a) emphasize exerting effort, (b) encourage teammates
to put forth more effort/maximum effort, and (c) get along with teammates who try hard and are
dedicated to the trainings. It is interesting to note that when the interviewees were asked to indicate when
their teammates make them be in situation 1 (i.e. a task-involving psychological state), the responses that
emerged primarily revolved around the effort dimension. The following quote from a 14-year-old boy
who played rugby is one example of this dimension:
People say.no matter what game we are playing, we should always put maximum effort in it, and
I feel if someone isn’t putting effort in, the team [should] get behind [him/her] and they [should]
encourage [him/her].you will say after the training session “well done, you have played really
well, it’s good to see putting all the effort”.
Emphasis on exerting maximum effort is an important facet of a task-involving motivational climate
created by the teacher and the coach (Ames & Archer, 1988; Newton et al., 2000), and as evident here,
seems also an integral aspect of peer motivational climate. When children perceive an emphasis on effort
in the classroom, they display more adaptive motivation, they prefer tasks that are challenging and use
effort attributions to explain success and failure (Ames & Archer, 1988). Similarly, research in youth
sport (Theeboom et al., 1995) has provided additional support for the adaptive motivational responses of
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 511

children in a task-involving climate. In the investigation of Theeboom and co-workers (1995), children
who were in a task-involving group that emphasized effort, experienced more satisfaction with the sport
activities and exhibited better motor skills than those in the ego-involving group.
Intra-team competition. The intra-team competition dimension, which reflects an ego-involving
motivational climate, was composed of two higher order themes: (a) strive to outperform teammates, and
(b) compare with others. The dimension of intra-team competition was cited by 87% of the total sample.
An example of the first higher order theme is presented in the following quote of a 15-year-old boy
(rugby): “If like someone is putting me down about something then someone else might say ‘oh, if you
want to get back to him just do better than him”. The second higher order theme included themes that
referred to inter-individual comparison. The following quotation from a 15-year-old boy (judo)
represented this higher order theme: “We won’t really say they are not good, we will just say they are not
like as good as someone else”.
Intra-team competition is assumed to promote an ego-involving motivational climate (Ames, 1992)
and has been studied from a PE teacher and coach, but not peer, perspective. The promotion of inter-
individual competition and comparison by the peer group will affect athletes’ judgments and concerns
about their ability and the ability of others. Inevitably, some athletes in the group will perceive
themselves to be less able than the rest and this perception might be shared by their peers. These
perceptions of maladaptive ability may lead to maladaptive motivational patterns such as the display of
low effort and the avoidance of challenging tasks (Ames, 1992).
Normative ability. The emphasis on displaying normative ability and the preference for the most
competent players define the normative ability dimension. The higher order themes from which this
dimension emerged were: (a) emphasize normative ability, (b) prefer the most competent teammates, (c)
most competent players play a more central role, and (d) emphasize/care about winning. Eighty three
percent of the young athletes made reference to this dimension of which 92% made particular reference
to “prefer the most competent teammates”, while 44–64% made reference to the other higher order
themes. The preference for the most competent players was expressed in terms of choosing to be with the
most competent players, listening more to the most competent players, and, get the most competent
players more involved in the game. The emphasis upon normative ability and normative standards of
performance is a defining characteristic of an ego-involving climate and often results in a state of ego
involvement (Ames, 1992; Duda & Hall, 2001; Nicholls, 1984).
Responses from the interviews indicated that some children choose to be and play with teammates
with similar levels of ability. It is interesting to mention that some of these children had lower levels of
ability and preferred to train with teammates who had similar levels of ability:
I would probably train with people who are like the same ability, I wouldn’t choose like people to
be on my team who are better than me, I would rather play against them cause they like make me
try harder (15-year-old girl, basketball).
This quote suggests that youth sport athletes might find playing with similarly skilled teammates
less intimidating. However, although within-group differences in ability are minimized with
homogeneous ability grouping arrangements, between-group differences are accentuated and this may
exacerbate social comparison and ego involvement (Ames, 1992; Treasure, 2001). In contrast,
heterogeneous ability grouping arrangements, evident in a task-involving climate (see the grouping
structure of TARGET; Epstein, 1989), discourage ability comparisons and can promote task
involvement.
512 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

Autonomy support. The responses from the young athletes indicated another dimension of peer
climate, which is not related to achievement or competence, but to the satisfaction of the basic need of
autonomy. The autonomy support dimension refers to whether athletes feel that their teammates allow
them input in decision making and the way they play. The need for autonomy, based on SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Vallerand, 2001), reflects the desire to engage in activities of one’s own choosing and to be
the origin of one’s own behavior. Research in physical activity settings has shown that autonomy-
supportive social contexts tend to satisfy the three psychological needs and through the latter to facilitate
self-determined motivation (Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003). The dimension of autonomy support
that emerged here captures the relative presence or absence of autonomy support. It embodies the higher
order themes of: (a) nurture autonomy, and (b) having controlling behaviors/expectations, and was
mentioned by 83% of the sample. Lower order themes that are included in the nurture autonomy theme
are ‘feel free to express their opinion to their teammates’ and ‘feel free to play as they want’.
The second higher order theme refers to the controlling expectations athletes place upon their
teammates which result in perceptions of lack of autonomy. A low autonomy supportive/controlling peer
climate is described by a 15-year-old girl from a hockey team:
I just think that they expect me to do a few things that I can’t do.it’s more like “come on, you
know, you’ve got to do better than that, kind of thing”, and it won’t be as friendly, it will be more
kind of serious.usually the more competent they want the ball more and probably would be the
ones who would be like “oh come on, you should had passed it, I was there, you could had passed it
to me”,.they put more pressure on you.
Ames (1992) mentioned that when children perceive that they have choices autonomy support is
provided. However, these choices should not be guided by the intent to minimize effort and avoid failure.
On the other hand, controlling behaviors are evident when external pressure is exerted and there is little
involvement in the decision making process. Recent research suggests that a perceived task-involving
motivational climate can satisfy the need for autonomy in the physical domain (Sarrazin et al., 2001;
Standage et al., 2003). Based on the present results, it could be argued that the facilitation or support of
autonomous behaviors is related to a peer, task-involving, motivational climate. Subsequent work should
ascertain whether an autonomy-supporting peer climate leads to adaptive motivational patterns and
whether a perceived controlling peer climate undermines young people’s motivation.
Evaluation of competence. This dimension refers to the criteria athletes use to evaluate their
teammates’ competence. The evaluation of competence dimension included three higher order themes:
(a) evaluation based on personal improvement and task mastery, (b) evaluation based on normative
criteria, and (c) evaluation based on positive peer interaction. Evaluation of competence was mentioned
by 70% of the sample, of which 67% made particular reference to evaluation based on improvement and
mastery, while only 14% referred to normative criteria. Evaluation based on improvement and mastery is
reflected in the following response to the question of whether the interviewee thinks that there are
athletes in his team who are not good: “Well.if they try hard you can’t say anything [i.e. that they are
not good]” (15-year-old boy, swimming).
Children judge and evaluate their teammates very often, however, as Ames (1992) argued, what is
important is to understand the criteria for evaluation as these criteria elicit different patterns of
motivation. When children are evaluated based on their effort and personal improvement, it is expected
that a task-involving motivational climate is fostered (Ames, 1992), whereas when inter-individual
comparison of ability is promoted, it is likely that an ego-involving climate is enhanced. Competence
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 513

evaluation has been considered to be provided mainly by adults (PE teachers and coaches), but as it
appears based on the current findings, their peer evaluation should be taken into account as well. Peers
provide an important source of competence information for young athletes. Horn and co-workers (1991,
1998) have shown that the criteria children use to assess their competence differ with age; younger
children (8–12 years) show greater preference for adult feedback, whereas older children (13–16 years)
show greater preference for peer comparison and evaluation.
It is also interesting to mention that some athletes (43%) thought they were good when their
teammates encouraged or supported them or when they felt accepted by them. This finding implies that
some children evaluate their own competence based on the extent of peer support and acceptance.
Intra-team conflict. The intra-team conflict dimension is defined as the negative and unsupportive
behaviors exhibited by teammates and were mentioned by a small percentage of the total sample
(i.e. 43%). Intra-team conflict differed from intra-team competition in that the themes of the former
dimension referred to negative behaviors that are unrelated with outperforming teammates. Such
negative behaviors seemed to undermine interpersonal relationships, and were, for example, by blaming
others for poor performance, making negative comments that put teammates down and emphasizing
teammates’ weaknesses. The following quotes from a 15-year-old boy (rugby) and a 16-year-old girl
(hockey), respectively, exemplify this dimension: “If I am not confident about something and they say
‘oh, that’s really rubbish’, that will probably make me feel that I am not as good as them” and, “they try
to put each other down, ‘you know you weren’t that good, why did you bother trying’ or.oh, did you
see how badly it was done by this other person?” As can be seen from the former quotation, some
children might experience motivational difficulties as a result of intra-team conflict. The findings suggest
that negative and unsupportive behaviors from peers can create an ego-involving motivational climate
that can induce feelings of low perceived competence for some children. The literature on perceived
motivational climates to date has given limited attention to the consequences of intra-team conflict.
However, based on the current findings, it seems that this is an important component of a peer
motivational climate.

Summary and conclusions

This study has focused on peer interactions and relationships and the role they may play in
formulating a peer-induced motivational climate in youth sport. The existing literature on the structure
and the consequences of perceived motivational climate in achievement contexts such as school, sport
and PE has focused exclusively on the influence of significant adults, whilst ignoring the potential
impact of peers. The in-depth interviews conducted in the present research offered considerable insight
into how young athletes perceive and create a peer motivational climate. Overall, 11 dimensions of peer
motivational climate were identified: improvement, equal treatment, relatedness support, mistakes,
cooperation, effort, intra-team competition, normative ability, autonomy support, evaluation of
competence and intra-team conflict. Most of these dimensions (e.g. effort, improvement) have been
previously identified as dimensions of an adult-created motivational climate; however, some new
dimensions, which have not been taped by existing motivational climate questionnaires (e.g. intra-team
conflict and relatedness support) emerged from the content analysis. The identification of the different
dimensions of the peer motivational climate is important because both adults and peers can be key
significant others with respect to young athletes’ motivation in physical activity settings (Brustad et al.,
514 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

2001; Carr et al., 2000). Thus, by also examining peer relationships in youth sport, a more
comprehensive understanding of the various motivational climates (both adult and peer climate)
operating in this context might be achieved. Greater awareness of the facets of peer influence that foster
or undermine young athletes’ motivation may help the modification of the existing peer motivational
climate in a team so that its task-involving aspects are strengthened. For example, future intervention
work should foster relatedness, emphasize equal treatment and discourage intra-team competition and
conflict among teammates.
A significant follow-up step to this qualitative investigation is the construction of a valid and reliable
questionnaire to assess perceptions of peer motivational climate in youth sport based on the dimensions
and raw data themes that emerged from the current research. Although we acknowledge the concern of
Duda and Whitehead (1998) regarding the plethora of domain- and significant other-specific measures of
motivational climate, we believe that a measure of peer motivational climate is important to capture the
unique motivation-related cues transmitted by peers. Further research involving larger samples is also
needed to examine differences in perceptions of the peer motivational climate as a function of age,
gender, sport, and culture. Moreover, the determination of the relative influence of coach, parent and
peer motivational climates upon young athletes’ achievement behavior, cognitions, and affect would
also be an interesting area of subsequent investigation. The interplay between the climates created by the
three significant social agents, the possibility that the peer climate is a reflection of the climate created by
the coach or the parent as well as the determination of whether coach or parent initiated climate effects
(cognitive, affective or behavioral ones) are mediated by the peer initiated climate are valuable avenues
for future research. Furthermore, the motivational consequences of being in a team where the prevailing
coach and peer motivational climates are contradictory (e.g. the coach might emphasize individual
improvement but the peers might promote inter-individual comparison) need to be explored.
An additional avenue for future research would be the examination of the mechanisms by which peers
influence children’s achievement and competence beliefs. Schunk, Hanson, and Cox (1987) suggested
that children and their friends come to hold similar achievement beliefs through the processes of
modeling (observing). However, Altermatt and Pomerantz (2003) proposed that children possibly
formulate their beliefs about competence and achievement by either modeling peers or by participating
in conversations in which these achievement beliefs are discussed. Lastly, future intervention studies
that attempt to foster a task-involving motivational climate in youth sport settings should take into
account the different aspects of peer motivational climate along with the motivational climate created by
significant adults.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student’s learning strategies and motivation processes.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
Altermatt, E. R., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2003). The development of competence-related and motivational beliefs: An
investigation of similarity and influence among friends. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 111–123.
Biddle, S., Cury, F., Goudas, M., Sarrazin, P., Famose, J. P., & Durand, M. (1995). Development of scales to measure perceived
physical education class climate: A cross-national project. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 341–358.
 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516 515

Brustad, R. J. (1996). Parental and peer influence on children’s psychological development through sport. In F. L. Smoll, &
R. E. Smith (Eds.), Children and youth in sport: A bio-psychosocial perspective (pp. 112–114). Madison, WI: Brown &
Benchmark.
Brustad, R. J., Babkes, M. L., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Youth in sport: Psychological considerations. In R. N. Singer,
H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 604–635). New York: Wiley.
Carr, S., & Weigand, D. A. (2001). Parental, peer, teacher and sporting hero influence on the goal orientations of children in
physical education. European Physical Education Review, 7, 305–328.
Carr, S., Weigand, D. A., & Jones, J. (2000). The relative influence of parents, peers and sporting heroes on goal orientations of
children and adolescents in sport. Journal of Sport Pedagogy, 6, 34–55.
Côte, J., Salmela, J. H., Baria, A., & Russell, S. (1993). Organizing and interpreting unstructured qualitative data. The Sport
Psychologist, 10, 247–260.
Culver, D. M., Gilbert, W. D., & Trudel, P. (2003). A decade of qualitative research in sport psychology journals: 1990–1999.
The Sport Psychologist, 17, 1–15.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport: Recent extensions and future directions. In R. N. Singer,
H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 417–443). New York: Wiley.
Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 290–299.
Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in
sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 21–48). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Duncan, S. C. (1993). The role of cognitive appraisal and friendship provisions in adolescents’ affect and motivation toward
activity in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 314–323.
Epstein, J. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.),
Research on motivation in education (pp. 259–295). New York: Academic Press.
Evans, J., & Roberts, G. C. (1987). Physical competence and the development of children’s peer relations. Quest, 39, 23–35.
Goudas, M., & Biddle, S. (1994). Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in school physical education classes.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9, 241–250.
Horn, T. S., & Amorose, A. J. (1998). Sources of competence information. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise
psychology measurement (pp. 49–63). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Horn, T. S., & Weiss, M. R. (1991). A developmental analysis of children’s self-ability judgements in the physical domain.
Pediatric Exercise Science, 3, 310–326.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mason, J. (1996). Qualitative researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, B. B., & Wenger, M. S. (1998). Athletes and adventure education: An empirical investigation. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 29, 245–266.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newton, M., Duda, J. L., & Yin, Z. (2000). Examination of the psychometric properties of the perceived motivational climate in
sport questionnaire-2 in a sample of female athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 275–290.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective, experience, task choice and performance.
Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. (1999). A review of motivational climate in physical activity. Journal of Sports Sciences, 17,
643–665.
Ommundsen, Y., Roberts, G. C., & Kavussanu, M. (1998). Perceived motivational climate and cognitive and affective
correlations among Norwegian athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 16, 153–164.
Papaioannou, A. (1994). Development of a questionnaire to measure achievement orientations in physical education. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 65, 11–20.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and education methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
516 S. Vazou et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 6 (2005) 497–516

Sarrazin, P., Guillet, E., & Cury, F. (2001). The effect of coach’s task- and ego-involving climate on the changes in perceived
competence, relatedness, and autonomy among girl handballers. European Journal of Sport Science, 1(4) (Retrieved April,
17, 2002, from http://www.humankinetics.com/ejss/content).
Scanlan, T. K., Ravizza, K., & Stein, G. L. (1989). An in-depth study of former elite figure skaters. I. Introduction to the project.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 54–64.
Schunk, D. H., Hanson, A. R., & Cox, P. D. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children’s achievement behaviors. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 79, 54–61.
Smith, A. L. (1999). Perceptions of peer relationships and physical activity participation in early adolescence. Journal of Sport
and Exercise Psychology, 21, 329–350.
Smith, A. L. (2003). Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: a road less traveled in youth sport and exercise psychology
research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 25–39.
Solmon, M. A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students’ behaviors and perceptions in a physical education setting.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 731–738.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in physical education: Employing
constructs from self-determination and achievement goal theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of
Education Psychology, 95, 97–110.
Theeboom, M., DeKnop, P., & Weiss, M. R. (1995). Motivational climate, psychological response, and motor skill
development in children’s sport: A field-based intervention study. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 294–311.
Treasure, D. C. (1997). Perceptions of the motivational climate and elementary school children’s cognitive and affective
response. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19, 278–290.
Treasure, D. C. (2001). Enhancing young people’s motivation in youth sport: An achievement goal approach. In G. C. Roberts
(Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 79–101). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1994). Applications of achievement goal theory to physical education: Implications for
enhancing motivation. Quest, 47, 1–14.
Vallerand, R. J. (2001). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and exercise. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.),
Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 263–320). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Weigand, D. A., Carr, S., Petherick, C., & Taylor, A. (2001). Motivational climate in sport and physical education: The role of
significant others. European Journal of Sport Science, 1(4) (Retrieved April, 17, 2002, from http://www.humankinetics.
com/ejss/content).
Weiss, M. R., & Duncan, S. C. (1992). The relationship between physical competence and peer acceptance in the context of
children’s sport participation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14, 177–191.
Weiss, M. R., Smith, A. L., & Theeboom, M. (1996). That’s what friends are for: Children’s and teenagers’ perceptions of peer
relationships in the sport domain. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 347–379.
White, S. A. (1996). Goal orientation and perceptions of the motivational climate initiated by parents. Pediatric Exercise
Science, 8, 122–129.
White, S. A. (1998). Adolescent goal profiles, perceptions of the parent-initiated motivational climate and competitive trait
anxiety. The Sport Psychologist, 12, 16–33.