Nico W. Van Yperen- Department of Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that the fulfillment of three basic psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—is essential for fostering autonomous motivation, well-being, and optimal functioning. The present research aimed to extend current understanding of how sport modality (individual vs. team) relates to these sources of autonomous motivation in athletes. Data were collected across two studies: Study 1 included tennis and volleyball players (n = 78), while Study 2 involved a larger and more diverse sample of individual and team sport athletes (n = 1,137). Analyses of covariance revealed that individual sport athletes reported higher autonomy satisfaction. In contrast, team sport athletes reported higher relatedness satisfaction and, in Study 2 only, higher competence satisfaction. As anticipated, differences emerged in the sources of autonomous motivation rather than in the overall strength of autonomous motivation itself. These findings provide valuable insights into athletes’ psychological need satisfaction profiles and offer a practical framework for implementing need-supportive coaching practices tailored to sport type.
Introduction
In the sport domain, autonomous forms of motivation have been found to be key factors in the explanation of critical outcome variables such as vitality and active living (1, 2), high quality performance and growth [e.g., (3–5)], and persistence [e.g., (6–8)]. In Self-Determination theory (SDT), autonomous motivation is defined as engagement in an activity because it is perceived as congruent with intrinsic goals and stems from the self (9). SDT states that the source for the development and maintenance of autonomous motivation is the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Fulfillment of the need for autonomy refers to the experience of volition and psychological freedom. Individuals’ need for competence is satisfied when experiencing mastery and effectiveness in one's pursuits. The experience of relatedness satisfaction is defined by the sense of connection with other human beings and mutual trust and concern (10, 11).
In SDT, fulfillment of these three psychological needs is considered as universal nutriment necessary for autonomous motivation, and accordingly, well-being, optimal functioning, and a healthy development across demographics, psychological characteristics, and cultural contexts (10, 12). This universality claim, however, does not contradict the idea that there exists considerable environmental variation in the extent to which the different basic psychological needs are fulfilled [e.g., (13). In the words of Ryan and Deci (9), p.88]: “…. groups differ—for example, with some espousing the primacy of the group over the individual and others espousing the primacy of the individual over the group.” The assertion that basic needs are universal includes the recognition that the satisfaction of basic needs can be accomplished in varied ways in different social contexts through different cultural forms [cf., (12, 14)]. Hence, the pattern of athletes’ psychological need satisfaction may be different in individual vs. team sports.
To date, differences between individual and team sport environments in how conductive they are to the fulfillment of basic human psychological needs, is a neglected issue in the psychological literature. To fill this gap, in the present study, we draw on this major contextual dichotomy in sports by examining the link between sport modality (individual vs. team) and the sources of autonomous sport motivation. Specifically, we will argue and demonstrate that relative to individual sports, athletes in team sports are lower in autonomy satisfaction, and higher in relatedness and competence satisfaction, which will be discussed in more detail next.
Psychological need satisfaction in individual vs. team sports
In individual sports, the personal responsibility for the outcome is higher relative to team sports [e.g., (15)]. In individual sports, the athlete is solely responsible for the result whereas in team sports, the final result relies on the whole team. Hence, more than team sports athletes, individual sports athletes pursue independently their own individual goals without being responsible to a team. This likely results in higher autonomy satisfaction among individual sports athletes than athletes from team sports [e.g., (16)].
As demonstrated by Nixdorf et al. (17), however, a downside of autonomy may be a pattern of negative internal attributions after failure, which is indeed more common in individual sports than in team sports [e.g., (18)]. In team sports, athletes are collectively responsible for their team's failures and successes. For them, explaining failures and successes is more ambiguous than for individual sports athletes who are solely responsible for their results. More ambiguity provides more degrees of freedom for self-serving attribution biases and self-enhancement [e.g., (19)]. That is, after team defeats, team sports athletes have more opportunities to maintain positive beliefs about themselves by attributing failures to their co-responsible teammates. Indeed, meta-analyses revealed that team sports athletes tend to claim more personal responsibility for team success and less personal responsibility for team failure (20, 21). Furthermore, relative to team sports athletes, the prevalence of negative emotions, including (competitive) anxiety, depression, guilt, and shame is higher among individual sports athletes [e.g., (17, 22–26)]. Therefore, relative to individual sports athletes, competence satisfaction can be expected to be more pronounced in team sports athletes.
In addition, team sports athletes’ psychological need satisfaction may be derived from compliance, trust, connectedness, and sociotropy that are inherent nutriments in team sports. Team sports athletes work together towards a common goal, which often enhances their communication skills, sense of positive mutual interdependency, mutual care and concern for each other, and reinforces feelings of collectivity and team cohesion [e.g., (16, 27–29)]. These team dynamics will increase team sport athletes’ need for relatedness satisfaction. To illustrate, in situations that thwart their need for relatedness (e.g., pandemic-induced lockdowns characterized by social isolation and lack of social team activity), team sports athletes reported higher levels of mental health problems than individual sports athletes (30).
In sum, in the present research, we tested the hypotheses that relative to individual sports athletes, team sports athletes are lower in autonomy satisfaction (Hypothesis 1), higher in competence satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), and higher in relatedness satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). Note that there is no reason to assume that the positive associations between need satisfaction and autonomous motivation—or the strength of autonomous sport motivation—differ between individual and team sports. Differences are expected only in the levels of the three types of psychological need satisfaction that foster autonomous motivation.
In Study 1, we tested the three hypotheses in a sample of tennis players vs. volleyball players (n = 78). Tennis is predominantly an individual sport whereas volleyball is an interactive team sport. Both sports, however, are similar in terms of net play [i.e., the player(s) on opposite sides try to keep the ball in play and score points by hitting it over the net], serving (i.e., a well-executed serve can put pressure on the opponent and set the tone for the point), and scoring [i.e., player(s) earn points when the opposing side fails to return the ball properly]. To strengthen both the statistical power and the external validity, Study 2 relied on a much larger sample (n = 1,137) that included athletes from a variety of individual and team sports.
Method Study 1
Power analysis
We conducted two a priori power analyses with the statistical power analysis program G*Power 3.1 (31). In the first analysis, the input parameters were a linear multiple regression with two tails, an alternative hypothesis assuming a population squared multiple correlation of .30, a null hypothesis assuming a population squared multiple correlation of 0, an alpha error probability of .05, a statistical power of .95, and a total of seven predictors. This resulted in a required sample size of 71. However, our main analyses are analyses of covariance. Therefore, in the second analysis, the input parameters were an F test for an analysis of covariance with Cohen's f effect size of .50 (32), an alpha error probability of .05, a statistical power of .95, one numerator degree of freedom, two groups, and four covariates. This resulted in a required sample size of 55.
Participants
The final sample consisted of 78 athletes (53.8% women) playing either tennis (43.6%) or volleyball. The mean age was 27.91 years (SD =13.43), ranging from 16 to 58. Current level of play varied from recreational/regional level (84.6%), national sub-top level (10.3%), to national top level (5.1%). In the 12 months before filling out the questionnaire, the number of training hours per week (at their club, selection and/or for themselves) ranged from 0 to 15 (M = 3.52, SD = 2.70).
Procedure
After having obtained approval from the university's ethical committee, tennis players and volleyball players were recruited using a convenience sample method. Specifically, in the context of their research project, undergraduates approached athletes from their personal network online (e.g., via Whatsapp) and posted announcement on social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram). Participation was voluntary and participants received no incentives. After following the hyperlink to the Qualtrics questionnaire on “Sport Motivation”, participants were informed about the nature and the procedure of the study. About 24% was excluded from the analyses because they had not provided explicit informed consent prior to filling out the survey, had not indicated to play either tennis or volleyball, were younger than 16 years of age (i.e., those who needed to have formal approval from their parents), did not have a complete dataset, or had indicated at the end of the survey that they (1) had not answered all the questions honestly, or (2) had not read and answered all the questions carefully [e.g., (33, 34)].
Measures
For all multi-item measures, scale scores were obtained by averaging the scores on the individual items.
Psychological need satisfaction. The degree to which athletes experienced satisfaction of the three psychological needs was assessed using nine items derived from three previously validated questionnaires (35–37). Responses were scored on a seven-point Likert scale which ranged from (1) not at all, to (7) to an extremely high extent. Note that in the used items, participants read either “In tennis” or “In volleyball” rather than “In my sport”. This was obviously contingent on the sport they played, what they had indicated at the beginning of the digitalized questionnaire by answering the question: “What is your main sport?”
The three items used for assessing autonomy satisfaction were: (1) In my sport, I have a say in things that are important to me; (2) In my sport, I can decide for myself what is good for me as an athlete; (3) In my sport, I feel free to make my own choices. Cronbach's alpha was .70.
The three-item scale for competence satisfaction was: (1) In my sport, I feel I have the knowledge and skills to execute my tasks well; (2) I feel competent in my sport; (3) Overall (technically, physically, mentally), I am good at my sport. Cronbach's alpha was .88.
Finally, relatedness satisfaction was assessed using the following three items: (1) In my sport, I can go to others when I am struggling with something; (2) In my sport, I have real friends; (3) In my sport, I feel part of a team or group. Cronbach's alpha was .84.
Autonomous sport motivation was assessed with the revised Sport Motivation Scale (SMS-II) developed and validated by Pelletier et al. (2). The concept of autonomous motivation includes intrinsic regulation and internalized forms of extrinsic motivation [i.e., identified and integrated regulation; (10)]. Intrinsic regulation is actually another label for intrinsic motivation, where the motivation for acting derives from satisfactions found in the behavior itself (2). Also both forms of extrinsic motivation are accompanied by high levels of perceived autonomy and a sense of personal commitment and engagement. Specifically, in identified regulation, one's behavior is experienced as personally important and worthwhile whereas integrated regulation occurs when the behavior is not only seen as valued, but also as congruent with the individual's other life goals, objectives, and needs. In research, typically, one index for autonomous motivation is used by averaging the sub-scales of autonomous motivation [e.g., (38–42)]. In the present study, Cronbach's alpha of the autonomous sport motivation composite was .88.
Results Study 1
All analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics software, version 29. Table 1 shows that age was negatively associated with training hours, relatedness satisfaction, and competence satisfaction. Obviously, athletes competing at a higher level reported more weekly training hours. Simple t-tests further revealed one sex difference (p < .05): relative to male athletes (M = 4.06, SD = 1.35), female athletes (M = 5.03, SD = 1.00) were higher in relatedness satisfaction, t(61.37) = 3.55, p < .001.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and Pearson's correlations in Study 1 (below the diagonal) and Study 2 (above the diagonal).
In line with SDT, Table 1 shows that all three measures of basic need satisfaction were positively correlated with autonomous motivation. To check the assumption that sport modality does not moderate these associations, we ran three ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression analyses, one for each need. In all models, autonomous motivation served as the dependent variable. Predictor variables included the centered score of the respective need satisfaction, sport modality (tennis vs. volleyball), and their interaction term. In addition, sex, age, level of play, and weekly training hours were entered as covariates. While the main effects of autonomy and relatedness satisfaction were highly significant (ps < .001), and competence satisfaction reached significance (p = .04; see also Table 1), none of the interaction terms were significant (ps > .21). Thus, the positive associations between need satisfaction and autonomous motivation (see also Table 1) did not differ between tennis and volleyball.
Hypothesis 1 stated that relative to individual sports athletes, team sports athletes are lower in autonomy satisfaction. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with sport (tennis vs. volleyball) as the independent variable, autonomy satisfaction as the dependent variable, and sex, age, level of play, and training hours per week as covariates. As shown in Table 2, this analysis revealed a significant effect of Sport, indicating that 15% (η2 = .15) of the variance of autonomy satisfaction was attributable to the sport modality. That is, relative to volleyball players, tennis players were higher in autonomy satisfaction, which provided empirical support for Hypothesis 1.
Table 2. Mean differences between team sport (volleyball) and individual sport (tennis) athletes (Study 1).
To test the other two hypotheses, we reran the same analysis twice, replacing autonomy satisfaction with competence satisfaction and relatedness satisfaction, respectively. Table 2 shows that in Study 1, no empirical support was found for Hypothesis 2. Although the (adjusted) means were in the expected direction, volleyball players were not significantly higher in competence satisfaction than tennis players. In line with Hypothesis 3, however, volleyball players were higher in relatedness satisfaction than tennis players. Finally, as expected, no differences between sports in autonomous motivation were observed (see Table 2).
Study 2
In Study 1, the findings were largely in line with the expectations, but the sample was limited and individual and team sports athletes represented only one sport: tennis and volleyball, respectively. Furthermore, studies with small sample sizes may suffer from false-positive results and inflated effect sizes (43). Hence, in Study 2, data were collected from a large sample of athletes (n = 1,137) representing a wide range of individual and team sports. This broader sample provides greater diversity across sport types and makes it possible to examine whether the findings extend beyond tennis and volleyball.
Method Study 2
Participants and procedure
The same procedure as in Study 1 was followed. However, to examine whether the findings extend beyond tennis and volleyball, in Study 2, athletes from various individual and team sports, except tennis and volleyball, were recruited. For the same reasons as in Study 1, we excluded about 27% of the participants. In Study 2, participants were included if they had indicated to play either an individual or team sport, except tennis or volleyball. The final sample comprised 363 athletes (31.9%) from various individual sports (e.g., gymnastics, martial arts, track, badminton, fitness, dams). The 774 team sport athletes players were involved in sports such as basketball, field hockey, korfball, and soccer.
Age of the 1,137 athletes (56.3% women) ranged from 16 to 68 (M = 29.82, SD = 14.12). Current level of play varied from recreational/regional level (92.4%), national sub-top level (1%), national top level (4.9%), to international (top) level (1.9%). In the 12 months before filling out the questionnaire, the number of training hours per week (at their club, selection and/or for themselves) ranged from 0 to 40 (M = 4.30, SD = 3.73).
In Study 2, we relied on the same measures as in Study 1. Similar Cronbach's alpha's were observed: .71 (autonomy satisfaction), .87 (competence satisfaction), .84 (relatedness satisfaction), and .86 (autonomous motivation).
Results Study 2
Consistent with Study 1, Table 1 shows that age was negatively associated with training hours, relatedness satisfaction, and competence satisfaction, and athletes at higher competitive levels engaged in more weekly training hours. Furthermore, in Study 2, a simple t-test again indicated that relative to male athletes (M = 4.89, SD = 1.25), female athletes (M = 5.25, SD = 1.24) were higher in relatedness satisfaction, t(1,135) = 4.84, p < .001.
In contrast to Study 1, however, male athletes were older [Mmales = 34.88, SD = 16.07 vs. Mfemales = 25.89, SD = 10.89, t(830.89) = 10.71, p < .001], trained more hours per week [Mmales = 4.68, SD = 4.04 vs. Mfemales = 4.01, SD = 3.43, t(970.78) = 2.98, p < .01], and were higher in autonomy satisfaction [Mmales = 4.94, SD = .87 vs. Mfemales = 4.67, SD = .89, t(1,135) = 5.09, p < .001].
Table 1 further shows that also in Study 2, basic needs satisfaction was positively correlated with autonomous motivation, which is in line with SDT. As in Study 1, we next performed the same three follow-up regression analyses to check the assumption that sport modality does not moderate these associations. Also in Study 2, the main effects of need satisfaction (ps < .001) were significant, and the interaction terms were not significant (ps > .26). Thus, also in Study 2, we found that the significant and positive links between psychological need satisfaction and autonomous motivation (see Table 1) were not different in individual and team sports.
To test the three hypotheses, we conducted the same analyses as in Study 1. Specifically, we performed three univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) with sport (individual vs. team) as the independent variable, sex, age, level of play, and training hours per week as covariates, and autonomy satisfaction (Hypothesis 1), competence satisfaction (Hypothesis 2), and relatedness satisfaction (Hypothesis 3) as the dependent variable, respectively. As in Study 1, individual sports athletes were higher in autonomy satisfaction (Hypothesis 1) whereas team sports athletes were higher in relatedness satisfaction (Hypothesis 3). Furthermore, Table 3 shows that in Study 2, we found the hypothesized (Hypothesis 2) difference in competence satisfaction as well. That is, team sports athletes were higher in competence satisfaction than individual sports athletes. In Study 2, 6% (η2 = .06) of the variance of competence satisfaction was attributable to sport modality. Thus, in Study 2, empirical support was found not only for Hypotheses 1 and 3 (as in Study 1), but also for Hypothesis 2. Table 3 further shows that also in Study 2, the strength of autonomous motivation did not differ between team and individual sports athletes.
Table 3. Mean differences between team sport and individual sport athletes (Study 2).
Discussion
Self-Determination theory (SDT) considers the fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as universal nutriment necessary for autonomous motivation, and accordingly, well-being and optimal functioning. The fulfillment of the basic psychological needs, however, can be accomplished in varied ways in different social contexts through different cultural forms [e.g., (9, 12, 14)]. Drawing on a major contextual dichotomy in sports (i.e., individual vs. team sports), the current findings suggest that relative to individual sports, athletes in team sports are lower in autonomy satisfaction, and higher in relatedness and competence satisfaction. And only these sources, not autonomous motivation itself, appeared to differ between individual and team sports athletes.
The current findings also show that in both individual and team sports, higher levels of basic psychological need satisfaction is accompanied with higher levels of autonomous motivation. As expected, sport modality did not moderate these associations. The difference between individual and team sports is that these positive correlations occur at different levels of need satisfaction within each type of sport. That is, positive links between autonomy satisfaction and autonomous motivation exist at higher levels of autonomy satisfaction among individual sport athletes, and among team sports athletes, at higher levels of relatedness and competence satisfaction. Phrased differently, individual sports athletes draw their autonomous motivation from higher levels of need for autonomy satisfaction whereas team sports athletes derive similar levels of autonomous motivation from higher levels of relatedness and competence satisfaction. Important to note, however, is that across both types of sports, the higher the satisfaction of each psychological need, the higher athletes’ autonomous motivation (10, 11). In future studies, it may be tested whether both types of sports are similar in terms of (subsequent) levels of well-being, optimal functioning, and a healthy development as well [e.g., (1, 10, 44)].
An important question is why individual and team sport athletes differ in their levels of psychological need satisfaction. Compared to team sport athletes, individual sport athletes typically report higher autonomy satisfaction, likely because they are more often provided with autonomy-supportive environments by their coaches [e.g., (45)]. One explanation is that athletes in individual sports bear sole responsibility for performance outcomes, which may foster a greater sense of personal agency and ownership (15). In contrast, in team sports, performance outcomes depend on the collective efforts of the team. This shared responsibility promotes a sense of interdependence, reinforcing feelings of collectivity and team cohesion, which may increase relatedness satisfaction. At the same time, team dynamics can introduce ambiguity regarding individual contributions to success or failure. This ambiguity may create greater opportunity for self-serving attribution biases and self-enhancement processes [e.g., (19)], which could explain why team sport athletes tend to report higher competence satisfaction than their individual sport counterparts.
Note that the universal hypothesis in SDT implies that individual differences in need strength are considered as not existing and irrelevant [e.g., (46)]. However, another theory of psychological needs, Motive Disposition Theory [MDT; (47)], conceptualized needs as early acquired and relatively stable motive dispositions that vary from person to person (48, 49). From this latter perspective, athletes high in need for autonomy may feel more attracted to individual sports whereas individuals high in needs for relatedness and competence likely prefer to get involved in team sports. These individuals, in turn, likely receive the support within their “fitting” sport environment that is congruent with their needs. Indeed, MDT's individual difference perspective and SDT's environmental view are not mutually exclusive. MDT's psychological need strength predicts individuals’ preference for individual or team sports whereas SDT predicts psychological need satisfaction on the basis of sport modality.
Practical implications
This research provides a valuable roadmap for implementing need-based coaching and athlete support strategies [e.g., (1, 50–53)]. Recognizing that different sport modalities (individual vs. team) tend to fulfill distinct psychological needs enables practitioners to more effectively foster autonomous motivation in athletes. Accordingly, support systems can be strategically tailored to align with sport type and the psychological needs most salient within each modality.
When an athlete shows signs of low autonomous motivation, coaches and sport psychologists can examine which basic psychological need—autonomy, competence, or relatedness—may be insufficiently fulfilled, considering the nature of the sport. For example, in individual sports, coaches can support autonomy by involving athletes in planning, providing meaningful feedback, and encouraging self-reflection to promote ownership of their training and performance goals. In contrast, in team sports, it may be more effective to enhance relatedness satisfaction by emphasizing interpersonal connectedness, mutual support, and the pursuit of shared goals. Additionally, recognizing both individual contributions and collective achievements can further strengthen athletes’ feelings of competence and relatedness.
Moreover, coaches may intentionally design training environments that compensate for needs that may be less organically met within a given sport modality. For instance, because individual sport athletes may struggle with a sense of relatedness due to the inherently solo nature of their disciplines, coaches might build peer support networks, create mentorship opportunities, or structure shared training and recovery routines [e.g., (54, 55)]. On the other hand, since autonomy may be less naturally supported in team sports, coaches may promote role flexibility, decision-making opportunities, and personal accountability within the team structure.
Strengths and limitations
The present research has at least three main strengths. First, we add to the extant literature on SDT by showing in two different studies that individual sport athletes are higher in autonomy satisfaction whereas team sport athletes are higher in relatedness satisfaction, and, only in Study 2, in competence satisfaction. Second, our findings suggest that individual and team sports considerably differ in the extent to which the different basic psychological needs are fulfilled and that autonomous motivation can be strengthened by following these different paths. A third strength of the present research is that similar patterns were observed across two different samples: one consisting of tennis and volleyball players, and another larger and more diverse sample including athletes from a variety of other individual and team sports. This provides empirical evidence that the findings extend beyond tennis and volleyball.
Balanced against these strengths, limitations need to be acknowledged. First, our self-report data have the inherent problem of common method variance. Second, we relied on the convenience sample method as recruitment strategy, and our sample comprised athletes of a single nationality (i.e., Dutch), which limits the generalizability of the findings to more diverse cultural or national contexts. Further research is needed to test whether the current results can be replicated and extended across nations and cultures, within samples recruited through other sampling strategies, and in samples comprising other mixes of individual and team sports. Third, we drew on a major dichotomy in sports: individual vs. team sports. Categorizing sports as individual or team sports, however, is not as straightforward as it appears at first glance [cf., (15)]. For example, tennis is typically considered an individual sport, but tennis players also tend to play doubles in dyadic tennis teams. In sports such as baseball and cricket, the team scores determine who won or lost, but these sports may also be considered individual sports played in a team context. Hence, a finer understanding of basic psychological need satisfaction in the sport context can be obtained by making comparisons between sport events characterized by different types of interdependence [cf., (54)]: (1) no interdependence (individual races, single performance), (2) outcome interdependence only (co-acting, e.g., team competition in gymnastics), (3) sequential task interdependence and outcome interdependence (e.g., relays in athletics and swimming), and (4) reciprocal task interdependence and outcome interdependence (interactive team sports such as volleyball and basketball).
A fourth limitation of the current study is its cross-sectional design, which precludes conclusions about causality or the underlying processes driving the observed associations. Future research should explore longitudinal patterns in the relationship between sport type and basic psychological need satisfaction. For instance, individuals who experience high satisfaction of a specific psychological need may be more likely to select sports they perceive as offering greater opportunities to further fulfill that particular need. Alternatively, particular sports may inherently support certain psychological needs to a greater extent, thereby leading to higher levels of need satisfaction among athletes engaged in those sports. Furthermore, future research should explore whether, and how, individual and team sport contexts differ in the extent to which they support autonomy, relatedness, and competence needs. Another question that may be addressed in future research is whether the tendency to make self-serving attributions is indeed stronger among team sport athletes than among individual sport athletes. And if so, does that favor team sport athletes’ competence satisfaction particularly in the short term? That is, in the long term, their development and growth might suffer as performance correction strategies are less likely to be implemented (20, 56, 57).
Fifth, in our studies, we neglected individual differences in need strength. Are these nonexistent or irrelevant, as stated by SDT? From another theoretical perspective [i.e., MDT; (47–49)], individual sports may be a better fit for individuals high in need for autonomy whereas team sports may be more suited to individuals higher in needs for relatedness and competence, which may be tested in future studies. Furthermore, a limitation of the current research is that we focused exclusively on need fulfillment, and accordingly, on autonomous motivation as predictor of well-being indices [e.g., (9, 14, 44)]. SDT research suggests that need frustration is especially predictive of ill-being above and beyond low need satisfaction (12, 58). Future research may explore the added predictive value of need frustration in individual vs. team sport contexts.
In conclusion, our findings are largely in line with SDT, suggesting that the satisfaction of each basic psychological need is independently important for athletes’ autonomous motivation in both individual and team sports [e.g., (9)]. No significant differences were found in levels of autonomous motivation between individual and team sport athletes; however, the underlying sources of need satisfaction differed by sport modality. Specifically, athletes in individual sports reported higher autonomy satisfaction, whereas those in team sports reported higher relatedness satisfaction and, in Study 2 only, higher competence satisfaction. These findings offer valuable insights into athletes’ psychological need satisfaction profiles and can guide practitioners in tailoring their support to effectively nurture specific psychological needs based on sport type.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by University of Groningen, dept. of Psychology ethical committee. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
NV: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination theory applied to sport: a comprehensive review. In: Ryan RM, Deci EL, editors. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. 2nd Ed. New York City: Guilford Press (2022). p. 421–50.
2. Pelletier LG, Rocchi MA, Vallerand RJ, Deci EL, Ryan RM. Validation of the revised sport motivation scale (SMS-II). Psychol Sport Exerc. (2013) 14:329–41. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.12.002
3. Gillet N, Vallerand RJ, Rosnet E. Motivational clusters and performance in a real-life setting. Motiv Emot. (2009) 33:49–62. doi: 10.1007/s11031-008-9115-z
4. Gillet N, Morin AJS, Huyghebaert T, Burger L, Maillot A, Poulin A, et al. University students’ need satisfaction trajectories: a growth mixture analysis. Learn Instr. (2019) 60:275–85. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.11.003
5. Ryan RM, Duineveld JJ, Di Domenico SI, Ryan WS, Steward BA, Bradshaw EL. We know this much is (meta-analytically) true: a meta-review of meta-analytic findings evaluating self-determination theory. Psychol Bull. (2022) 148:813–42. doi: 10.1037/bul0000385
6. Butcher J, Koenraad JL, Johns DP. Withdrawal from competitive youth sport: a retrospective ten-year study. J Sport Behav. (2002) 25:145–63.
7. Crane J, Temple V. A systematic review of dropout from organized sport among children and youth. Eur Phy Educ Rev. (2015) 21:114–31. 10.1177%2F1356336X14555294
8. Schlesinger T, Löbig A, Ehnold P, Nagel S. What is influencing the dropout behavior of youth players from organised football? A systematic review. Germ J Exerc Sport Res. (2018) 48:176–91. doi: 10.1007/s12662-018-0513-4
9. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York City: Guilford Publishing (2017).
10. Ryan RM, Moller AC. Competence as central, but not sufficient, for high-quality motivation: a self-determination theory perspective. In: Elliot AJ, Dweck CS, Yeager DS, editors. Handbook of Competence and Motivation: Theory and Application (2nd Edition. New York City: Guilford Press (2017). p. 214–31.
11. Vansteenkiste M, Niemiec CP, Soenens B. The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: a historical overview, emerging trends and future directions. In: Urdan T, Karabenick S, editors. The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement (Vol. 16). Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2010). p. 105–66.
12. Vansteenkiste M, Ryan RM, Soenens B. Basic psychological need theory: advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motiv Emot. (2020) 44:1–31. doi: 10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
13. Kelly AC, Zuroff DC, Leybman MJ, Martin EA, Koestner R. Satisfied groups and satisfied members: untangling the between- and within-groups effects of need satisfaction. J Appl Soc Psychol. (2008) 38:1805–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00370.x
14. Chen B, Vansteenkiste M, Beyers W, Boone L, Deci EL, Van der Kaap-Deeder J, et al. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motiv Emot. (2015) 39:216–36. doi: 10.1007/s11031-014-9450-1
15. Laborde S, Guillén F, Mosley E. Positive personality-trait-like individual differences in athletes from individual- and team sports and in non-athletes. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2016) 26:9–13. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2016.05.009
16. Nia ME, Besharat MA. Comparison of athletes’ personality characteristics in individual and team sports. Proc Soc Behav Sci. (2010) 5:808–12. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.189
17. Nixdorf I, Frank R, Beckmann J. Comparison of athletes’ proneness to depressive symptoms in individual and team sports: research on psychological mediators in junior elite athletes. Front Psychol. (2016) 7:893. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00893
18. Hanrahan SJ, Cerin E. Gender, level of participation, and type of sport: differences in achievement goal orientation and attributional style. J Sci Med Sport. (2009) 12:508–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2008.01.005
19. Van Yperen NW. Self-enhancement among major league soccer players: the role of importance and ambiguity on social comparison behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. (1992) 22:1186–98. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb02359.x
20. Allen MS, Robson DA, Martin LJ, Laborde S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of self-serving attribution biases in the competitive context of organized sport. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. (2020) 46:1027–43. doi: 10.1177/0146167219893995
21. Martin LJ, Carron AV. Team attributions in sport: a meta-analysis. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2012) 24:157–74. doi: 10.1080/10413200.2011.607486
22. Bang H, Chang M, Kim S. Team and individual sport participation, school belonging, and gender differences in adolescent depression. Child Youth Serv Rev. (2024) 159:107517. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107517
23. Hoffmann MD, Barnes JD, Tremblay MS, Guerrero MD. Associations between organized sport participation and mental health difficulties: data from over 11,000 US children and adolescents. PLoS One. (2022) 17(6):e0268583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268583
24. Kemarat S, Theanthong A, Yeemin W, Suwankan S. Personality characteristics and competitive anxiety in individual and team athletes. PLoS One. (2022) 17:e0262486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262486
25. Pluhar E, McCracken C, Griffith KL, Christino MA, Sugimoto D, Meehan WP. Team sport athletes may be less likely to suffer anxiety or depression than individual sport athletes. J Sports Sci Med. (2019) 18:490–6.31427871
26. Sanfilippo JL, Haralsdottir K, Watson AM. Anxiety and depression prevalence in incoming division I collegiate athletes from 2017 to 2021. Sports Health. (2023) 16:776–82. doi: 10.1177/19417381231198537
27. Andersen MH, Ottesen L, Thing LF. The social and psychological health outcomes of team sport participation in adults: an integrative review of research. Scand J Public Health. (2019) 47:832–50. doi: 10.1177/1403494818791405
28. Battaglia A, Kerr G. Youth athletes’ perspectives on developmental influences of relationships in individual and team sports. Cogent Soc Sci. (2024) 10(1):1–14. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2392023
29. Opstoel K, Chapelle L, Prins FJ, De Meester A, Haerens L, van Tartwijk J, et al. Personal and social development in physical education and sports: a review study. Eur Phy Educ Rev. (2020) 26:797–813. doi: 10.1177/1356336X19882054
30. Salles JI, Silva C, Wolff A, Orwert L, Ribeiro P, Velasques B, et al. Anxiety, insomnia, and depression during COVID-19 lockdown in elite individual and team sport athletes. Psicol Reflex Crít. (2022) 35:33. doi: 10.1186/s41155-022-00233-z
31. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. Statistical power analyses using G*power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. (2009) 41:1149–60. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
32. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Ed. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1988).
33. Cheung JH, Burns DK, Sinclair RR, Sliter M. Amazon mechanical turk in organizational psychology: an evaluation and practical recommendations. J Bus Psychol. (2017) 32:347–61. doi: 10.1007/s10869-016-9458-5
34. Meade AW, Craig SB. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychol Methods. (2012) 17:437–55. doi: 10.1037/a0028085
35. Bhavsar N, Bartholomew KJ, Quested E, Gucciardi D, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, Reeve J, et al. Measuring psychological need states in sport: theoretical considerations and a new measure. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2020) 47:101617. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101617
36. Ng JY, Lonsdale C, Hodge K. The basic needs satisfaction in sport scale (BNSSS): instrument development and initial validity evidence. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2011) 12:257–64. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.10.006
37. Van den Broeck A, Vansteenkiste M, De Witte H, Soenens B, Lens W. Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: construction and initial validation of the work-related basic need satisfaction scale. J Occup Organ Psychol. (2010) 83:981–1002. doi: 10.1348/096317909X481382
38. Benita M, Arbel R, Milyavskaya M. Autonomous versus controlled goal motivation differentially predicts goal progress and well-being through emotion regulation styles. Motiv Sci. (2023) 9(3):229–41. doi: 10.1037/mot0000295
39. Hortop EG, Wrosch C, Gagné M. The why and how of goal pursuits: effects of global autonomous motivation and perceived control on emotional well-being. Motiv Emot. (2013) 37:675–87. doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9349-2
40. Kappes C, Marion-Jetten AS, Taylor G, Schad DJ, Dreßler B, El-Hayek S, et al. The role of mindfulness and autonomous motivation for goal progress and goal adjustment: an intervention study. Motiv Emot. (2023) 47:946–64. doi: 10.1007/s11031-023-10033-2
41. Koestner R, Otis N, Powers TA, Pelletier L, Gagnon H. Autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. J Pers. (2008) 76:1201–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00519.x
42. Sheldon KM, Elliot AJ. Not all personal goals are personal: comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. (1998) 24:546–57. doi: 10.1177/0146167298245010
43. Schweizer G, Furley P. Reproducible research in sport and exercise psychology: the role of sample sizes. Psychol Sport Exerc. (2016) 23:114–22. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2024.102687
44. Vansteenkiste M, Soenens B, Ryan RM. Basic psychological needs theory: a conceptual and empirical review of key criteria. In: Ryan RM, editor. The Oxford Handbook of Self-determination theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2023). p. 84–123. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.5
45. Hollembeak J, Amorose AJ. Perceived coaching behaviors and college Athletes’ intrinsic motivation: a test of self-determination theory. J Appl Sport Psychol. (2005) 17:20–36. doi: 10.1080/10413200590907540
46. Schüler J, Brandstätter V, Sheldon KM. Do implicit motives and basic psychological needs interact to predict well- being and flow? Testing a universal hypothesis and a matching hypothesis. Motiv Emot. (2013) 37:480–95. doi: 10.1007/s11031-012-9317-2
48. Schüler J, Sheldon KM, Fröhlich SM. Implicit need for achievement moderates the relationship between competence need satisfaction and subsequent motivation. J Res Pers. (2010) 44:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.09.002
49. Wörtler B, Van Yperen NW, Barelds DPH. Do individual differences in need strength moderate the relations between basic psychological need satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior? Motiv Emot. (2020) 44:315–28. doi: 10.1007/s11031-019-09775-9
50. Carroll M, Allen JB. “Zooming in” on the antecedents of youth sport coaches’ autonomy-supportive and controlling interpersonal behaviours: a multimethod study. Int J Sports Sci Coach. (2021) 16(2):236–48. doi: 10.1177/1747954120958621
51. Meany A. Review of self-determination theory and its application in coaching, instruction, and leadership. MOJ Sports Med. (2023) 6(2):39–43. doi: 10.15406/mojsm.2023.06.00139
52. Ntoumanis N, Ng J Y Y, Prestwich A, Quested E, Hancox J E, Thøgersen-Ntoumani C, et al. A meta-analysis of self-determination theory-informed intervention studies in the health domain: effects on motivation, health behavior, physical, and psychological health. Health Psychol Rev. (2021) 15(2):214–44. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2020.1718529
53. Smith N, Quested E, Appleton PR, Duda JL. Observing the coach-created motivational environment across training and competition in youth sport. J Sports Sci. (2017) 35(2):149–58. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1159714
54. Evans MB, Eys MA, Bruner MW. Seeing the “we” in “me” sports: the need to consider individual sport team environments. Canad Psychol. (2012) 53(4):301–8. doi: 10.1037/a0030202
55. Kim J, Godfrey M, Coleman T, Eys M. Role dynamics in individual sport teams. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol. (2024) 13(4):372–88. doi: 10.1037/spy0000359
56. Försterling F, Morgenstern M. Accuracy of self-assessment and task performance: does it pay to know the truth? J Educ Psychol. (2002) 94:576–85. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.576
57. Smurda JD, Wittig MA, Gokalp G. Effects of threat to a valued social identity on implicit self-esteem and discrimination. Group Process Intergroup Relat. (2006) 9:181–97. doi: 10.1177/1368430206062076
Keywords: Self-Determination, motive, autonomy, competence, relatedness, support
Citation: Van Yperen NW (2025) Athletes’ basic psychological need satisfaction and autonomous motivation: differences between individual vs. team sports. Front. Sports Act. Living 7:1592356. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2025.1592356
Received: 12 March 2025; Accepted: 6 October 2025;
Published: 11 November 2025.
Edited by:
Manuel Gómez-López, University of Murcia, SpainReviewed by:
Jennifer Marie Murray, Queen’s University Belfast, United KingdomJames Adie, Newman University, United Kingdom
Copyright: © 2025 Van Yperen. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Nico W. Van Yperen, bi52YW4ueXBlcmVuQHJ1Zy5ubA==
†ORCID:
Nico W. Van Yperen
orcid.org/0000-0003-2116-8841