See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/234644118

Academic Motivation and the Student Athlete

Article in Journal of College Student Development · January 1999

CITATIONS READS
159 26,111

3 authors, including:

Derek Van Rheenen

University of California, Berkeley
33 PUBLICATIONS 450 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Derek Van Rheenen on 27 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Academic Motivation and the Student Athlete
Herbert D. Simons Derek Van Rheenen Martin V. Covington

The researchers in this large-scale study of stay focused, and so forth. These qualities, if
Division I athletes examined the achievement transferred to the academic domain, would seem
motivation of 361 universit’ student athletes. The to be important for academic success. A good
relationship of motivational orientation to deal of variation was found among student
academic performance and identification was athletes in their willingness and success in
investigated using a paper and pencil Like rr-t)pe making this transfer, In general, revenue athletes
scale instrument based on self-worth theory. (football and men’s basketball) seem less willing
Fear offailure and the relative commitment to to make this transfer and show an apparent lack
athletics was found to play important roles in of academic motivation (Simons, Van Rheenen,
the academic motivation of both revenue and & Covington, 1997). This perceived lack of
nonrevenue student athletes. motivation is often reflected in a general
disidentification with school and reduced
University student athletes present an apparent academic performance (AIR, 1989; Snyder.
motivational contradiction. Most are highly 1996; Snyder & Spreitzer, 1992).
motivated to succeed in the athletic domain, On the other hand, female and nonrevenue
having been selected to participate in inter athletes (those who played sports other than
collegiate athletics because of their proven ability football and men’s basketball) seem more willing
and desire to succeed. However, many of the and able than revenue athletes to make this
most visible student athletes seem to lack such transfer, as demonstrated by their superior
motivation in the classroom. Although these academic performance. Studies have consistently
individuals are expected to maintain their athletic shown that female student athletes are superior
motivation at the university, they are likewise to male student athletes and that nonrevenue
expected to demonstrate a similar motivation to athletes are superior to revenue athletes in high
succeed in the classroom. The maintenance of school GPAs, Scholastic Aptitiude Test (SAT)
this academic motivation and achievement is scores, as well as college GPAs (AIR, 1989;
made more difficult because of the institutional Purdy. Eitzen & Hufnagel, 1985; Simons, Van
demands of their sport. Student athletes are Rheenen, & Covington, 1997).
required to devote upwards of 25 hours per week Differences in intrinsic motivation, external
when their sport is in season, miss numerous rewards, and social influences favoring athletics
classes for university-sanctioned athletic compe provides some of the explanation for this seeming
titions, and deal with fatigue and injuries as a paradox. Adler and Adler (1991) have shown,
result of their athletic participation. These factors in their longitudinal study of a Division I men’s
detract from the realistic likelihood of academic basketball team, how the pressures and rewards
success, which in turn affects their academic associated with school, sport, and peer culture
motivation to succeed. (American Institutes for lead student athletes to allow intercollegiate
Research [AIR], 1989). Negative stereotypes athletics to engulf their lives at the expense of
about athletes’ lack of academic ability only add their academic identification The self-worth
to these motivational difficulties (Dundes, 1996; theory of achievement motivation (Covington,
Edwards, 1984). 1992: Covington & Beery, 1976) provides a
Athletic success requires an individual to motivational explanation that can contribute to
work hard, be self-disciplined, exhibit persever our understanding of this discrepancy between
ance and determination, be able to concentrate. academic and athletic motivation.

Herbert D. Simons is Associate Professor of Education; Derek Van Rheenen is a lecturer of Education; Martin
V. Covington is Professor of Psychology, each at the University of California, Berkeley.

MARcH/APRIL 1999 • VOL 40 o 2 151

 Sirnons, Van Rheenen. & Covington

Self-worth theory builds upon the work of provides an excuse for failure that leaves the
Atkinson (1964) and Weiner (1974). In his need perceptions of ability and self-worth intact. This
achievement theory, Atkinson postulated that the lack of effort can be disguised and rationalized
motivation to achieve is a learned drive that is by self-handicapping excuses such as procrasti
the result of two opposing forces: the need to nation, test anxiety. last-minute or inadequate
approach success and the need to avoid failure. study, and so forth.
These drives are fueled by hope and pride for On the basis of this analysis. Covington has
those who desire to approach success and shame proposed and empirically validated (Covington
and humiliation for those attempting to avoid & Omelich, 1991) a quadripolar motivational
failure. typology based on the dual achievement dimen
Weiner reinterpreted Atkinson’s theory by sions postulated by Atkinson—the motivation to
focusing on rational cognitive thought processes approach or strive for success and the motivation
rather than emotions as providing motivation for to avoid failure. Covington has proposed four
achievement. He proposed attribution theory, motivational types, classified in accordance with
which focuses on people’s beliefs about the their scores on each of these two dimensions. He
causes of their successes and failures. According has called these four motivational types: Success
to attribution theory, those individuals who are Oriented, Overstrivers, Failure-Avoiders and
motivated to achieve success attribute failure to Failure-Acceptors. According to this expanded
insufficient effort and success to ability and model, Overstrivers and Failure-Acceptors
effort. These attributions, which are under the represent hybrid combinations of the relatively
individual’s control, lead to greater effort orthogonal approach and avoidance dimensions
following both successes and failures. On the originally postulated by Atkinson. The following
other hand, failure-avoiding individuals attribute overview of these four types suggests that
failure to lack of ability and they attribute academic motivation among student athletes may
successes to luck, chance, and so forth. Because be a salient factor in predicting both academic
these reasons are not under their control, neither performance and identification.
successes nor failures provide motivation to Success-Oriented students score high on
expend greater effort in attempting future tasks. measures of approaching success and low on
Self-worth theory further elucidates these failure avoidance. These students are highly
previous conceptions of achievement motivation. motivated to succeed without being afraid of
According to Covington (1992), self-worth failing. They have a strong sense of self-worth,
theory “assumes that the search for self- believe they have the ability to compete aca
acceptance is the highest human priority, and that demically, have good study skills, are able to
in schools self-acceptance comes to depend on accurately judge the difficulty of tasks, and
one’s ability to achieve competitively” (p. 74). therefore expect to succeed and take pride in their
Self worth is determined by an individual’s own, academic achievements. They tend to be intrin
and others’, perceptions of one’s ability, per sically motivated and they work hard and
ceptions that are mainly tied to successful efficiently to become successful students. These
achievement. Success indicates competence or students have a history of strong academic
ability and thus enhances one’s self-worth. In performance which reinforces their feelings of
competitive situations, where few succeed, the self-worth and gives them confidence in their
first priority for those who fear they may not be ability to succeed academically. When they do
successful is the avoidance of failure and its sometimes experience failure, they attribute it to
implication that one lacks ability or competence. factors they can control such as inadequate study.
Trying hard and failing leads to the questioning They may experience guilt because they did not
of one’s ability, which in turn diminishes self- put in the necessary effort. Because they are
worth. On the other hand, failure following a lack confident in their ability to succeed, the guilt
of effort does not reflect negatively on one’s arising from failure spurs them on to more effort
ability and self-worth as this lack of effort in the future.

152 Journal of College Student Development

 Student Athletes

Failure-Avoiders score low on their motiva performance. The purpose of this study was to
tion to approach success and high on avoiding employ self-worth theory to explore the academic
failure. These students often have a low self- motivation of student athletes. It was hypo
worth due to a history of academic failure. As a thesized that a fear of academic failure and the
result, they may develop a maladjusted moti relative commitment to athletics was found to
vation, focusing more on the avoidance of failure play important roles in the academic motivation
than on striving for success. These students are of both revenue and nonrevenue student athletes.
negatively motivated by the fear of failure and
the anticipation of shame in response to a failed
effort. To avoid the shame and scrutiny of METHOD
apparent low ability, the individual limits the Participants
effort expended. Rather than openly limiting Participants in this study were 361 intercollegiate
effort, they often engage in self-handicapping student athletes enrolled at the University of
behaviors such as procrastination, handing in California at Berkeley during the 1993-1994
assignments late, test anxiety, and so forth, that academic year. Participants were those student
provide an excuse for poor performance. They athletes who attended team meetings arranged
rationalize that these are the factors that kept between the authors of this study and the coaches
them from succeeding, rather than low ability, of 22 Varsity teams. Almost two thirds of those
thus protecting an already tenuous sense of self- surveyed were male (63.3%). The male student
worth. athletes participated in 11 sports, inclusive of
Overstrivers score high on both measures of football, basketball, baseball, track and field,
approaching success and avoiding failure. Their cross country, soccer, swimming, water polo.
fear of failure leads them to strive very hard to tennis, gymnastics, and golf. The female student
succeed, which they often do. Essentially, these athletes (36.7%) participated in 11 sports,
students avoid failure by succeeding. They work inclusive of basketball, softball, track and field,
extra hard and have good study skills. They have volleyball, cross country, soccer, swimming,
a higher but more fragile sense of self-worth than tennis, crew, gymnastics and field hockey. Of the
the Failure-Avoiders. Their success is precarious student athletes, 20.8% participated in revenue
because small setbacks can have lasting effects. sports, whereas 79.2% participated in non-
Because of the emotional significance of failing, revenue sports. All of the revenue athletes were
they often experience test anxiety. male. Of the nonrevenue athletes, 53.5% were
Failure-Acceptors score low on both mea male. At the time of the study, 30.5% of the
sures of approaching success and avoiding participants were freshmen, 26.3% sophomores,
failure. These students are not particularly 26.4% juniors, and 16.8% were seniors Junior
attracted to success, but neither are they college transfer students comprised 8.4% of
concerned about failing. They have a history of the participants. The ethnic distribution of
failing, have a low sense of self-worth and are the participants in the survey was Caucasian
not very confident of their ability to succeed (68.2%), African American (14.3%), Asian
academically. They do not try very hard and American (8.6%) Mexican American/Latino
,

exhibit some of the same self-handicapping (3.8%), Native American/Alaskan Native/Pacific

behaviors and excuses as the Failure-Avoiders. Islander (3.3%), and Other (1.8%). The parti
However, they are not really interested in cipants’ SAT verbal scores had a mean of 489.28
academics and may have given up entirely on with a standard deviation of 95.89. The partici
the academic enterprise. Failure Acceptors may pants’ SAT math scores had a mean of 586.53
have at one time been Failure Avoiders whose with a standard deviation of 103.15.
history of continued academic failures produced
a learned helplessness (Coyne & Lazarus. 1980; Measures
Miller & Norman, 1979) that led them to give An instrument was constructed which consisted
up entirely on the goal of successful academic of 300 Likert-type scale items that measured the

MARCH/APRIL 1999 • VOL 40 o 2 153

 Simons. Van Rheenen, & Covingion

cognitive, noncognitive and background factors ground knowledge. and self-questioning. The
affecting the dual achievement domains of scale included items such as: (a) I spend mere
intercollegiate academics and athletics. Motiva time on the difficult course material when
tional, academic, demographic and athletic status studying for a test; (b) I study differently for
variables were studied. Participants were asked different types of exams (essay, multiple choice.
to rate the items on a 5-point scale, from I (not and so forth); (c) I make up questions to help
very true of me) to 5 (very true of me). focus my reading; (d) When I read I look for the
important ideas. Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale
Procedures
was .58.
As part of a larger study (Simons et al., 1997), Problems associated with reading and
each team member completed a paper-and-pencil studying problems were measured by a 9-item
survey, which focused on academic and athletic Likert-type scale. The scale included the items
attitudes and motivation. The surveys were such as (a) I often read a chapter and afterwards
completed during a scheduled team meeting. The don’t know what I have read; (b) I have trouble
full survey took about 40 minutes to complete. taking good class notes; (c) I read too slowly;
Backg round factors. Background factors Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale was .61.
included demographics and revenue/nonrevenue Motivation. Motivational factors included
sport status. The demographic measures of the the Approach success-Avoid failure Achievement
survey included self-reported gender, ethnicity, Questionnaire (AAAQ), Academic Self-worth.
and social status. Ethnicity was recoded into Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation from the
African American and non—African American. Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire
Non—African American included Caucasian and (MSLQ), and Self-Handicapping Excuses.
other minorities such as Asian American, The AAAQ consists of 36 Likert-type scale
Mexican AmericanfLatino, and so forth. Social items thaw measure the two basic need achieve
status was measured by a scale of student’s ment dimensions: the tendency to approach
mother’s educational level. Preliminary analysis success and to avoid failure (Covington &
showed that mother’s education was a better Omelich, 1991). The approach scale was com
predictor of academic performance than either posed of 21 items consisting of five subscales:
father’s education or participants’ self-reported (a) Risk-Taking Propensity; (b) Realistic Goal
social status. The categories were (a) None or Setting; (c) Intrinsic Engagement; (d) Persistence;
some high school; (b) High school diploma; and (e) Self-Confidence. The median score
(c) Some college; (d) College BA degree; or was 74. Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale was .73.
(e) Graduate degree (MBA, PhD, MD). Sport The avoidance scale, was composed of 13 items
played was treated as a dichotomous variable of consisting of four subscales: (a) Unrealistic
revenue and nonrevenue. Revenue included Achievement Standards; (b) Fears About Failure;
men’s basketball and football. Nonrevenue (c) Doubts About One’s Ability; and (d) Dispo
included all other sports. sition Toward Self-Criticism as Opposed to Self-
Cognitive factors. Cognitive factors in Reward. The median score was 38. Cronbach’s
cluded academic performance and study. The Alpha for this scale was .77. The median split
academic data obtained from official academic of each dimension was used to form the four
records included high school GPA, SAT math and motivational types. Success-Oriented individuals
verbal scores, and cumulative university GPA. were above the median (74) on approach and
Metacognitive study strategies are the below the median (38) on failure avoidance.
conscious strategic deployment of cognitive Overstrivers were above the median on approach
resources for studying. An 11-item Likert-type and above the median of failure avoidance.
scale measured several metacognitive study Failure Avoiders were below the median on
strategies, including comprehension monitoring, approach and above the median on failure
determining task difficulty, main idea compre avoidance whereas Failure Acceptors were below
hension, memory strategies, employing back- the median in approach and failure avoidance

154 Journal of College Student Development

Student Athletes

Self-worth theory posits that achievement because it is important to show my ability to

motivation is best understood in terms of others: and (d) Getting good grades is the most
attempts by individuals to maintain a positive satisfying thing in school for me right now.
self-image of competency, particularly when Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale was .64.
risking competitive failure. A six-item Academic Self-handicapping excuses are maladapti ye
Self-worth scale was composed of three items motivational responses to challenging achieve
from the Rosenberg Self-Esteem measure ment tasks that serve to protect an individual’s
(Rosenberg, 1965) and three items specific to perceived low self-worth by providing excuses
academic achievement at Berkeley. The three for poor academic performance. A 6-item Likert
items from the Rosenberg scale were: (a) All in type scale measured the tendency to report
all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure in excuses for lowered levels of academic effort and
school; (b) I feel that I do not have much to be performance. The items were: (a) If I worked
proud of as a student; and (c) On the whole I am harder I would get better grades: (b) I don’t have
satisfied with myself as a student. The three items enough time to study because my sport takes up
developed for the current study were (d) Do so much time: (c) I’m so disorganized that I dont
you think you have the ability to succeed get all my work done; (d) My social life interferes
academically here at UC Berkeley?; with my studying; (e) If my courses were more
(e) Compared to the average UC Berkeley interesting, I would get better grades: and (f) I
student, how would you rate your overall would do much better on tests if I didn’t get so
academic ability?; and (f) Do you think you nervous. Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale was .60
deserved to get into UC Berkeley? Cronbach’s Athletic-Academic Relationship. The Ath
Alpha for this scale was .90. letic-Academic Relationship included the
Intrinsic motivation is defined as an indi Athletic-Academic Commitment and Exploita
vidual’s propensity to approach a task for its tion scales. Student athletes are expected to fill
inherent challenge and interest. Four Likert-type two roles, that of an athlete and a student. They
scale items taken from the Motivated Strategies vary in the degree of commitment to these roles
for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, and are often in conflict. The relative degree of
1991) were selected to measure an individual’s commitment to athletics and academics was
intrinsic goal orientation in the academic domain. measured by a four-item Likert-type scale. The
These four MSLQ items were: (a) The most items included: (a) I study only hard enough to
satisfying thing in a course is trying to understand stay eligible to play my sport; (b) I care more
the content as thoroughly as possible; (b) I prefer about sports than school; (c) I put more energy
course material that really challenges me so I can into sports now because I know I’ve got the rest
learn new things; (c) When I can, I choose of my life to get a college degree; and (d) It is
assignments that I can learn from even if they more important for me to succeed in sports than
don’t guarantee a good grade: and (d) I prefer to do well in school. The higher the score on this
course material that arouses my curiosity, even variable, the stronger the commitment to the
if it is difficult to learn. Cronbach’s Alpha for athletic role. Cronbach’s Alpha for this scale
this scale was .60. was .79.
Extrinsic motivation is defined as an indi Student athletes are required to put a great
vidual’s propensity to approach a task to gain deal of time and effort into their sport which
external rewards. Four Likert-type scale items brings prestige to the university, revenues from
taken from the MSLQ (Pintrich et al., 1991) were athletic events, and donations to the university
selected to measure an individual’s extrinsic goal by alumni. A 7-item Likert-type scale measured
orientation in the academic achievement setting. the degree to which student athletes believe they
The four MSLQ items were: (a) My main are exploited by the university for their athletic
concern in my classes is getting good grades; participation. The scale included items such as:
(b) I want to get better grades in school than most (a) Sometimes I feel that I am being taken
other students get; (c) I want to do well in school advantage of as an athlete; (b) I feel that the

MARCH/APRIL 1999 • voL 40 NO 2 155

 Simons, Van Rheenen, & Covington

TABLE 1.
Motivational Types by Cognitive and Noncognitive Variables for all Subjects

Success- Over Failure- Failure

- Variable Oriented strivers Avoiders Acceptors F p

University GPA 2.97 310 2.67a 2.73a 11.54 .Ol

Athletic—academic corn 7.10 6.57 9.17a 943a 8.85 .01
Exploit 16.22 16.00 20.47a 19.59a 10.11 .01
Academic self-worth 30.7gb 28.21 24.09c 26.61d 32.10 < .01
Self-handicapping excuses 16.81c 18.80 20.25 19.68 18.08 .01
Intrinsic motivation. 14.61 15.36 12.54a 12.31a 28.23 .01
Extrinsic motivation 12.65 14.97b 13.37 11.O0c 20.46 < .01
Study problems 17.97c 21.92 b
2480
21.80 29.53 .01
Study strategies 40.57 40.39 36.32a 36.40a 19.41 .01
SAT verbal 511.68 530.00 456.72a 451 54a 10.78 .01
SAT math 611.30 624.04 563.04a 547.89a 7.61 .01
High school GPA 3.57 3.69 3•34a 3.25a 6.70 .01
Social status 3.83 3.66 3.50 3.44 2.45 > .05

a Failure-Avoiders and Failure-Acceptors significantly different (p .01) from Success-Oriented student

athletes and Overstrivers.
b
Type significantly greater (p .01) than the other three types.
Type significantly lower (p .01) than the other three types.
d
Failure-Acceptors significantly different from the Failure-Avoiders (p s .01).

University cares more about me as an athlete than variance (ANOVAs) comparing the four moti
as a student; (c) Sometimes I feel that I am the vational types on the variables in this study. All
property of the University. Cronbach’s Alpha for variables had significant F tests at the p = .01
this scale was .75. level or below, indicating significant differences
The design of the study involved assigning between the motivational types on these vari
the participants into the four motivational types ables. Tukey posthoc tests showed a number of
on the basis of their scores on the AAAQ. The significant differences between pairs of moti
four types were compared in separate analyses vational types.
of variance on each variable in this study. Posthoc Overall, these findings show important
comparisons were conducted using the Tukey differences between the Success-Oriented student
test, In a second analysis, the percentage of athletes and Overstrivers on the one hand and
students falling into each motivational type was Failure-Avoiders and Failure-Acceptors on the
compared across subgroups of particpants as well other. In general, the Failure-Avoiders and
as compared to the general non student athlete Failure-Acceptors were poorer academic per
population. formers than the Success-Oriented student
athletes and Overstrivers. Failure-Avoiders and
RESULTS Failure-Acceptors were more committed to the
Table I shows the results of the analyses of athletic role than the other two types and did not

56

I Journal of College Student Development

Student Athletes

believe that they received enough from the revenue athletes: chi-square (3. N = 268) = 6.86.
university to compensate for their commitment. p = .05. However, more Failure-Acceptors were
This may be another rationalization for their lack found in the male group. The comparison of
of academic effort. Other findings suggest that African American with nonAfrican American
more of a commitment to athletics, less intrinsic student athletes showed that proportionately
motivation, less academic self-worth, and more more Failure-Avoiders and fewer Success-
self-handicapping excuses all play a role in Oriented student athletes were found in the
producing lower academic performance. Aca African American group. However, the dif
demic self-worth was lower for Failure-Avoiders ferences between the two groups were not
than Failure-Acceptors, suggesting that pro statistically significant: chi-square (3. N = 333)
tection of self-worth plays a more important role = 2.81, p = .05. There were no significant
for the Failure-Acceptors. differences between the four motivational types
The distribution of nonathletes, athletes and in social status, F(3, 326) = 2.45. p = .05.
subgroups of athletes in the four motivational
types are shown in Table 2. Overall, athletes were Discussion
not significantly different from nonathletes (chi The results of the analysis of this motivational
square = ns). However, females were signi typology provides support for the validity of the
ficantly different from males: chi-square (3, self-worth model as applied to Division I student
N = 333) 9.94, p = .01. Males had a larger athletes. The differences between these moti
percentage of Failure-Avoiders and a smaller vational types on the cognitive and noncognitive
percentage of Failure-Acceptors. Additionally, variables are consistent with the theory’s essential
revenue athletes were significantly different from premise concerning approach and avoidance.
nonrevenue athletes: chi-square (3, N = 333) Both Success-Oriented student athletes and
= 8.25, p = .05. Revenue athletes had a larger Overstrivers, who are highly motivated to
percentage of both Failure-Acceptors and succeed academically, demonstrated higher
Failure-Avoiders and a smaller percentage of academic performance in high school and at the
Success-Oriented athletes than the nonrevenue university than Failure-Avoiders and Failure-
athletes. The male nonrevenue athletes were not Acceptors. Success-Oriented student athletes and
significantly different from the female non- Overstnvers also exhibited better metacogn i ti ye

TABLE 2.
Percent of Motivational Types by Subgroups

% Success- % Over- % Failure- % Failure-

Student Group Oriented strivers Avoiders Acceptors

Nonstudent athletes (n = 500) 31.1 20.6 28.5 19.8

Student athletes (n = 335) 29.9 19.4 31.9 18.8
Male student athletes (n = 209) 26.8 17.7 32,1 23.4
Female student athletes (n = 124) 35.5 22.9 31.5 10.5
Male nonrevenue (n= 153) 31.2 17.4 29.2 22.2
Non revenue (n = 286) 33.2 19.8 30.2 16.8
Revenue (n = 75) 16.9 18.5 38.5 26.2
African American (n = 45) 22.2 17.8 40.0 20.0
Non—African American (n = 288) 31.3 19.8 30.6 18.4

MARCHJAPRTL 1999 • VOL 40 NO 2 157

 Simons, Van Rheenen, & Covington

study strategies and were more intrinsically school. Thus, these student athletes come to the
motivated. Success-Oriented student athletes university with a strong athletic ability and
scored the highest in academic self-worth, the commitment. Their academic ability and commit
lowest in self-handicapping excuses, reading and ment may be more variable depending upon their
study problems. Overstrivers scored higher in academic ability, history of academic successes
their motivation to avoid failure than the Success- and failures, and the influences of their parents,
Oriented student athletes; they likewise reported siblings, teachers, and peers. At the university,
more reading and study problems and lower student athletes face strong time and energy
academic self-worth. Failure-Avoiders are pressures from their athletic participation, as well
strongly motivated to avoid failure at the expense as other less tangible factors that may put
of striving for success; they exhibit the charac athletics in conflict with academics and enhance
teristics expected of this motivational type: lower athletic commitment and diminish academic
academic self-worth, high self-handicapping commitment.
excuses, higher reading and study problems, Participation in intercollegiate athletics
lower metacognitive study strategies, and less requires a substantial commitment of time and
intrinsic motivation, all of which lead to lower energy. While a sport is in season, student
academic performance. Failure-Acceptors are athletes generally spend between 20 and 30 hours
neither motivated to succeed academically nor per week, attending meetings and practices.
are they trying very hard to avoid failure. As playing games at home and on the road, and in
such, they are not high on failure—avoiding individual weight training sessions. Depending
variables such as self-handicapping excuses, upon the sport, and the coach’s expectations or
study problems, and extrinsic motivation when requirements, the time demands during the off—
compared to the Failure-Avoiders. season can also be considerable.
Two noncognitive variables, athletic— Because athletic participation is physically
academic commitment and exploitation, shed strenuous, there exists the problem of fatigue that
some light on the academic motivation of student makes concentration during studying more
athletes. Both variables were higher for Failure- difficult. In addition to the pain and physical
Avoiders and Failure-Acceptors than Success- discomfort that may interfere with full con
Oriented student athletes and Overstrivers. centration while studying or attending class, extra
Failure-Avoiders and Failure-Acceptors were time is required for the rehabilitation of both
more committed to the athletic role and believed minor and major injuries.
they were more exploited by the university. Student athletes often decide in favor of
For all of the participants, athletic— athletics when there exist conflicts between the
academic commitment was negatively correlated demands of athletics and academics (Adler and
with university GPA (r = —.50). The more Adler, 1991; Simons et al., 1997). Missing a
commitment to the athletic role and the less to practice or part of a practice because of an
the academic role, the lower the university GPA. unexpected academic commitment is generally
The nature of intercollegiate athletics, especially frowned upon. Although a coach is prohibited
at Division I schools, puts pressure on student under National Collegiate Athletic Association
athletes to strengthen their athletic commitment (NCAA) regulations from requiring a student
at the expense of their academic commitment. athlete to miss an unexpected academic com
This in turn lowers academic performance (Adler mitment that conflicts with practice, the coach’s
& Adler, 1991; Simons et al., 1997). potential disapproval weighs heavily in the
Many student athletes, especially revenue student’s eyes. Because coaches possess the
scholarship athletes in Division I schools, are power to decide which athletes will play or start
recruited to the university mainly because of their in the games, many student athletes believe,
athletic ability. This athletic ability has been correctly or incorrectly, that they will be
developed and rewarded by parents, coaches, and penalized by their coaches for choosing academic
peers over time, often as far back as elementary commitments over athletic ones. The athletes

I 58 Journal of College Student Development

 Student Athletes

themselves are likewise reluctant to miss athletes believe that the university is usine their
practice. as it may interfere with their athletic athletic ability without providing the support
skill development, which will also place them necessary for them to become successful stu
at risk of losing a starting position. As the team dents. The inevitable result is poorer academic
often represents the central peer group for the performance, as our data indicates. The fact that
student athlete, peer pressure to favor athletic more Failure-Avoiders and Failure-Acceptors are
demands over academic ones plays a strong role. found in the revenue sports suggests that these
The athletic culture that student athletes athletic pressures are more pronounced in the
inhabit informs them in subtle and not-so-subtle revenue sports. Female and nonrevenue athletes
ways that athletics takes priority over academics. seem more able to resist the athletic pressures
For many, staying minimally eligible to compete and put the necessary time and energy to be
in their sport is the primary goal. For both successful academically.
Division I and II colleges and universities, Although no differences were found between
athletic eligibility requires a minimum college Failure-Avoiders and Failure-Acceptors in
GPA of 2.0 and completion of at least 24 athletic—academic commitment or university
semester units per academic year. The verbal GPA, there may well be two different mech
shorthand for this mind—set is that “a C gets a anisms at work which influence their greater
degree,” an expression vocalized by those student commitment to athletics. For Failure-Avoiders,
athletes most interested in remaining eligible and the fear of failure is the salient motive, but
least committed to the academic role. Failure-Acceptors have a lack of interest in
The motivation to succeed academically is academics altogether.
further weakened by well—publicized accounts The Failure-Acceptors are mainly interested
of athletes leaving school early to launch in playing their sport, which provides a strong if
lucrative professional careers. For these few not primary motivation for coming to the
athletes, receiving a degree has been eliminated university. They willingly accept the athletic
as a prerequisite for economic success and demands and devote most of their time and effort
security. The fact that only a minuscule per to athletics. They are not especially motivated
centage of student athletes are able to enter the to avoid failure except as it affects their academic
professional ranks appears to have little effect eligibility. Their only academic motivation is to
on dampening many student athletes’ belief that remain minimally academically eligible to play
they can and will become professional athletes. their sport. This relative lack of motivation to
Although some accommodations are made achieve academically does not appear to be due
for the special demands on student athletes, such to a fear of failure, for when compared to Failure-
as early course enrollment, special advising and Avoiders, Failure-Acceptors are higher on
extra help in the form of tutoring and review academic self-worth—a variable associated with
sessions, the belief among students and faculty failure avoidance. They also show lower extrinsic
is that these special privileges are undeserved and motivation than Failure-Avoiders, suggesting that
that student athletes are really just athletes and external academic motivators such as the striving
are not serious students. for grades to demonstrate academic ability is less
The belief that these individuals are being important for them because their interest and
exploited by the university for their athletic motivation lies elsewhere, that is sports. Self-
ability may provide a rationalization for lower handicapping excuses for these student athletes
academic effort. When the combination of lower are employed more as an explanation for reduced
academic preparation and a greater commitment academic effort than as a means of protecting
to athletics leads to poor academic performance, self-worth. These excuses are used to conceal
the student athlete may then blame the mandated their lack of interest in academics, which cannot
athletic demands for his or her poor performance be expressed publicly. The belief that they are
rather than his or her own lack of academic effort. exploited provides an additional rationalization
Feelings of resentment emerge when student for 1a k of academ’c effnrt The Failure

MARCH/APRIL 1999 • VOL 40 so 2 159

 Simons. Van Rheenen. & Covingion

Acceptors can be said to be truly academically Because sports are both intrinsically and
unmotivated. They are, however, extremely extrinsically motivating, athletics probably
motivated in the athletic domain. provides the original impetus for both Failure-
For Failure-Avoiders on the other hand. the Acceptors and Failure-Avoiders to reduce
fear of failure plays a much stronger role in academic effort. For Failure-Avoiders, academic
leading them to put forth less academic effort failures play an added role, For Success-Oriented
and develop a greater commitment to athletics. and, to a lesser extent Overstrivers, the strong
Compared to Failure-Acceptors, they show a pull of athletics is balanced by strong academic
lower academic self-worth (lowest of all four motivators that may come from parents, teachers.
types). The time and energy demands of athletics and peers, and from their early academic
provide another excuse for lowered academic successes that help them develop a strong
effort. They exhibit higher extrinsic motivation academic self-worth.
and reading and study problems than Failure- Although these results show that student
Acceptors. All these are associated with their fear athletes are distributed across motivational types
of failure. They work to avoid failure by putting in the same proportion as nonathletes. the smaller
in less academic effort and rationalize this percentages of Failure-Avoiders and Failure-
reduced academic effort by employing self- Acceptors for females and nonrevenue athletes
handicapping excuses along with the claim that supports the key role of athletic commitment.
they are being exploited by the university. For Females had higher academic commitment than
Failure-Avoiders, then, this need to protect their the revenue males, t(143) = —3.97, p = .01, and
academic self—worth reinforces the commitment lesser belief that they were exploited, 1(142)
to athletics and diminishes their commitment to —7.31, p = .01. Likewise, nonrevenue athletes
school. The Failure-Avoiders cannot be said to had a stronger academic commitment, t(231) =
be unmotivated in the academic domain. Instead, —3.00, p = .01, and a weaker belief that they were
they are maladaptively motivated to avoid failure exploited t(228) = —7.42, p = .01.
rather than to achieve success. Like Failure- Female athletes are less likely to come to
Avoiders, they are highly motivated in the athletic the university primarily to play sports because
domain. of the lack of extrinsic rewards and the limited
The correlational nature of the data does not possibility of a professional athletic career. The
allow causal inferences about the nature and greater emphasis that females place on academics
development of the relationship of academic and is also shown by the higher percentage of
athletic commitment for Failure-Avoiders and Success-Oriented student athletes. When com
Failure-Acceptors. These findings do not make paring females to revenue males, the more
it clear whether the pull of athletics induces positive academic motivation of females is
Failure-Acceptors and Failure-Avoiders to reflected in females’ higher high school GPAs,
neglect academics or whether past academic t(144) = 3.90, p = .01; SAT verbal scores,
failure produces more emphasis on athletics as t(l45)=4.OO,p= .01; SAT math scores, 1(145)
they diminish academic effort. The relationship = 2.89, p = .01; and university GPAs, 1(162) =
is likely cyclical. On the one hand, academic 5.26, p= .01.
failure can lead to more interest and effort in Revenue athletes are the most highly re
athletics as the devotion of more time and energy cruited and receive more extrinsic rewards,
to athletics leaves less time and interest in recognition, and social support than nonrevenue
building academic skills. This in turn may lead athletes. For many, this can lead to more time
to more academic failure and more devotion to and effort devoted to athletics and thus a stronger
athletics and so forth. Alternatively, superior commitment to athletics than to academics.
athletic ability is recognized, encouraged and Revenue athletes who are Failure-Avoiders and
rewarded by adults and peers, which leads to less Failure-Acceptors are the ones most likely to
interest and effort in academics and the resultant exhibit the discrepancy between their athletic and
academic failures. academic motivation. These two groups should

160 Journal of College Student Development

Student Athletes

be of most concern to educators. They are more so that they will have some independence from
at risk for academic failure. the athletic department and be able to represent
To counteract these pressures, educators the academic interests of the student athlete when
need to play a more prominent role in the lives the inevitable conflicts arise between athletic
of student athletes to help them see that they can commitments and academic ones. Early’ inter—
succeed academically as well as athletically. In vention for student athletes at risk of simply
the precollege years. educators need to pay majoring in eligibility is also important before
special attention to the academic needs of they decide that academics is too difficult or not
students who are identified as gifted athletes to important enough to pursue.
balance the attention they receive for their Coaches are the major adult role models for
athletic exploits. Teachers and administrators in student athletes as they spend a significant
these schools should work more closely with amount of time with their athletes. Coaches need
coaches, who play a large role in student athletes’ to see their student athletes’ academic per
lives, to enlist their help in emphasizing aca formance as part of their overall responsibility.
demics as well as athletics. Raising the minimum They should be rewarded for the successful
academic standards for athletic participation is academic performance of their student athletes.
one policy that provides strong extrinsic moti Coaches also need to have more understanding
vation to work hard academically. of the academic demands on their athletes. They
At the college level, athletic administrators could go to some of their student athletes
and coaches tend to be isolated from the classes, attend lectures, look over assignments.
intellectual life of the campus. Student athletes and so forth. More interaction with the faculty
may also feel isolated from the other students as through forums, lectures, and other activities
they spend so much time and energy participating would help them to see themselves as more a part
in athletics with their athletic peers. Efforts need of the academic community.
to be made to help student athletes see them As educators, we believe that academic and
selves as legitimate students as well as athletes. athletic representatives of universities must make
College staff and faculty, with the co a concerted effort to provide a more balanced
operation of the athletic department, need to be picture of college life to student athletes,
more involved in the lives of student athletes. especially for Failure-Avoiders and Failure-
Faculty and academic staff need to be more Acceptors. These efforts will require the sys
involved in the athletic recruiting process so that tematic involvement of faculty, academic, and
student athletes will feel they are valued as athletic support staff to make clear to student
students as well as athletes. Academic tutoring athletes that they show academic, and not merely
and other support services for student athletes athletic, potential.
are typically part of the athletic departments,
which makes them potentially susceptible to the
Correspondence concerning this article should be
pressure to put athletics first. These services addressed to Herbert D. Simons. Education Depart
should be separated from the athletic department ment. University of California, Berkeley, CA:
and be administratively part of academic support herbs@ socrates,berkeley.edu

View publication stats

MARcK/APRL 1999 • VOL 40 NO 2 161