Competence motivation theory (CMT) is a motivational
framework forwarded by Susan Harter (1978, 1981) for understanding achievement-related behavior in
various domains (e.g., academics, social, physical).
Harter’s theory expanded on the seminal work of White
(1959), who argued that people are intrinsically motivated
to have an effect on their environment by engaging
in mastery attempts to develop and demonstrate competence.
Specifically, Harter elaborated on the nature of,
and the antecedents and consequences of competence
motivation from a developmental perspective.
According to Harter, competence motivation is a multidimensional
construct reflecting the desire, curiosity,
and interest in demonstrating competence. Applied to the
physical domain, an athlete’s desire, according to Harter,
to demonstrate competence will lead her/him to attempt
mastering physical skills. If successful at optimally challenging
tasks, the athlete will experience heightened perceived
competence and control and positive affect (e.g.,
joy, pride, pleasure). These positive self-perceptions and
affective reactions, in turn, will maintain or enhance
competence motivation, and thereby lead the athlete further
to engage in optimally challenging mastery attempts.
Failure or unsuccessful mastery attempts, on the other
hand, will lead to a perceived lack of competence, external
perceptions of control, and anxiety, all of which will
decrease competence motivation.
Another critical element outlined in CMT is the influence
of significant others (e.g., parents, peers, coaches/
teachers). Significant others responding to an athlete’s
mastery attempts with contingent and appropriate
approval and reinforcement will aide in the internalization
of a self-reward system and mastery goals. This
support will facilitate the positive development of perceptions
of competence, control, positive affect, and
ultimately competence motivation. Alternatively, a lack
of reinforcement, disapproval for independent mastery
attempts, modeling disapproval, and/or reinforcing
dependency on the significant other will contribute to
more negative outcomes. The athlete will seek external
approval and rely on external criteria to evaluate success,
and experience a lack of perceived competence
and control, negative affective responses, and ultimately
lower competence motivation.
Research in the physical domain has demonstrated
support for many of the relationships and processes
proffered in CMT (see Weiss & Amorose, 2008).
Common lines of research using this framework in the
sport setting focus on: (1) the relationships among perceptions
of competence, participation motives, and
attritions from sport; (2) developmental trends in the
level and accuracy of perceived sport competence, and
the sources of competence information used by sport
participants; (3) the influence of significant others
(including peers, parents, and coaches) on perceptions
of competence, control, affect, and motivational orientations,
and (4) the links between perceptions of
competence and achievement-related behaviors, cognitions,
and affective responses.
