Out of Bounds | Athletic divisions ought not dictate motivation

What motivates a student-athlete? It's a difficult and very obscure question and one that many have attempted to answer. However, a recent theory put forward by Steven Reiss, Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Psychiatry at Ohio State University, has stirred up some controversy among NCAA Division III programs.

In a Sept. 10 blog post on Psychology Today's website, Reiss stated that Division I student-athletes are motivated by their desire to win, but "those playing in Division III [want] to make friends." Reiss' conclusions stem from the results of his study of two Division I teams—a golf and a baseball team—and two Division III teams—a soccer and a tennis team.

Using the psychological concept of the "16 Human Needs" as the basis for his study, Reiss analyzed the specific needs of each athlete on all four teams and proceeded to interview them one-on-one. He found that "Division I players were primarily motivated by competition and achievement, whereas the Division III players were primarily motivated by social experiences."

Reiss' claims are disputable at first glance, but they merit analysis nonetheless. If one spares a moment to think about the pressures of being a Division I student-athlete, it becomes easy to understand why the athletes reported such an emphasis on "competition" in their consultations with Reiss. After all, unlike Division III athletes, Division I team members are constantly under pressure to achieve in order to maintain or receive athletic scholarships. Furthermore, with the higher level of play associated with Division I athletics, it is natural to assume that there is a little more inherent competition and, by association, motivation to win within Division I teams.

This does not imply, however, that Division I players have a greater desire to win or compete than Division III athletes as a whole. Rather, all it shows is that competition is a more pressing issue for Division I athletes as evidenced by the prevalence of competition in one-on-one discussions. Seeing as there is no way to study motivation directly, one can only do it through surveys and interviews such as Reiss' to assess the construct indirectly. I am not inclined to think, however, of the Division I athlete's responses as unbiased indicators of desires to win or compete and as such proof of Reiss' affirmations.

My views are mirrored by many others including John Tauer, Associate Professor of Psychology and Assistant Men's Basketball Coach at the University of St. Thomas, a Division III powerhouse. In a response—also posted on Psychology Today's website—to Reiss' claims, Tauer asserts that it is wrong to declare that Division III athletes are any less motivated to compete or win than their Division I counterparts. Instead, he explains that the discrepancy in the results is indicative of the all-around nature of Division III student-athletes. According to Tauer, Division III athletics are the "purest form of intercollegiate competition" where "student-athletes are truly students first." In turn, these students also experience their sport from a different standpoint and, when surveyed, explain their motivations for playing differently. Such answers, therefore, do not indicate at all any difference in their desire to win.

The only way Reiss could have justified his theory was if he had conducted the survey during games. If the same discrepancy had emerged when athletes were interviewed and asked these same questions during an intense period of the match, then there could be something to Reiss' conclusion. Since the survey wasn't conducted in such a way, however, its results cannot easily be taken as indicative of anything.

Furthermore, the fact that different sports were used for the different divisions places a limitation on the ability to generalize the results; there could be major differences in the ways different athletes experience different sports. This, in turn, would skew their responses, showing no difference between divisions but rather between sports.

Despite not agreeing with Reiss' ideas, I am inclined to sit back for a few minutes and think about his claims. After all, how are Division I athletes really different from Vassar athletes, at least psychologically? In what ways do our motivations differ from those of peers at institutions with Division I athletics? Even more interesting, how do athletes differ in schools where both Division I and Division III teams exist, like at our Liberty League rival schools Clarkson and St. Lawrence Universities? And could studying differing motivations amongst them lead to any valuable conclusions?

Not being a psychology expert of any sort, I don't know; however, I am very much intrigued. It's a subject I feel is underreported, if not understudied, but it is extremely pertinent, especially at the true amateur level where money and fame certainly aren't the end goals. Athletes usually say that they play a sport because they love it. But does that mean that some love a sport more than others? And can that fact ever be proved or quantified? Should it be? It's a thought-provoking question, and, even though I cannot provide an answer, I remain hopeful that it inspires people to think more about why they do whatever it is they doso as to possibly weed out some very revealing and much less generic answers as to what motivates student-athletes at all levels.

—Nik Trkulja '11 is and Economics and Political Science double-major. This semester he will be editorializing on social issues surrounding sports outside of the Vassar athletics realm.