This document summarizes the results of a study examining gender differences in motivation for strength training among college athletes. A questionnaire was administered to 109 athletes from various men's and women's teams to assess their goal orientations. The results showed that male athletes scored significantly higher on self-enhancing and task orientations, indicating a more competitive attitude. While men were more oriented towards appearing superior to peers, task orientation was still the dominant goal for women. The study suggests tailoring training environments to different goal orientations could help motivate athletes.

1. Glenn Cain M.Ed., CSCS, RSCC

2.  Doug Smith
 Joe Staub
 Jay Butler
 Andrea Hudy
 Jerry Martin
 Joe Bonyai
 Margaret Jones
 Sam Headley
 Troy Dell
 Luke Bradford
 Ben Kenyon
 Vince Palone
 Brian Thompson
 Donald Ford
 Frances Leverett
 Ursula Leverett

3. •Introduction
•Bridge the gap
•Develop YOUR philosophy
•Finding a topic
•Apply it!
•What I Did
•Results/Discussion
•Limitations/Suggestions
•Summary
•Questions/Comments

4. GLENN CAIN, M.Ed., CSCS
EXPERIENCE
 Trenton, NJ
 Ewing High School, ‘03
 Gettysburg College, ‘07
 Springfield College, ‘09
 Gettysburg College
(athlete)
 Intern at
Rutgers/KU/UConn
 Springfield College
 University of Kansas
 Frostburg State Univ.
 Univ. of Kansas
 Univ. of New Mexico
EDUCATION

5. scientist COACH
 Research
 We don’t know what is
really happening unless we
control the environment.
 The body doesn’t know the
difference
 “That’s the way I was
coached” does not cut it
 It’s the WHY that matters
 Application
 Does it apply to the
weight room/field of
play?
 Research takes too long –
we need to see results
now
 The mind knows the
difference/hard to
replicate game situations
We should aim to find a happy medium between the two!

6.  My philosophy:
 Efficiency is key
 Time is a major factor
 NCAA limitations
 Sport Coach limitations
 Effort is key (are they motivated?)
 It’s not the program, it’s the implementation
 It’s not the what, it’s the WHY
 “A bad program done well is better than a good
program done poorly.”
-Mike Boyle

7.  Find what interests YOU!
 Understand that you don’t have all the answers
 “It’s not about how much you know, it’s about how
much your athletes have learned.”
 Gray Cook, Athletic Body In Balance
I owe it to the athletes with whom I have the
opportunity to train to be the very best I can be
at my craft.

8.  Football vs. Women’s XC
 I worked with Football and XC – I could easily have
overlooked the cross country team
 I realized my approach had to change when coaching
each team
 Read other research for ideas
 Stumbled upon Gilson’s study
 Motivation specific to a strength training session
 Led me to create my own topic “Gender Differences in
Motivation of Strength Training”

9.  Gave out a questionnaire (MGOSQ)
 Measures 5 motivational goal orientations:
 Self-enhancing
 Self-defeating
 Social-approval
 Work-avoidance
 Task
 Determined dominant goal orientation(s) of
male vs. female athletes

10.  Self-enhancing: wants to appear superior to others
 Self-defeating: wants to avoid appearing incompetent
to others
 Social-approval: motivated by receiving praise from an
important person
 Work-avoidance: successful when achieving desired
result with minimal effort
 Task: success is relative to his/her own ability and is
not compared to performance of others

11.  Self-enhancing: I feel successful during weight room
competitions when I do better than other players
 Self-defeating: I feel successful when I’m not last
during sprints
 Social-approval: I feel successful when my teammates
or coaches tell me I performed well
 Work-avoidance: I feel successful when the strength
coach doesn’t work us too hard
 Task: I feel successful in strength training when I hit a
new personal record even if I’m still last when
compared to my teammates

12. Subscale Frequency Percent
Male 59 54.1
Female 50 45.9
Senior 1 .9
Junior 23 21.1
Soph 32 29.4
Freshmen 53 48.6

13. Subscale Frequency Percent
Football 43 39.4
Men’s Soccer 10 9.2
Men’s Basketball 6 5.5
Women’s Soccer 17 15.6
Women’s Volleyball 13 11.9
Field Hockey 11 10.1
Women’s Basketball 9 8.3

14.  Gender Differences between Self-Enhancing and
Task Orientations
 Males scored significantly higher on both
 Mean scores range from 1 – 5. The lower the score, the stronger
the goal orientation
 Self-Enhancing: Men = 1.97; Women = 2.45
 Task:Men = 1.38; Women = 1.63

15.
Goal orientation Gender Mean Std. Deviation
Self Enhancing
Male 1.97* 0.69
Female 2.45 0.75
Self Defeating
Male 2.61 0.64
Female 2.43 0.56
Social Approval
Male 1.70 0.48
Female 1.76 0.53
Work Avoidance
Male 4.36 0.52
Female 4.25 0.61
Task
Male 1.38* 0.35
Female 1.63 0.45

16.  Men had a more competitive attitude during
training
 Competitive in the sense that they wanted to appear
superior to their peers
 Perhaps a ranking system would help motivate this
group?

17.  Although men were sig. higher, Task was still the
most dominant goal orientation among women
 Trying to outdo their teammates was not as important
as their own relative success
 Ranking system might not motivate this group as much
 Perhaps a different approach is warranted?
 Find out what their individual and team goals are
rather than dictate the goals to them
 Evaluate individually instead of collectively

18.  Athlete Identity
 Males and females tend to identify with their roles as
athletes differently due largely in part to the media
(Giuliano et al., 2007).
 Is this changing?
 Perception of Body Image
 Effect of the media – pressure to look a certain way
(Depcik and Williams, 2004)
 Approximately 75% of American women wished their
bodies looked different (Hutchinson, 1993)

19. Present Sample* Previous Research**
Goal Orientation Mean 1 Mean 2
Self Enhancing 2.19 2.3
Self Defeating 2.53 3.01
Social Approval 1.73 2.03
Work Avoidance 4.31 4.29
Task 1.5 1.62
*N = 109
**N = 133

20.  Take 15 minutes at the beginning of the year to
administer the questionnaire
 Adapt the training environment to foster the desired
goal orientation(s)
 Are the athletes extremely high in Task orientation?
High in Social-Approval?
 This also suggests the need to get to know your athletes
as much as you can outside of their sport.

21.  Division III sample
 Offseason is voluntary
 Non-training stressors of college
 Mental Stress?
 Emotional Stress?
 Success or failure of previous season
 Difficult to operationally define improvements
in motivation after tailoring the training
environment

22.  In season teams
 Better attendance at the Div. III level
 Division I teams (different motivational factors)
 Scholarships
 Playing professionally
 Team sport vs. individual sport
 Long term study
 Does the motivational climate change over time?

23.  We should strive to bridge the gap between
research and application
 How we train our athletes should be based upon
something!
 Develop your philosophy, and think of how you
can logically and practically apply it
 Recognize that a gender difference may exist
among your athletes, which may warrant a
different approach to their training regimens

24.  Depcik, E., & Williams, L., (2004). Weight training and
body satisfaction of body-image-disturbed college
women. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 287-299.
 Gilson, T. A., Chow, G. M., & Ewing, M. E., (2008).
Using goal orientations to understand motivation in
strength training. Journal of Strength and Conditioning
Research, 22(4), 1169 -1175.
 Giuliano, T. A., Turner, K. L., Lundquist, J. C., &
Knight, J. L. (2007). Gender and the selection of public
athletic role models. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 30(2),
161-198.
 Hutchinson, G., (1993). Transforming body image.
American Health, 12, 21.