How To Understand The Negative And Positive Consequences Of Running

(1)

Gro Jordalen

A longitudinal study of well-being, basic psychological

need satisfaction, vitality and burnout in marathon

runners

Master thesis in Sport Sciences

Department of Coaching and Psychology Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, 2012

(2)

(3)

Acknowledgements

First of all I want to express my gratitude for having the opportunity to complete this master thesis. This has been challenging, informative and ineffable interesting.

Thank you

Thank you Pierre-Nicolas Lemyre, for being my supervisor during this work. You have believed in me, always had time for my discussions, and guided me through this work. I am grateful for your time.

Thank you respondents, for important contributions. You have done this master thesis possible.

Thank you coaches, team leaders, and respondents, who recruited participants for the survey.

Thank you Heming Leira for advertising the survey at kondis.no

Thanks to the Norwegian University of Sport and Physical Education – for capitalize the survey, for providing the students with a library with a helpful staff, and for facilitation of opportunities to develop academic abilities.

Thank you Paul Andre Solberg, for contribution with the Norwegian version of the BPNES questionnaire used in the survey.

Thank you Dag Aalvik, for printing the diary.

Last but not least – thank you family, friends, and fellow students.

I appreciate your help.

Gro Jordalen Oslo, 2012.

(4)

Abstract

In the current study negative and positive consequences of running were examined longitudinally, by assessing the motivation of marathon runners with the help of Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan 2000). SDT argues that the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, are antecedents of, and have to be satisfied for experiences of optimal health and most effective functioning (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Previous research, mostly using cross-sectional research design, has revealed associations between need satisfaction and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001), vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997), and burnout (Gold & Roth, 1993; Silva, 1990; Smith, 1986) in sport participants. The current study aimed at investigating the relationships between these variables over an eleven-week period. Need satisfaction was expected to have the greatest overall influence on well-being. Additionally, we expected a negative association between well-being and burnout, while satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence was expected to best predict the greatest changes in well-being over time.

Participants in the current study returned questionnaires during 11 weeks of mapping when training toward either half marathon or marathon. The participants were runners described ranging from irregular exercisers to elite athletes. Their occupations ranged from being students, workers and retired workers. They were between 18 and 67 years old.

Variables investigated in the present study, have been examined in previous research, mostly using cross sectional design (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 2000; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). These studies have provided evidence for a close link between basic psychological need satisfaction and perceived well-being. The importance of basic psychological need fulfilment of runners over time to achieve ones fullest potential (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, 1995) during practice, and running competitions in particular, was supported by the current study findings. The findings underline the importance of paying attention to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, as well as indicators of perceived vitality and burnout in athletes, in order to report higher levels of well-being during and after periods with great training loads.

(5)

Current study findings suggest important gender differences in the relative contribution of the three burnout subscales and basic psychological needs. This suggests that women and men marathon runners may express differences in their psychological adaption when training toward major competitions. The current finding clearly underline the importance of facilitating basic psychological needs satisfaction for autonomy and competence, while paying attention to indicators of emotional and physical exhaustion, to facilitate optimal functioning.

(6)

List of tables

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of Well-being, Trend Well-being, Basic psychological needs, Balance in need satisfaction, Vitality and Burnout, week 1 and 11………....………… 47

Table 2 Multiple Regression predicting Well-being week 1 and 11, and

Trend Well-being ……… 48

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of Well-being, Trend Well-being, and the three burnout subscales – Emotional and Physical Exhaustion, Reduced Sense of Accomplishment, and

Sport Devaluation, week 1 and 11 ………. 51

Table 4 Multiple Regression predicting Well-being and Trend Well-being, from the three burnout subscales, week 1 and 11 ………. 52

Table 5 Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations of Well-being, Trend Well-being, Autonomy, Competence and relatedness, week 1 and

11 ………. 55

Table 6 Multiple Regression predicting Well-being and Trend Well-being from Basic psychological needs – Autonomy, Competence and Rela- tedness, week 1 and 11 ………. 56

(7)

Introduction

“If you want to run, run a mile. If you want to experience a different life, run a marathon.”

(Emil Zatopek, as cited by Ellick (2001))

This quotation from Emil Zatopek, one of the greatest runners of the 20th century, identifies one of countless reasons to run a marathon. When training toward this competition, the reasons for running are multifaceted, and could be both positive and negative. Summers, Sargent, Levey, & Murray (1982) revealed valuable information regarding the motivation for training toward and compete in marathons. They studied non-elite runners when training toward their first marathon, and found that goal achievement and “personal worth” were the most reported reasons for participation. The popularity of marathon running has been described as some kind of “Marathon fever”, which is especially prevalent among middle-aged non-elite runners. Summers et al. (1982) wondered if this might be grounded in the concept of “midlife crisis”. They further found that the challenge of participation was stimulating – a test of one’s own psychological and physiological capability. The experiences erupted when overcoming the challenge provided with participation; the resultant feelings of deep personal awareness and increased self-image, was quite important and motivating. Personal best was regarded as one important source of motivation, and the comments from one of the participants in the current study underlined this statement, when reporting that “I was the boss!”. The reputation and respectability following completing a marathon was also mentioned, and this comment; “The first marathon would regardless be a personal best, and after finishing the competition you receive respect! Everyone have their own goals”, from one of the participants in the current study, emphasized this.

Running activates a number of positive psychological responses (e.g., satisfaction of psychological and physiological needs), while running loss can produce negative psychological responses (thwarting of need satisfaction resulting in negative psychological responses) during deprivation (Chan & Grossman, 1988). When proceeding running without interruptions and injuries, people experience high scores on ratings of psychological well-being and self-esteem, and decreased symptoms of depression and overall mood disturbances.

(10)

Whether running is a positive or negative passion however, have been discussed by several researchers, and findings suggests evidence verifying both – the consequences of this passion may result in both positive and negative health outcomes (Glasser, 1976; Morgan, 1979). The positive consequences of running was by non-elite marathon runners in Gondola & Tuckman (1982) reported as feeling less tense, depressed, fatigued and confused, and more vigorous, compared to controllers. In summary, the participants in Gondola & Tuckman (1982) and Summers et al. (1982) reported both psychological and physical well-being as resulting from running, while reporting both psychological and physical withdrawal symptoms when losing training sessions. The positive health outcomes from running may often overshadow the negative consequences reported in several studies, and active runners are motivated because of perceived well-being, being socially challenged, experiencing status and increased fitness/health during the participation (Clough, Shepherd, & Maughan, 1989).

To understand motivation, researchers have looked into both the quantity (Bandura, 1997), and the quality of this phenomenon (Deci & Ryan, 2008), and it is important to both look at the regulatory processes and the inherent qualities forming the basis for distinct types of motivation (Standage & Ryan, 2012). Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) emphasizes the quality of motivation when looking at satisfaction of basic psychological needs and their role when trying to create an understanding of human motivation (Standage & Ryan, 2012). When searching for explanations why motivation is fluctuating, the current study used the self-determination theory when looking at both positive and negative responses as a result of training, especially when running.

In the current study both negative and positive consequences of running was examined, through looking at measures considering satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000), vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) and burnout (Gold & Roth, 1993; Silva, 1990; Smith, 1986) in relation to well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). When conceptualizing, the literature differentiates between psychological and physiological needs, both viewed as necessary nutriments to reach ones fullest potential, essential for survival, growth and integrity (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996). Vitality is quite often mentioned as a valuable indicator of well-being (e.g., Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a), and refer to “a positive feeling of aliveness and energy” (Ryan & Frederick, 1997, p. 529). Burnout may, on the

(11)

other hand, refer to experiences of psychophysiological exhaustion resulting from frequent, and sometimes extreme, efforts during training and competition (Silva 1990), and may result in withdrawal from a formerly enjoyable activity (Lemyre, 2005; Smith, 1986; Weinberg & Gould, 2007). These variables – need satisfaction, vitality and burnout – influences the individuals perceived well-being, which is referred to as “…optimal psychological functioning and experience” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 142). The World Health Organization further mentioned that it is important to look at the quality of life as a broad ranging concept, including both physical and psychological health, the relations to significant others and the milieu, degree of independence and personal beliefs (World Health Organization [WHO], 1997).

(12)

Chapter 1 Literature review

Self-determination theory

“Stop the pay, and stop the play”(Deci & Flaste, 1995, p. 25)

The importance of engagement because of self-determined reasons

Theories regarding human motivation describe this as behaviours executed believing some desired outcomes or goals will be the result (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and the theories refer to behaviours being executed from a motivation classified on a continuum ranging from autonomous to controlled (Deci & Flaste, 1995). It is additionally important that the motivational processes embrace successful conative processes – that is identification of significant goals, followed by goal attainment resulting in individuals happiness and enhanced motivation (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

To organize the study of motivation, the concept of needs was employed in empirical psychology (Deci & Ryan, 2000), defined in terms of their physiological or psychological content, or referred to as innate or learned. Although the cognitive theory direction in psychology in the 1960s repudiated and replaced the concept of needs with theories regarding goal selection and goal pursuits – the Self-determination theory (SDT) differentiated between the “what” and “why” of goal pursuits, or the content or outcomes of goals and the regulatory processes through which the outcomes were aspired (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The theory further differentiates between three innate, psychological needs – the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness – as the basis for an understanding of human motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), and says that these needs are motivational antecedents (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000). Deci & Ryan (2000) refers to human needs as “…necessary conditions for psychological health or well-being and their satisfaction are thus hypothesized to be associated with the most effective functioning” (p. 229). They further claim that every one of these three innate psychological needs plays an essential functioning in optimal development, and none of the needs can be thwarted or neglected without significant negative consequences.

(13)

Needs could also refer to a persons’ conscious wants, desires, or motives (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). Alternatively needs could be defined in regard of an organisms nutriments, physiological and/or psychological, essential for survival, growth, and integrity (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996). Deci & Ryan (1991) define needs in this more functional term – as “nutriments essential to a living entity’s growth, integrity and health” (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000, p. 420). Ryan (1995) agree with this definition and describes psychological needs in accordance to SDT as evolved experiential requirements that all people must have in order to grow to their fullest potential, describing them like the nutriments (i.e., soil, sun, water) plants require to reach their fullest potential. Deci & Ryan (2000) agrees with the psychological emphasis and refers to needs at the psychological rather than physiological level, when specifying needs as “…innate psychological nutriments that are essential for ongoing psychological growth, integrity and well-being” (p. 229). Sheldon, Ryan & Reis (1996) assume, in addition, that the functional role of need-fulfilling experiences, are the supplement for the individuals psychological energies and are therefore a boost for motivated behaviour.

Three basic psychological needs

Thus, needs could be conceptualized as nutriments required to reach ones fullest potential, and to achieve optimal psychological health. Deci & Ryan (1991) proposes that infants are born with general interests and innate capacities, which motivate their strivings throughout life. The human being is born with innate psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, and the self-determination theory highlight the fulfilment of these needs when explaining the framework behind human motivation.

The need for autonomy

The need for autonomy or self-determination refers to doing what you want to do – the feeling of choosing one’s activities and what activities to be engaged in, enjoying the activity or at least believing in it (Milyavskaya, Gingras, Mageau, Koestner, Gagnon, Fang, & Boichè, 2009; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). SDT further defines autonomy as

(14)

“endorsing one’s actions at the highest level of reflection” (Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997, p. 708), and these authors further suggests that autonomy is a general organizational nature of existence, a tendency toward coordination and integration of functioning vital for living being. Autonomous actions are initiated and guided by “the self”, and the greater this autonomy; the more one acts in accord with “the self”, feel like and appears as a unit in one’s character (values, needs, and intentions). The opposite of acting in accord with this “self”, would be to act in accord with pressure and controlling forces (either within the individual or as external forces). Succeeding in autonomous behaviour can be understood in accordance to successful development and self-regulated behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci (1999) also underlines this, and say when autonomous the human’s behaviour is said to be flowing from and expressing the self. Satisfaction of the need for autonomy has further demonstrated positive influences on psychological well-being (Daley & Maynard, 2003; Parfitt & Gledhill, 2004).

When autonomous people will experience the feelings of being the “origin” of ones actions – that is seeing oneself as possessing the locus of causality (internal perceived locus of causality) – rather than seeing oneself as a “pawn” – when perceiving the source of initiation to be outside the self (external locus of causality) (deCharms, 1968). Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci (1997) state that one can theoretically, in addition to being a pawn with respect to other people, be a pawn with respect to controlling forces within ones personality, and these forces could be as strong as the controlling forces in the surroundings. These feelings of being the “origin” of ones actions, results in the individuals free choice of behaviours and doings, an internal perceived locus of causality, and the feeling that the actions emanates from the self (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan et al., 1997).

The need for competence

The need for competence refers to feeling good at doing something, or at least feel one can become good in the activity (Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). Competence also refers to the feeling of master one’s environment and different social contexts, experience efficiency, and achieve and control desired outcomes (Milyavskaya et al., 2009; Deci &

(15)

Ryan, 1991). White (1960) defined competence as “…fitness or ability to carry on those transactions with the environment that result in its’ maintaining, growing and flourishing” (p. 100), when he postulated this as a basic human need. DeCharms (1968) included some more facets into this definition, when he suggested that humans have a primary psychological need to be an origin of action – to feel they are the promoter of activities, and to feel they can regulate their own actions. Competence is further linked to enhanced well-being – achieving important goals predict enhanced well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

The need for relatedness

The need for relatedness refers to relating meaningfully and closely to significant others in activities and processes, and connecting to the selves of other people (Milyavskaya et al., 2009; Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). Research suggests that the need for relatedness is one of the most important factors influencing how people rate their happiness (Ryan & Deci, 2001). DeNeve (1999) note that traits enhancing relatedness and affiliation are one of the most strongly associated with subjective well-being, somewhat similar to Ryan & Deci’s (2001) proposal which says that when related to significant others, this foster well-being if it represents a relationship where a person’s basic psychological needs is satisfied. It is important to point out that it is not the quantity, but the quality of relatedness that counts (e.g., Kasser & Ryan, 1999; Nezlek, 2000).

Sheldon et al. (1996), in addition to reveal the relations between well-being, autonomy and competence, looked for gender differences in their study. They found that women reported more symptoms and higher levels of negative affect than men, and in addition they found significant gender differences concerning overall well-being. When present-ing gender differences that emerged when it comes to the interactions between trait competence, autonomy and daily well-being, the authors found that women reported significant relations between competence and well-being, while this relationship were non significant among the men in the analysis. The situation was opposite when it comes to trait autonomy – in this analysis only men reported significant relations between autonomy and daily well-being. Sheldon & Elliot (1999) in addition detected gender differences regarding need satisfaction – women were lower than men in

(16)

competence, while the opposite were true for relatedness, were women demonstrated the highest score. Contrary, Reinboth & Duda (2006) found no gender differences in their study investigating factors predicting indices of well-being in sport over the course of the season, and large meta-analytical studies confirm this finding – there are only small and variable gender differences on well-being and happiness (Haring, Stock, & Okun, 1984). In order to explain the framework behind human motivation, SDT suggests that the fulfilment of these three needs are essential, and further describe motivation on a continuum ranging from being extrinsic or intrinsic, depending on the fulfilment of the three needs.

The motivational continuum of SDT

Motivation can be viewed as a general term that refers to people being “moved” to do something (Ryan & Deci, 2000b), and may arise from quite different forces (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999), ranging from being intrinsic to extrinsic. SDT distinguishes mainly between three types of motivation – named intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation. This differentiation is based on the reasons or goals causing the individual to engage in an activity or relationship (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

Intrinsic motivation – nourished by external or internal rewards?

Intrinsic motivation could be defined in terms of the task being interesting, or in terms of the satisfactions gained from the engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2000b), and may further be seen in the eyes of Skinner’s (1953) Operant theory or Hull’s (1943) Learning theory. The Operant theory refers to intrinsically motivated behaviours performed due to external rewards or reinforcements, whereas the Learning theory describe this as behaviours from psychological drives caused by satisfaction of innate psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Intrinsic motivation has since then been referred to as when doing activities found interesting without achieving external rewards (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). This last proposal fit White’s (1959) description of actions driven by intrinsic motivation – suggesting that these were a result of inner motives (Ryan & Deci, 2000b) and a desire to achieve feelings of efficacy and

(17)

competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000), done without the necessity of external reinforcements or rewards. The rewards for acting are “in the activity itself” – the person doesn’t need any external rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1991), but rely on internal rewards such as the pleasure obtained from satisfaction of basic psychological needs. Deci (1975) imply in addition that intrinsically motivated behaviours are originally self-determined, acted naturally and spontaneously because of interest and enjoyment. These tendencies are especially prominent in childhood because of the great freedom to be intrinsically motivated (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). If nurtured, intrinsic motivation is also evident in adolescents’ and adults’ engagements and different life epochs (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). To uphold this intrinsic motivation, the basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence have to be satisfied (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

Experiments by Deci (1971, 1972) suggests that intrinsic motivation decreases when external rewards (money) are used, leading to a level of postreward behaviour with intrinsic motivation below baseline (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The innate pleasure of doing an activity (intrinsic motivation) is replaced by the targeted extrinsic motivation. The research declares that the individual, after being offered external rewards such as money, should not render the activity without getting paid – they should not be intrinsically motivated to act. Deci (1971) describes this well when writing:

It appears that money – perhaps because of its connotation and use in our culture – may act as a stimulus which leads the subjects to a cognitive reevaluation of the activity from one which is intrinsically motivated to one which is motivated primarily by the expectation of financial rewards. In short, money may work to “buy off” one’s intrinsic motivation for an activity (p. 114).

Deci (1971) also states that intrinsic motivation increased when verbal reinforcements and positive feedback were used. Sharp, Pelletier, & Lévesque (2006) argue, in contrast, that without providing external rewards you cannot activate all – there will always exist people who will not be motivated without this offer. Especially, if participants receive external rewards and these ends, the participation plunges. Deci (1971) suggests never-theless, that there is no support for the prediction that external rewards decrease intrinsic motivation. This is also the conclusion made by Deci & Ryan (1991), saying that external rewards do not necessarily undermine intrinsic motivation. More crucial,

(18)

whether external rewards decrease or increase intrinsic motivation, depend on the way feedback is worded (Ryan, 1982), and the contexts external rewards are offered (Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983). Deci & Ryan (1991) suggests that events experienced as controlling when the intent is to “motivate” or pressure the individual to behave, think or feel in specific ways, are not intrinsically motivating. The motivator should rather offer the individual choices in a non-pressing way of speaking. Deci & Ryan (1991) therefore suggest that the intrinsic/extrinsic dichotomy in relation to self-determination should not be considered as two reverse concepts, but should be viewed in the nature of its internalization.

Extrinsic motivation – covering four types of regulations

Extrinsic motivation consists of 4 types of regulations – external, introjected, identified and integrated regulation. These are separated depending on the degree of extrinsic influence on the SDT continuum, and can vary greatly in degree of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

External regulation. This regulation is located at the opposite extremity on the motivation continuum compared to intrinsic motivation – the behaviour is controlled by specific external contingencies (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In view of this regulation, humans are motivated by external rewards – they are driven by and want to satisfy an external demand, or want to avoid a threatened punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Behaviours regarded as controlled, do often suffer from poor maintenance, and come to stop when rewards are lacking (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Introjected regulation. Behaviours motivated by introjection are quite close to resembling behaviours motivated by external regulation (Ryan & Connell, 1989). The distinction between these regulations is that introjected regulated individuals administer the contingent consequences themselves (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These consequences could be contingent self-worth (pride), or threats of guilt and shame. Engagement in behaviour is grounded in feelings of pressure to avoid guilt or anxiety, or to achieve ego-enhancement or pride (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). In contrast to external regulations; introjected regulations are more likely to be maintained, are yet an unstable form of

(19)

regulation (Koestner, Losier, Vallerand, & Carducci, 1996), but may be internalized (Ryan et al., 1997). Internalization is the tendency of individuals to take in and transform external regulations and values in the surroundings into internal behaviours and values. Internalization is viewed on a continuum ranging from impersonal causations (amotivation) through gradual higher personal causation and degree of internal causation (external, introjected, identified and integrated regulation) to the highest form of self-determined behaviour, intrinsic motivation. The internalization of introjected regulated behaviours are initiated, but motivation, cognition and affect could not be understood as integrated because they are not part of the constitution of the self. The degree to which people are able to internalize regulations – to synthesize cultural demands, values, and regulations, and to incorporate them into the self, depends on degree fulfilment of the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness (Chandler & Connell, 1987). SDT proposes that the internalization also is dependent on the regulations and values of the social groups the individual is a member of (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and the fulfilment of the basic psychological needs for relatedness and competence perceived in these groups. It is vital to get hold of the importance of the integrated values and regulations, and become self-determined in this respect. Deci & Ryan (1991) states, “internalization is something the person does” (p. 254), and continue when describing internalization as something “the person is motivated to do – rather than something that is done to the person” (p. 254).

Identification. When humans are motivated by identified regulations, they have uncovered and understood the value and meaning of behaving in specific ways (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and have more fully accepted it as and made it their own – when exercising because of the benefit both physically and psychologically, beyond the profits of immediately well-being, people are driven by identified regulation. The behaviour is still considered as external regulated – it is not executed because of pleasure, enjoyment or spontaneous satisfaction, but because the individual find its outcome valuable and rationally. Identified regulations are thus considered with even more maintenance and commitment than external and introjected regulations, and the motivation is more powerful.

Integration. Behaviours regulated by integrated motivation are the fullest and most complete form of extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Humans identify with the

(20)

value and importance of behaving in specific ways, and integrate these identifications to other aspects of the self, bringing these regulations into congruence with one’s values and needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). The behaviours are herein in harmony and accordance with the true self, the human’s values and identities (Ryan, 1995). This motivation is described as self-determined extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000) – the more one is internalizing the reasons to act in specific ways, the more one is assimilating the reasons to act to oneself, and the more self-determined (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Behaviours are still considered extrinsic motivated, because they’re done for its expected statement of value with respect to the resultant outcome, even though the individual is fully volitional and value the behaviour. The regulations could from another point of view be characterized on a continuum ranging from being autonomous to controlled (Deci & Ryan, 2000), due to their internalization.

Autonomous vs. controlled motivation – another SDT continuum

External regulation is, according to Deci & Ryan’s (2000) description of SDT, the least internalized regulation and the most controlled form of extrinsic motivation. This is because the behaviour is regulated by rewards or punishments from others and the individual could not control the outcome. Ryan & Deci (2000b) state that the primary reason people engage in externally motivated behaviours is because these are valued by significant others, for instance family members, close friends or a coach. This aspect of the motivation could in SDT’s term be referred to as relatedness, one of the basic psychological needs important considering achievement of well-being, psychological and physical health.

When moving toward more internalized forms of regulation and intrinsic motivation on the motivation-continuum, the behaviours will continually become more autonomous. Proceeding from external regulations through introjection, identification and integration, the regulation will gradually become more within the person and the internalization will be fuller. The individual will little by little feel as the owner of the behaviour, and perceive lessened conflict behaving in accord with the regulation. When individuals display behaviours internalized to the level of integration, they carry through fully volitional (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When more internalized, SDT proposes that basic psychological needs will to a fuller extent be satisfied (Ryan & Deci, 2002b).

(21)

This will result in a uniform and healthy identity, “adopted in the service of basic psychological needs” (Ryan & Deci, 2002b, p. 254), leading to a lesser extent of opposing identities and role conflicts. Within ones general identity, there are several dif-ferent components that could be internalized and integrated in various degrees, pointing out that individuals may be introjected regulated in some activities, while identified regulated and even intrinsically motivated in others.

At the farthest left end on the motivation-continuum, is amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Individuals engaging in behaviours with this regulation are missing the intention to act (Deci & Ryan, 1991), they actually lack motivation in the way the cognitive-motivational tradition define the term. People are in danger of being amotivated when they are not able to regulate themselves with respect to behaviour (Pelletier, Dion, Tucson, & Green-Demers, 1999). This could be the result when they gradually have moved to the left of the motivation-continuum and become more externally regulated, if their self-efficacy is affected (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and they don’t feel competent to act out (Deci, 1975). Behaviours driven by amotivation is completely missing self-determination and the individual feel totally controlled by the environment or other individuals, don’t believing in the desired goal achievement (Seligman, 1975). Heider (1958) refer to amotivation as impersonal causation that is marked by a perceived absence of intentionality, and is similar to what Seligman (1975) called helplessness (Deci & Ryan, 1991).

Deci & Ryan (2000) summarize the research on regulatory styles and causality orientations by saying that behaviours executed within the autonomous regulation, showed a variety of positive outcomes, such as “…higher quality performance, improved maintenance of behaviour change, and better mental health” (p. 244), relative to behaviour executed with more controlled regulation.

Thwarting of need satisfaction

Experiences of amotivation and controlled motivation could be a result of thwarted need satisfaction (or vice versa), which is hypothesized to lead to diminished well-being and negative consequences (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2008). Participants in Sheldon & Filak’s

(22)

(2008) study, showed that thwarting peoples’ need satisfaction was more impactful than enhancing it. Deci & Ryan (2000) also distinguish between the thwarting of physiological and psychological needs – when physiological needs are thwarted, people will typically immediately try to satisfy this shortage, while they when psychological needs are thwarted would be suspicious to find compensatory satisfactions and accommodations, e.g., by the valuing of materialism (Ryan & Deci, 2002b). Kasser & Ryan (1993, 1996) found that placing a strong value on wealth relative to more intrinsic reasons (e.g., close relationship, personal growth) resulted in poorer well-being. Deci & Ryan (2000) states that thwarting of needs could also lead people to become controlled (either complying or defying) or amotivated (either being out of control or acting helpless (Seligman, 1975)). SDTs’ organismic dialectic approach states that thwarted need satisfaction and amotivation may be the result if the challenges exceeds an optimal level, but proposes that the human being may be adjustable owing to its capacity (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

SDTs’ organismic dialectic approach

SDT have an organismic dialectic approach when viewing humans as active, growth-oriented organisms who integrate their psychic elements into a unified sense of self and seeing themselves in larger social structures (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Deci & Ryan (1991) referred to an organismic integration as the most basic developmental strivings of the self, and it is the combination of innate activity and integration that gives a theory an organismic disposition. The organismic dialectic approach views the human being as self-motivated, curious, interested, vital, and eager to succeed, because success itself is personally satisfying and rewarding (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Deci & Ryan (2000) further propose that human organisms, pursuant to SDT have an adaptive design which causes them to engage in activities and environments promoting their innate needs to be satisfied. The dialectic part of the approach involves the integrative tendency when the internally forces and events of the self meets externally forces and events and integrate them into the self, able to gain a sense of being an agent with respect to them (Deci & Ryan, 1991). This resulting entails if the challenges the individual experience from the self, others and the community are at an optimal level, otherwise they will result in thwarted need satisfaction, and impaired or inhibited development.

(23)

When psychological theorists embrace the organismic paradigm trying to understand human behaviour and personality, they assume that psychological development result in a natural tendency toward greater differentiation (growth, self-extension) and integration (coherence, self-regulation, unity). Deci & Ryan (1991) describe this organismic integration when stating that it deals with “the tendency toward unity in one’s “self”, that is toward coherence in one’s regulatory activity and experience” (p. 243). The process here entails separating aspects of one’s interests and capacities and thereafter to assemble them into higher-order organization with other aspects of one’s self (Deci & Ryan, 1991). Successfully ending this process will leave the individual with improved physiological and psychological health – the well-being precursors.

Well-being

The concept of well-being could be approached from many levels (Reis et al., 2000), and refers to conditions of “…optimal psychological functioning and experience” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 142). Thomas, Dyrbye, Huntington, Lawson, Novotny, Sloan, & Shanafelt (2007) revealed that well-being were positively related with empathy and negatively related with burnout among medicine students, but well-being is not just the absence of mental illness (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In a simplistic view well-being is described as a subjective experience of affect positively, and in a wider description it is an organismic function in which the person display vitality, psychological flexibility, and a deep inner sense of wellness (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Well-being is fundamental in the World Health Organization’s definition of health, and is contained in its constitution: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity” (World Health Organizations [WHO], 1997, p. 1). The organization emphasize the importance of measuring improvement in quality of life instead of focusing on the frequency and severity of disease, and refer to quality of life as a broad ranging concept including “the person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs and their relationship to salient features of their environment” (WHO, 1997, p. 1). Deci & Ryan (2000) further suggest that satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness is necessary for, and could lead to conditions of

(24)

psychological health and well-being, and experiences of optimal development and effective functioning. Research additionally emphasizes that greater need satisfaction promote well-being in sport (Gagnè, Ryan, & Bargmann, 2003; Reinboth & Duda, 2006; Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004).

Deci & Ryan (2000) further says that variations in the amount satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs will result in variations in perceived well-being. Sheldon et al., (1996) found that satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for competence and autonomy lead to greater daily well-being, in a study over a 2-week period. When the participants experienced the most satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, they also reported the highest well-being, and they denote this a “good day”. In this study Sheldon et al. (1996) also found a “carryover-effect” – when participants reported “bad days” they felt more sick or sad the day before, but this was not true when the participants reported “good days” – they did not necessary proclaim more positive affect or vitality the day before. Research by Sheldon & Elliot (1999) and Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan (2000) also supported the need satisfaction – well-being hypothesis. Reis et al. (2000) stated, “…daily variations may be understood in terms of the degree to which three basic needs – autonomy, competence, and relatedness – are satisfied in daily activities” (p. 419). These authors also found systematic day-of-the-week variations in emotional well-being and need satisfaction – the weekly cycle identified by several researchers (e.g. Egloff, Tausch, Kohlmann, & Krohne, 1995; Kennedy-Moore, Greenberg, Newman, & Stone, 1992; Larsen & Kasimatis, 1990). Fluctuations in participants’ mood from weekday to weekends, and also a weekly cycle for satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness, but not for competence, were uncovered (Reis et al., 2000) – autonomy and relatedness scores were significantly higher during weekends, autonomy also with the significantly lowest score on Mondays and relatedness with the lowest score on Tuesdays. The scores for competence didn’t show any such weekly cycle, but were increasing from Mondays till Wednesdays, a bit lower on Thursdays, and thereafter relatively high in weekends. This is in line with former research (e.g., Kennedy-Moore et al., 1992), suggesting that people are likely to experience more autonomy and relatedness in weekends, when the majority of people are free to decide what activities to engage in and with whom to engage these activities. The high score on competence also during weekdays may be explained by the activities people participated during the

(25)

week which typically provide many opportunities for its’ manifestation (Reis et al., 2000). The authors also found higher average levels of positive affect on weekends than weekdays, and the opposite with negative effect, with lowest levels on Mondays and Fridays and highest levels on Saturdays and Mondays, respectively. Interestingly, autonomy and competence were associated with favourable outcomes on all four measures of well-being (positive affect, vitality, negative affect, and symptoms). Relatedness was significantly predictive for two of the well-being measures – positive affect and vitality, only. This could be due to the experience that positive affect is elevated when socializing with others (Watson & Clark, 1994). These results were supported by Lonsdale, Hodge, & Rose (2009), who unveiled that relatedness only significantly predicted one of the burnout subscales, and concluded by saying that the satisfaction of this need may be of lower importance when promoting well-being and avoiding ill-being.

Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser (2004) found evidence stating that “it’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it” (p. 484), that matters and affects people’s well-being. It is both the directive focus of goals (e.g., contents) and the processes underlying goals (e.g., motives) which matters, and higher well-being would be achieved when focused on the pursuits of goals (e.g., growth-seeking, rather than seeking money or fame) and the pursuit of goals motivated by autonomous rather than controlled reasons (Sheldon et al., 2004). Thus, when estimating amount of well-being, it is further crucial whether approaching well-being by means of the eudaimonic or hedonic view.

Eudaimonic and hedonic approaches to well-being

The hedonic approach to well-being has focused on happiness and defines well-being in terms of pleasure attainment, happiness and pain avoidance, while the eudaimonic approach has focused on meaning and self-realization and defines well-being in terms of the degree to which a person is fully functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2001). This latter view says that well-being lies in the actualization of human potentials, and fulfilling or realizing one’s nature. Kahneman, Diener & Schwarz (1999) defines hedonism as “what makes experiences and life pleasant and unpleasant” (p. 9), and they announces how to

(26)

achieve well-being in a hedonic perspective by calculating utilities, maximizing rewards, and optimize pleasure rather than displeasure.

One common method for measurement of hedonic well-being, is by using Diener & Lucas (1999) assessment of subjective well-being (SWB). This assessment consists of a total happiness score derived from life satisfaction, the presence of positive mood, and the absence of negative mood (Ryan & Deci, 2001). There have been some arguments against using this measure to examine well-being, but Diener & Lucas’ (1999) method has been, and still is, a primary index for this research (Ryan & Deci, 2001).

The eudaimonic view of well-being emphasizes that “true happiness is found in the expression of virtue – that is, in doing what is worth doing” (Ryan & Deci, 2001, p. 145). Aristotle agreed in this way of looking at happiness, and meant that the hedonic view of happiness makes humans slavish followers of their desires.

Fromm (1981) distinguished between the hedonic and eudaimonic view of happiness by stating that the first are subjectively experienced needs (desires) whose satisfaction result in immediate but short-lived pleasure, and the latter are rooted in human nature whose satisfaction leads to human growth and requirements of human nature (Deci & Ryan, 2001). This view underline that not all human desires are leading to happiness when well-being is achieved, because the outcome isn’t necessarily good and therefore would not promote well-being. This is an objective perspective on human well-being.

Self-determination theory is also considering aspects leading to well-being, and agree with the eudaimonic view, when stating that humans achieve greater well-being through self-realization, the worth of actualizing the self – this through fulfilment of the three basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Ryan & Deci (2001) further state that need satisfaction foster SWB as well as eudaimonic well-being, confirmed by Nix et al. (1999) research who unveiled that success in an activity while feeling autonomous resulted in both happiness and vitality, and succeeding in the activity while feeling pressured to perform just resulted in happiness and not vitality.

In sum, the hedonic viewpoint focuses on subjective well-being (more positive affect, less negative affect and greater life satisfaction), and the eudaimonic viewpoint focuses

(27)

on psychological well-being, defined in terms of the fully functioning person. The distinction between these positions could in brief be described as “…eudaemonic philosophies espouse balance, harmony, and temperance, whereas hedonic philosophies typically espouse intensity, quantity, and extremity” (Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006, p. 333).

Subjective well-being and its relations to health and illness

The link between subjective well-being and physical and psychological health is multilateral. It is intuitively clear that there is an association between these variables (Ryan & Deci, 2001), but this relation is multifaceted. Sickness and illness is often associated with poor well-being and negative affect, but whether this decision is made by the people themselves or by e.g., doctors is vital when interpreting the situation (Okun, Stock, Haring, & Witter, 1984). This complexity could be seen when people with objectively poor health are rated with high SWB, and when others with no signs of somatic illness are rated with poor SWB (Ryan & Deci, 2001). How people interpret their physiological and psychological health, also depends on their energy level and perceived vitality.

Subjective vitality

Ryan & Frederick (1997) refer to subjective vitality as “a positive feeling of aliveness and energy” (p. 529), and says that when under conditions where the basic psychological needs are satisfied, subjective vitality should be maintained or enhanced. Because their opinion before exploring the energy-variable in their research was that energy available to the self cannot be directly measured, Ryan & Frederick (1997) explored vitality as a subjective variable, creating a scale which narrowly focused on positive feelings of energy and aliveness. Their proposition was “subjective vitality is both experientially salient and meaningful, and evidence will point to it as a phenomenal nexus upon which physical and psychological factors converge” (p. 533).

In his chapter Moods as Barometers of Well-Being, Thayer (1986) points out that “our energy level tells us a great deal about our body’s overall well-being” (p. 21). Thayer

(28)

(1986) further postulates that energy together with tension and the thoughts these influences are responsible for what people refer to as mood. Our perceived energy level tells us a lot about our physical and psychological state, and could be a prediction of our well-being and health conditions.

Research suggests that exercise could influence energy level – moderate exercise could result in increased perceived energy level, while strenuous exercise generally temporarily decreases it (Thayer, 1986). The immediate feelings received when start up walking after sitting for hours, is energy flowing through the blood vessels, and Lazarus (1991) propose that the increased energy level could be observed after just 5 minutes of brisk walk. Thayer (1986) emphasized that this is the immediate response, while a program of endurance training would show different results – this would most often result in heightened experienced energy levels. Research in addition points out that Deci & Ryan’s (1985) conception intrinsic motivation could be linked to feelings of vitality and energy (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). When intrinsiccally motivated, the consequence of the engagement is feelings of pleasure and enjoyment, and these feelings could be accompanied by feeling alive and vital. This is the result when behaviours are rendered with a sense of internal locus of causality (IPLOC) (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When having this IPLOC one feel as an origin of ones actions, rather than when driven by an external perceived locus of causality (EPLOC) and feel as a “pawn” (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). Ryan & Frederick (1997) further propound that when “one experiences one’s energy as “one’s own” and as emanating from the self ” (p. 535), the individual will give notice of vitality. In addition they proposed that subjective vitality was closely associated to individual differences in self-actualization, defined by Jones & Crandall (1986) as “the discovery of the real self, and its expression and development” (p. 63). Ryan & Frederick (1997) expected that those with high score in self-actualization in addition possess high scores on autonomy and IPLOC. Their research confirmed this hypothesis among others; subjective vitality were significantly positively related to indexes of well-being, actualization, esteem, better mental health, and higher reported self-determination, and negatively related to indexes of ill-being (e.g., psychopathology, anxiety and depression) and physical symptoms. The comprehension and personal interpretation of somatic factors, whether it be headaches, cold symptoms or other severe conditions, are vital for the influence on perceived vitality – if people experience these obstacles as challenges or destructive factors. Ryan & Frederick (1997) also found

(29)

that physical competence were associated with feelings of energy and aliveness. They suggest that subjective vitality are positively associated with extraversion and conscientiousness, and negatively associated with neuroticism. Positive affect, warmth and activity were positively related to vitality, and the authors state that people feeling more vitality have less negative and more positive mood. They further found that vitality were associated with global and body functioning esteem and self-actualization among pain clinic patients compared to healthy controls, participants unveiled that physical symptoms could be a drain on one’s subjective vitality. Ryan & Frederick (1997) conclude by saying that the results from their studies demonstrate that vitality may be a useful marker of well-being in applied research, and subjective vitality may be related both to physical and psychological factors concerning well-being. But, they also state that the results from these studies do not say whether high ratings on subjective vitality is always indicative of well-being, and state that other subjective conditions may be associated with well-being.

Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan, 1995) suggests that contexts that supports the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness, will enhance vitality, whereas those contexts that thwart these needs (when feeling controlled, incompetent, or unloved) would diminish vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). People who are more tied up to aspirations leading to external outcomes (money, rewards), rather than intrinsic outcomes (interpersonal relations, personal growth), reports less vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997), well-being and self-actualization (Jones & Crandall, 1986) – intrinsic aspirations were confirmed to positively and significantly relate to self-actualization and vitality (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996). Extrinsic aspiration (relative importance/index for financial success) was further negatively related to these variables (self-actualization and vitality) of well-being. Kasser & Ryan (1993, 1996) emphasizes the importance of intrinsic aspirations and intrinsic motivation to attain high scores on variables of well-being. They conclude by saying that “the desire for money does not necessarily bring happiness; instead, too much emphasis on this aspect of the American dream may be an organismic nightmare” (p. 421). Kasser & Ryan (1996) in addition investigated the relationship between extrinsic/ intrinsic aspirations and depression and physical symptoms. They found that these variables were negatively related to intrinsic aspirations and the opposite yielding extrinsic aspirations. Ryan, Chirkov, Little, Sheldon, Timoshina, & Deci (1999) had similar

(30)

findings in their study – extrinsic aspirations did generally not enhance well-being, whereas intrinsic aspirations did. Kasser, Ryan, Zax, & Sameroff (1995) concluded that extrinsic aspirations for financial success were a compensatory act for feelings of insecurity, acted out to maintain a sense of worth and gain approval. Kasser & Ryan (1996) end their article with a poem by Said Lao-tzu (1988), pronounce that the only way to serenity is to step back after you have done your work, not chase after extrinsic goals or pursue approval from others who may result in you being their prisoner.

The eudaimonic view of subjective well-being supports the idea that intrinsic rather than extrinsic aspirations lead people to greater well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In poor nations however, where people do not have enough money, this affects reported level of well-being, but in nations where people are richer, money is not a variable with reference to well-being (e.g., Diener & Diener, 1995). Ryan & Deci (2001) suggest that this relationship may occur because of the functional freedom accompanying national wealth. This statement in addition says that in wealthier nations, well-being and basic psychological need satisfaction may be greater because the citizens don’t have to deal with problems caused by poor finances. Other research (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996) suggests that people who place a strong value on extrinsic aspirations and life goals, relative to intrinsic ones, should experience lower well-being because of poor basic psychological need satisfaction. Ryan & Deci (2001) summarize the studies discussed in relation to intrinsic-extrinsic aspirations, when saying that the work in both the hedonic and eudaimonic traditions underline that extrinsic aspirations (money) does not at all lead to either happiness or well-being.

Sheldon & Niemiec (2006) are also stating that “...there is no a priori connection between motivated behaviour and resultant need satisfaction” (p. 332), and people are at risk of focusing on the wrong goals resulting in thwarting of need satisfaction (Sheldon, 2004). Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci (1996) underline this statement when suggesting that not all achievements will favour the individuals need satisfaction and result in well-being. Athletes could experience both adaption and maladaption considering the training loads they carry out – adaption will promote need satisfaction, and maladaption could inhibit need satisfaction and lead to more severe consequences (Ryan & Deci, 2002a).

(31)

Athlete burnout

The connection between need satisfaction, thwarting of need satisfaction and the negative consequences resulting, have been examined concerning e.g., athlete burnout. In periods with increased training load, athletes will experience an equal increase in, no change, or decrease in performance. When these periods result in decreased performance and maladaption, when the athletes cannot adapt the perceived charges either physiological or psychological, they are vulnerable for experiencing conditions of overreaching, staleness, overtraining and burnout (Gould & Diffenbach, 2002). Gould (1996) summarizes his review, which examines the phenomenon of burnout in athletes, by stating that burnout in sport is “a combination of personal (e.g., perfectionism) and situational (e.g., parental expectations, physical overtraining) factors” (p. 285).

Overreaching, a short term overtraining (Lehman, Gastmann, Petersen, Bachl, Seidel, Khalaf, Fischer, & Keul, 1992), and overtraining are often results of the tremendous training load exposed to athletes in periods with increased training load (high volume and intensity). It’s important that the athletes manage to get enough rest in these periods, and that they are not stressed of unessential psychological and physiological factors. Otherwise these periods, instead of leading to adaptation and improved performance, will lead the athletes to maladaptation and decreased performance (Weinberg & Gould, 2007), and they would be susceptible for experiencing overtraining, staleness or burnout.

Weinberg & Gould (2007) says that staleness is the end result of overtraining, defined by The American Medical Association (1966) as “a physiological state of overtraining which manifest as deteriorated athletic readiness” (Weinberg & Gould, 2007, p. 492). The condition will inhibit the athlete to continue the training load, and the athlete can no longer achieve the performance results he achieved earlier. In this state, the athlete could still be motivated to do training and to try to achieve good performance results. If this condition expands, athletes may be exposed to burnout, and will no longer be motivated to participate in training and competitions (Lemyre, 2005). This will further induce psychological, emotional, and at times physiological withdrawal from a formerly enjoyable activity (Weinberg & Gould, 2007; Smith, 1986). Athletes in this condition, often display negative responses both to exercise, the sport, teammates and coaches.

(32)

They also start to devaluate their engagement in sport – this is of lesser importance and worth than earlier – the withdrawal is a matter of fact (Gould, 1996).

Silva (1990) defines athlete burnout as “an exhaustive psychophysiological response exhibited as a result of frequent, sometimes extreme, but generally ineffective efforts to meet excessive training and sometimes competitive demands” (p. 11). Burnout can further be defined as a reaction on the chronic stresses a person is exposed to, dealing with physiological, mental and behavioural components (Smith, 1986). Pines (1996) and Gold & Roth (1993) refer to burnout as a chronic discrepancy between expectations and reality, and one could conclude by saying that burnout is a condition experienced when the individual are exposed to physiological and psychological strains over its capacity, unable to absorb and/or adapt this load, resulting in physiological exhaustion leading to decreased performance, and in addition a psychological exhaustion leading to lesser rejoice considering the participation in training and competitions. These results of the burnout condition reflect the differentiation of three burnout subscales – Emotional and physical exhaustion, Reduced sense of accomplishment, and Sport devaluation.

Explanations why burnout occur

Researchers have proposed an explanation why burnout occurs, and the different theories agree upon psychological and/or physiological antecedents (Smith, 1986; Silva, 1990; Coakley, 1992; Raedeke, 1997). Smith (1986) discusses whether the athlete cope with psychological and physiological demands exposed to by training, as the athletes physical responses to training could be vital for avoiding conditions of burnout (Silva, 1990). Sociological factors and the athletes’ society may in addition catalyse burnout situations (Coakley, 1992) – those who feel “entrapped” by the sport and after all actually don’t want to participate, may be those who are vulnerable for experiencing burnout (Raedeke, 1997). The importance of possessing an identity outside the sport arena, serving as a buffer against conditions of burnout have been underlined (Raedeke, 1997; Coakley, 1992). Athletes who meet with injury or failure considering their performance, or athletes retiring from sport, who solely identify with their athlete-identity, would be more vulnerable and perceive this situation more stressful (Gould, 1996). This emphasizes the importance of having a complex identity formation, and Linville (1987) underlines that a great self-complexity could act as a cognitive buffer