Determinants of motivation in world-class musicians and Olympic athletes: Exploring the front and the back side of the medallion

Diverse motives and regulations at the very start

The analysis revealed that the HPS and the HPQ had contrasting motives for getting involved with music or sports in the first place (Figure 1). The HPS mainly expressed intrinsic reasons for starting with music/sports:

I was about eight years old and it was the first time I heard the orchestra. I remember very well that I was absolutely transfixed by the sound of the symphony orchestra, I sat next to my friend and I was amazed. (Mus.-HPS1)

The personal engagement and joy that all the HPS reported during childhood were autonomous states (e.g., Reeve et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2020). The activity was embraced as meaningful and enjoyable among these performers, Mus.-HPS1: “I had no other motivation except from loving the music, making music, playing the piano.”

I remember looking forward to skiing training with the other boys in the group [. . .] at times I also preferred to stay behind at the training site after the official training had ended for working on various technical aspects. (Sp.-HPS)

The two HPQ seemed to be less self-determined during their early years. They got involved with music and sports because it was suggested by parents or teachers:

It was random that I started playing the violin, my parents and the teacher were the active part in deciding this [. . .] I do not know how I got interested in music, my parents were in general very interested in music. (Mus.-HPQ)

They did not report a specific desire toward music/sports, they just happened to be introduced to it (Table 2). In general, the HPQ seemed to practice and train based on controlled and introjected motivational states (Ryan & Deci, 2020). While all the HPS reported that they were free to play around with music/sports during their early years, the HPQ reported to have carried out predetermined practice schedules consisting of drilling exercises from a relatively early stage, Sp.-HPQ: “my father dragged me out of bed very early in the morning and we went to the arena to do several technical regimens for a couple of hours before school.” Thus, external control and pressure seemed to overshadow the mere joy of carrying out the activity itself (Deci et al., 1999; Woody, 2021). This was a marked contrast to the curiosity, joy and self-initiated discovery expressed by the four HPS, for example, Mus. HPS1: “I loved music and I listened to Operas such as Don Giovanni and other great works. I loved to listen to music.” The four HPS seemed to be embedded within an autonomously driven environment (Evans et al., 2012; Jang et al., 2010; Jordalen et al., 2019).

Basic psychological needs during childhood

In line with basic psychological need theory, the results revealed that all the participants felt competent in terms of early mastery of specialized tasks (Table 2). However, the responses of the HPQ pointed in the direction of loneliness and predetermined practice schedules, Mus.-HPQ: “I simply did what I was told by my teacher, which was mainly scales, arpeggios and a few pieces.” Thus, despite early mastery experiences, basic psychological needs such as autonomy and relatedness seemed to be lacking in their childhood (Ryan & Deci, 2017). For instance, the Sp.-HPQ expressed that he was told how gifted he was, and that accordingly he had to continue with swimming. Moreover, the analysis revealed that practice/training among the HPQ was based on externally defined duties and demands set by teachers and parents. This controlled motivational climate seemed to thwart the HPQ’ need for autonomy throughout their development. This need-thwarting effect may corresponds to Solstad et al. (2015), who found that coaches low in psychological need-satisfaction were more likely to provide a need-thwarting coaching style. Other studies have revealed a connection between teacher and student motivation and need-support (i.e., autonomous motivation) (e.g., Ahn et al., 2021). The present study revealed that the motivational climate among the HPQ did not seem to provide autonomy-support (Reeve et al., 2004). Nevertheless, the two HPQ evidently demonstrated highly favorable and virtuoso performance achievements. These promising results seemed to align with the fact that they simply did what they were told to do by knowledgeable significant others who provided frequent expert feedback (Ericsson & Charness, 1994).

Contrasting sources of competence, relatedness and autonomy

All the HPS clearly expressed how they perceived mastery and how this contributed to their motivation for continued practice (Table 2). As oppose to the HPQ, it seemed as if the experience of competence was accompanied by a greater sense of autonomy among the HPS. The perception of competence among the HPS was also tied to positive relatedness to peers and teachers, Mus.-HPS2: “It was very inspiring to meet others who were doing the same as myself during local music competitions.” Furthermore, the Mus.-HPQ emphasized that early mastery experiences motivated him because he rapidly gained a higher level than other children in the music school, which, in turn, motivated him to continue to practice. Rather than focusing on musical factors, the Mus.-HPQ brought up several external factors regarding technical bravura and/or being outperformed by others. In fact, the Mus.-HPQ compared his level of performance to the performance level of other violinists throughout the whole interview. This aligns with somewhat introjected forms of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2020). In contrast, the Mus.-HPS2, who expressed that he remembered that “it was a sort of playfulness” that drove him. This playfulness and exploratory practice style seemed to be the result of his first piano teacher’s ability to provide autonomy-support. Furthermore, in contrast to the Mus.-HPQ, the Mus.-HPS2 emphasized how he built important friendships through piano competitions later during childhood. He felt that he had a special private space that he could share with a few others who had the same interest for music. Thus, it was never a question of being outperformed, or outperforming others. The focus was on discovering new music and ways of acquiring it. In fact, all the HPS spoke about their childhood in terms of discovery, playfulness, and fruitful relatedness to significant others. Accordingly, autonomy-support has been tied to aspiring musicians’ intrinsic motivation, well-being and work ethic (Bonneville-Roussy et al., 2020; Comeau et al., 2015; Sichivitsa, 2016), and to intrinsic motivation and performance among college students (Garcia & Pintrich, 1996).

Like the Sp.-HPQ and the Mus.-HPQ, the Mus.-HPS3 recognized that he underwent highly systematic practice schedules during his late childhood years, practicing 1 hr before school, in addition to a couple of hours after school. However, he also pointed out that he enjoyed being systematic and recognized how deliberateness enabled him to perform the great music he wanted to master. He underlined that his work ethic and positive drive was partly due to having a highly fruitful relationship with his first teacher, whom he admired immensely. She (i.e., his first teacher) was mentioned numerous times in positive terms throughout the interview. These experiences correspond with both identified and integrated forms of autonomous regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2020), as well as satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Importantly, this illustrates the fact that autonomy-support may take place even within highly organized environments defined by significant others. However, the autonomy-supported agent (i.e., the Mus.-HPS3) experienced personal meaningfulness, and accordingly an internal locus of control despite being dependent on the systematic directions from the significant other (deCharms, 1977). Accordingly, Hallam et al. (2016) found that individuals who valued and enjoyed practicing and performing at a young age were more likely to become expert performers compared with those who did not. Notably, all the performers in the present study continued to aspire toward expertise based on highly contrasting qualities of motivation.

Intrinsic and extrinsic rationales for continuing

Evidently, all the participants aspired toward the highest international standards, albeit within different motivational frames. All the HPS reported that there was never a question giving up music or sports. The analysis revealed that all the HPS had predominantly intrinsic reasons for continuing to aspire toward a professional career, for example, Mus.- HPS2: “I felt from deep inside that I can actually live from music and become a professional pianist.” The HPS seemed to have an unwavering focus on developing as performers, Sp.- HPS: “I was in general very interested in training and started to read a lot of books and logbooks of famous athletes.” Furthermore, all the HPS had an intrinsic drive that carried them through both ups and downs: Mus.-HPS2 “It was obviously not always entertaining and fun to practice, especially not when I got injured, however, the music and the idea of transmitting it to others kept me going.” However, the two HPQ reported that they continued with music/sports because they had reached a high level, Mus.-HPQ: “I believe that it was more difficult not to choose the violin after high school because I was a child prodigy throughout my adolescence, and I had earned some money, too.” Both the HPQ avoided to discontinue because they were not willing to compromise all the hard work they had already invested. This reasoning is in line with both controlled and introjected forms of motivational regulation (e.g., Jordalen et al., 2019; Ryan & Deci, 2020). The Sp.- HPQ was repeatedly told by his father (who was also his main coach) that it would be a tragedy to compromise his talent and all the accumulated work by giving up swimming altogether. Thus, it was his predetermined duty to continue and explore how far he could reach on an international level. Conspicuously, neither of the HPQ expressed any joy regarding performing per se. However, the Mus.-HPQ reported that he enjoyed figuring out how to master virtuoso violin playing. However, he did not emphasize or mention the music itself as a source of inspiration. The Sp.-HPQ continuously did what he was told by his father. The motivational climates of both the HPQ were accordingly both controlling and introjecting (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Hence, the activities of the two HPQ seemed to be carried out based on pressure, compliance, external rewards, and approval from others (Stenling et al., 2017; Valenzuela et al., 2017).

The role of autonomy-support

The analysis revealed a conspicuous contrast between the fulfillment and the frustration of autonomy-support among the HPS and HPQ in general. The Sp.-HPQ was demanded to follow his father`s training schedules, whereas the Sp.-HPS started training himself opposing his father, who was previously his coach. Hence, the Sp.-HPS was left to decide and figure out for himself. In contrast, the Sp.-HPQ had to follow orders and did so reluctantly. Another distinction between the HPS and HPQ was the quality of perceived relatedness to significant others. Both the HPQ expressed relatedness to peers and trainers, however in terms of external competition and pressure (Table 2). However, all the HPS expressed how either teachers or peers inspired them, Mus.-HPS2: “I remember coming out of the lesson having only one desire in my mind, which was; I now want to practice again and do all the things that I learned. I felt very close to my teachers.” Three of the four HPS also expressed gratitude and fulfillment through meeting others with the same interest as themselves. This sense of social relatedness and autonomy-support seemed to have affected the HPS’ work ethic, personal agency and creativeness (Miksza et al., 2019a, 2019b). Despite these basic motivational differences between the HPQ and the HPS, the objective level of demonstrated goal achievement and performance was outstanding. However, the perceived effort and compromises needed for reaching a high international level seemed psychologically demanding for the two HPQ. During this stage of development, the four HPS experienced basic psychological need support. Furthermore, the two HPQ seemed to have satisfied their need for competence. However, their needs for relatedness and autonomy were apparently thwarted. This finding indicates that the two HPQ may have experienced some degrees of psychopathology due to need-thwarting (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In fact, the Sp.-HPQ reported being worried and stressed due to the strict regimen he had to put up with as a teenage athlete. As a reslt, he developed an aversion toward swimming. For several years he managed to suppress this aversion due to tremendous external pressure and expectations. The Mus.-HPQ expressed uncertainty due to increased competition from peers within the talent development program he attended. However, he also felt that he kept up with the best players in the program, and thus found it wise to continue to aspire (Table 2). Moreover, listening to the two HPQ speaking about their development as teenage performers indicates that they were driven by controlled and introjected regulatory styles (for review see Ryan & Deci, 2020).

Autonomous or controlled motives as determinants

The participants had diverse reasons for entering professional careers. In general, the HPS tended to be triggered by a continuous search for creativeness, exploring new ways of expressing music and discovering effective solutions to technical problems (e.g., Nielsen, 2008). The HPS’ emphasis on self-engaging and creative activities is in line with research finding that autonomously driven individuals are likely to engage in creative processes and flow (Black & Deci, 2000; Valenzuela et al., 2017). Three of the HPS expressed that their practice process prior to competitions/concerts might at times be challenging and not necessarily fun. However, the true joy of competing and performing overshadowed these challenges (Table 2). This confirms Ericsson et al. (1993) definition of deliberate practice as a

highly structured activity, the explicit goal of which is to improve performance. Specific tasks are invented to overcome weaknesses, and performance is carefully monitored to provide clues for ways to improve it further. We claim that deliberate practice requires effort and is not inherently enjoyable. Individuals are motivated to practice because practice improves performance. (Ericsson et al., 1993, p. 368)

Furthermore, the motives, reasons and efforts invested in preparative activities were autonomous (i.e., identified and integrated) among the HPS. The HPS also reported enthusiasm regarding practice and training, Mus.-HPS2: “I always like to discover new ways of phrasing and solving musical challenges.” During the interviews, neither of the two HPQ mentioned creative processes as part of developing as performers. Instead they reported several experiences tied to introjected and controlled regulation (Ryan & Deci, 2020):

I basically played the music very well, but so did a lot of other performers. After a while, things stabilized, and I achieved a high level. This did not matter that much because I really did not enjoy performing, it did not give me that pleasure [. . .] I felt some pressure and preferred first of all to practice and work out technical problems. (Mus.-HPQ)

The mus.-HPQ did not mention purely musical aspects. However, he recalled that he was very much into finding ways of refining the technical aspects of playing his instrument. As opposed to the four HPS’ focus on joy and musical fulfillment, he tended to gravitate toward the mechanical/technical aspects of performance. The Sp.-HPQ did not seem to be involved with the processes of competing, it was simply a job that had to be done. There seemed to be little personal engagement and passion among the two HPQ (Haraldsen, Solstad, et al., 2020).

Autonomy-support turns out to be of imperative importance for harnessing constructive motivational patterns among performing artists and athletes (e.g., Haraldsen, Solstad, et al., 2020; Parker et al., 2019; Solstad et al., 2015). According to the results, the two HPQ were part of less autonomy-supportive environments throughout their development. All the HPS and HPQ were gritty, deliberate and hardworking, however the driving force behind the HPS were based on autonomous forms of motivation, while the HPQ tended to be regulated by controlled forms of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2020). External pressure (competitiveness), the lack of social relatedness, and a lack of interest in competing and performing turned out to be central factors for quitting highly successful careers among the HPQ. For example, Mus.-HPQ: “I really could not see the point in continuing with something that many colleagues do better than myself.” Conspicuously, the two HPQ reached the highest international level by thriving within a maladaptive motivational climate. Nonetheless, it turned out as evident that this could not continue forever, Sp.-HPQ: “it simply said stop! I had a physical reluctance against training and competing. It wasn’t only the fact that I had been training for many years, but I really never owned the activity, it wasn’t me.” This statement clearly demonstrated how controlled motivational states (i.e., lack of the sense of self) in the end enforced the two HPQ to decide to put an end to their careers (for review see Reeve et al., 2008; Ricard & Pelletier, 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2020).

The conspicuous contrasts between the HPS’ and HPQ’ quality of motivation may be explained by the immense amounts of deliberate work needed for reaching the very top level of performance (Lehmann & Jørgensen, 2012). Thus, it is reasonable and logical to believe that quality of motivation is particularly prevalent in performers who invest thousands of hours in deliberate practice. Moreover, reaching the highest level through investing innumerable hours of practice in activities that do not align with a sense of self, seems to be the case with some high achieving individuals. The present study revealed that both the HPQ continued (i.e., avoided to quit) for many years due to the high level they had achieved, and simply the fact that they could make a living out of their high acheievments. Noticeably, the fact that the HPQ and HPS were able to reach the highest level based on very different underlying motives is of significant interest, as it indicates that quantitative amounts of motivation (i.e., time spent on deliberate practice regardless of motivational quality) could be sufficient to reach the highest level (e.g., Ericsson et al., 1993; Skinner, 1974). Nevertheless, quality of motivation turned out to explain more subtle aspirational differences that ultimately revealed the consequences of long-term exposure to controlled, as well as autonomous motivational climates on the performers’ professional outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 1985).