Cited by 103Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsSport Psychology and PerformanceSports and Physical Education Research

Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning

Hooyman, Andrew, Wulf, Gabriele, Lewthwaite, Rebecca·2014·Human Movement Science

Abstract

The authors examined the influence of autonomy-supportive (ASL), controlling (CL), and neutral instructional language (NL) on motor skill learning (cricket bowling action). Prior to and several times during the practice phase, participants watched the same video demonstration of the bowling action but with different voice-over instructions. The instructions were designed to provide the same technical information but to vary in terms of the degree of choice performers would perceive when executing the task. In addition to measurements of throwing accuracy (i.e., deviation from the target), perceived choice, self-efficacy, and positive and negative affect were assessed at the end of the practice phase and after a retention test without demonstrations and instructions on Day 2. ASL resulted in perceptions of greater choice, higher self-efficacy, and more positive affect during practice than CL, and enhanced learning as demonstrated by retention test performance. Thus, granting learners autonomy appeared to endow them with confidence in their ability, diminished needs for control of negative emotional responses, and created more positive affect, which may help consolidate motor memories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.humov.2014.04.005

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hooyman, A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
Corresponding author
Wulf, Gabriele
Venue
Human Movement Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-08
Volume
36
Pages
190-198
ISSN
0167-9457 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2043975781
Cited by
103
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
11.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Movement Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Sports and Physical Education Research
Keywords
language of instruction, motor skill learning, cricket bowling, throwing accuracy, self-efficacy, positive affect, negative affect, perceived choice, retention of motor learning, motor memory consolidation, video demonstration
MeSH terms
Affect, Biomechanical Phenomena, Choice Behavior, Communication, Equipment Design, Female, Humans, Language, Learning, Male, Memory, Motor Skills, Perception, Retention, Psychology, Reward, Sports, Athletic Performance, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review