Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relatedness support enhances motor learning

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present experiment was designed to test the effects of practice with relatedness support on motor learning. Forty-five young adults practiced a task in which they were required to learn to swim the front crawl stroke for one length in an indoor swimming pool (25 m) using 50% of the maximal speed. In the relatedness support condition (RS group), the instructions emphasized acknowledgement, caring, and interest in the participants’ experiences, while in the relatedness thwart condition (RTh group), instructions emphasized disinterest in the participant as a person. A third, neutral condition (Control group) did not receive specific relatedness instructions. One day after practice, participants completed retention and transfer tests. The RS group demonstrated greater improvement in performance during practice and enhanced learning relative to the RTh and Control groups, while the RTh group showed decreased learning compared with the Control group. Furthermore, RS participants reported higher motivation and greater positive affect than the RTh and Control groups. The present findings demonstrate that relatedness support enhances the learning of motor skills. They also highlight motivational and affective effects that are observed when learners are provided with relatedness support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiken, C. A., Fairbrother, J. T., & Post, P. G. (2012). The effects of self-controlled video feedback on the learning of the basketball set shot. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 338.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, M. S. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932–937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andriex, M., Danna, J., & Thon, B. (2012). Self-control of task difficulty during training enhances motor learning of a complex coincident-anticipation task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ávila, L. T., Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Positive social-comparative feedback enhances motor learning in children. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 849–853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badami, R., Vaezmousavi, M., Wulf, G., & Namazizadeh, M. (2012). Feedback about more accurate versus less accurate trials: differential effects on self-confidence and activation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83, 196–203.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Jourden, F. I. (1991). Self-regulatory mechanisms governing the impact of social comparison on complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 941–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805–814.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cardozo, P. L., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2015). Overweight stereotype threat negatively impacts the learning of a balance task. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 3, 140–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, M.J., Carlsen, A.N., & Ste-Marie, D.M. (2014). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance: a replication and extension of Chiviacowsky and Wulf (2005). Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatard, J. C., Lavoie, J. M., & Lacourl, J. R. (1990). Analysis of determinants of swimming economy in front crawl. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 61, 88–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., & Singer, R. N. (1992). Self-regulation and cognitive strategies in sport participation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 277–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S. (2014). Self-controlled practice: autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15, 505–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2014). Effects of generic versus non-generic feedback on motor learning in children. PLoS ONE, 9(2), e88989.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2016). Temporal-comparative feedback affects motor learning. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 4(2). doi:10.1123/jmld.2015-0034.

  • Chiviacowsky, S., & Harter, N. M. (2015). Perceptions of competence and motor learning: performance criterion resulting in low success experience degrades learning. Brazilian Journal of Motor Behavior, 9(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2002). Self-controlled feedback: does it enhance learning because performers get feedback when they need it? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 408–415.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2005). Self-controlled feedback is effective if it is based on the learner’s performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 42–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2007). Feedback after good trials enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 78, 40–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Self-controlled learning: the importance of protecting perceptions of competence. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., Medeiros, F., Kaefer, A., & Tani, G. (2008). Learning benefits of self-controlled knowledge of results in 10-years old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 79, 405–410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: a macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49, 182–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekerle, J., Sidney, M., Hespel, J. M., & Pelayo, P. (2002). Validity and reliability of critical speed, critical stroke rate, and anaerobic capacity in relation to front crawl swimming performances. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 23, 93–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drews, R., Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2013). Children’s motor skill learning is influenced by their conceptions of ability. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2, 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairbrother, J.T., Laughlin, D.D., & Nguyen, T.V. (2012). Self-controlled feedback facilitates motor learning in both high and low activity individuals. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–8. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 586–596.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heidrich, C., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2015). Stereotype threat affects the learning of sport motor skills. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 18, 42–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooyman, A., Wulf, & Lewthwaite, R. (2014). Impacts of autonomy supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Human Movement Science, 36, 190–198.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241(4865), 540–545.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janelle, C. M., Barba, D. A., Frehlich, S. G., Tennant, L. K., & Cauraugh, J. H. (1997). Maximizing performance effectiveness through videotape replay and a self-controlled learning environment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 68, 269–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Janelle, C. M., Kim, J., & Singer, R. N. (1995). Subject-controlled performance feedback and learning of a closed motor skill. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 627–634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: linking teacher support to student engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74, 262–273.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laughlin, D. D., Fairbrother, J. T., Wrisberg, C. A., Alami, A., Fisher, L. A., & Huck, S. W. (2015). Self-control behaviors during the learning of a cascade juggling task. Human Movement Science, 41, 9–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lessa, H. T., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2015). Self-controlled practice benefits motor learning in older adults. Human Movement Science, 40, 372–380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, R., Chiviacowsky, S., Drews, R., & Wulf, G. (2015). Choose to move: the motivational impact of autonomy support on motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 1383–1388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2010). Grand challenge for movement science and sport psychology: Embracing the social-cognitive–affective–motor nature of motor behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 1 1–3. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewthwaite, R., & Wulf, G. (2012). Motor learning through a motivational lens. In N. J. Hodges & A. M. Williams (Eds.), Skill acquisition in sport: research, theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 173–191). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, B., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Nordin, A. (2015). The self: your own worst enemy? A test of the self-invoking trigger hypothesis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, 1910–1919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, D., Georges, A., & Vaslow, D. (2007). Cooperative learning as applied to resident instruction in radiology reporting. Academic Radiology, 14, 1577–1583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, K., Chiviacowsky, S., & Wulf, G. (2016). Enhanced expectancies facilitate golf putting. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 229–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, J. T., & Carter, M. (2010). Learner regulated knowledge of results during the acquisition of multiple timing goals. Human Movement Science, 29, 214–227.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Post, P. G., Fairbrother, J. T., & Barros, J. A. (2011). Self-controlled amount of practice benefits learning of a motor skill. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 82, 474–481.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Post, P. G., Fairbrother, J. T., Barros, J. A., & Kulpa, J. D. (2014). Self-controlled practice within a fixed time period facilitates the learning of a basketball set shot. Journal of Motor Learning and Development, 2, 9–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridderinkhof, K. R., vanWouwe, N. C., Band, G. P., Wylie, S. A., Van der Stigchel, S., van Hees, P., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. (2012). A tribute to Charlie Chaplin: induced positive affect improves reward-based decision-learning in Parkinson’s disease. Frontiers in Psychology. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00185. (Article 185).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saemi, E., Porter, J. M., Varzaneh, A. G., Zarghami, M., & Maleki, F. (2012). Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 378–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saemi, E., Wulf, G., Varzaneh, A. G., & Zarghami, M. (2011). Feedback after good versus poor trials enhances learning in children. Brazilian Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 25, 671–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanli, E. A., Patterson, J. T., Bray, S. R., & Lee, T. D. (2013). Understanding self-controlled motor learning protocols through the self-determination theory. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 611.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. (2011). Motor control and learning: a behavioral emphasis (5th ed.). Champaign: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., & Filak, V. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: new evidence that all three needs matter. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 267–283.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, A., & Tiggemann, M. (2010). “Uncool to do sport”: a focus group study of adolescent girls’ reasons for withdrawing from physical activity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 619–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ste-Marie, D.M., Vertes, K.A., Law, B., & Rymal, A.M. (2013) Learner-controlled self-observation is advantageous for motor skill acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–10. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, D., Anderson, D. I., O’Dwyer, N. J., & Williams, A. M. (2012). Does self-efficacy mediate transfer effects in the learning of easy and difficult motor skills? Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1122–1128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sugawara, S. K., Tanaka, S., Okazaki, S., Watanabe, K., & Sadato, N. (2012). Social rewards enhance offline improvements in motor skill. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0048174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trempe, M., Sabourin, M., & Proteau, L. (2012). Success modulates consolidation of a visuomotor adaptation task. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 52–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, D. (1984). Students’ perceptions of factors influencing tertiary learning. Higher Education Research and Development, 3, 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. L., Dark-Freudeman, A., & Bagwell, D. K. (2009). Goals-feedback conditions and episodic memory: mechanisms for memory gains in older and younger adults. Memory, 17(2), 233–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. L., & Thorn, R. M. (2001). Goal-setting, self-efficacy, and memory performance in older and younger adults. Experimental Aging Research, 27, 41–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • West, R. L., Welch, D. C., & Thorn, R. M. (2001). Effects of goal-setting and feedback on memory performance and beliefs among older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 16(2), 240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Whitehead, J. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1991). Youth fitness testing: the effect of percentile based evaluative feedback on intrinsic motivation. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62, 225–231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, N., Whipp, P. R., Jackson, B., & Dimmock, J. A. (2013). Relatedness support and the retention of young female golfers. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 25, 412–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P. M., & Bengoechea, E. G. (2010). The relatedness to others in physical activity scale: evidence for structural and criterion validity. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 15, 61–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wine, J. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 92–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wise, R. A. (2004). Dopamine, learning and motivation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Cardozo, P. (2014). Additive benefits of autonomy support and enhanced expectancies for motor learning. Human Movement Science, 37, 12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Drews, R. (2015). External focus and autonomy support: two important factors in motor learning have additive benefits. Human Movement Science, 40, 176–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Normative feedback effects on the learning of a timing task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81, 425–431.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Altering mindset can enhance motor learning in older adults. Psychology and Aging, 27, 14–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23, 1382–1414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wulf, G., Raupach, M., & Pfeiffer, F. (2005). Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 107–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Escola Superior de Educação Física, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Rua Luís de Camões, 625, CEP, 96055-630, Pelotas, RS, Brazil

    Daniela H. Gonzalez & Suzete Chiviacowsky

Authors
  1. Daniela H. Gonzalez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suzete Chiviacowsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Suzete Chiviacowsky.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Author Daniela Hollweg Gonzalez declares that she has no conflict of interest. Author Suzete Chiviacowsky declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix

Appendix

Variable error The groups reduced the variability (VE) across practice. The main effect of block, F (3, 126) = 38.12, p < .001, η 2 p  = .47, and the group × block interaction, F (6, 126) = 3.61, p < .05, η 2 p  = .14, were significant, while the main effect of group, F (2, 42) = 1.36, p > .05, was not significant. VEs were also different between the RS (M = 1.13, SD = .64), RTh (M = 1.91, SD = 1.04), and Control (M = 1.17, SD = .45) groups during the retention test. The group main effect was significant, F (2 42) = 4.87, p < .05, η 2 p  = .18. Post hoc tests confirmed higher variability for the RTh group relative to the other groups, p < .05. There was no difference between the RS and Control groups, p > .05. VEs were also different between the RS (M = 1.22, SD = .56), RTh (M = 1.88, SD = .78), and Control (M = 1.17, SD = .46) groups during transfer. The group main effect was significant, F (2 42) = 5.22, p < .01, η 2 p  = .20. Post hoc tests confirmed higher variability for the RTh group relative to the other groups, p < .05.

Constant errors CEs also decreased across the practice phase. The main effect of block, F (3, 126) = 54.79, p < .001, η 2 p  = .56, was significant. The main effect of group, F (2, 42) = 4.68, p < .05, η 2 p  = .18, was significant, while the group × block interaction, F (6, 126) = 1.45, p > .05, was not significant. Post hoc tests showed lower CEs for the RS group relative to the RTh group. Differences in CEs between the RS (M = 1.33, SD = 1.08), RTh (M = 2.91, SD = 1.36), and Control (M = 2.34, SD = 1.06) groups can also be observed during retention. The group main effect was significant, F (2, 42) = 6.95, p < .01, η 2 p  = .25. Post hoc tests showed that the RS group had smaller CEs than the RTh group, p < .01, and marginally smaller CEs than the Control group, p = .058. Differences in CEs between the RS (M = 2.24, SD = 1.77), RTh (M = 3.57, SD = 1.35), and Control (M = 2.36, SD = .64) groups can also be observed during transfer. The group main effect was significant, F (2, 42) = 4.50, p < .05, η 2 p  = .17. Post hoc tests showed that the RS and Control groups had smaller CEs than the RTh group, p < .05.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gonzalez, D.H., Chiviacowsky, S. Relatedness support enhances motor learning. Psychological Research 82, 439–447 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0833-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0833-7

Search

Navigation