Document Type : Original Article


1 Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran

2 Department of Motor Behavior, Tehran University, Iran

3 Department of Physical Education, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran


Previous studies have shown that autonomy support (AS) can foster a person’s motivation and facilitate motor learning. However, the effects of AS on observational motor learning are not well understood. The present study investigated this issue by manipulating to-be-observed-model. Forty-eight male students were assigned into autonomy, yoked, and no-demonstration control groups. Three male Baseball coaches acted as models A, B, and C. Model A was instructor of students of AU group and acted as a model with high social status for AU group. Models B and C were not familiar for all participants and acted as low social status models. Participants were asked to perform a Baseball-pitch into a target during pretest (10 trials), acquisition phase (5 blocks of 10 trials), and retention test (10 trials). Prior to each acquisition block, the participants of AU and YO groups observed a model three times. Participants of AU group were free to choose model A, B, or C for any single observation. Participants in YO group were matched with those in AU group. Movement outcome, movement form, self-efficacy (SE), perceived learning effect (PLE), and perceived model attractiveness (PMA) were measured as dependent variables. Results showed that AS, relative to yoked and control conditions, led to better movement outcome during acquisition and retention. Action observation enhanced movement form during acquisition and retention. AS increased SE, PLE, and PMA compared with yoked and control conditions. Results provide support for the OPTIMAL theory and indicate that AS facilitates observational motor learning.


Andrieux, M., & Proteau, L. (2013). Observation learning of a motor task: Who and when? Experimental Brain Research, 229(1), 125-137.
Ashford, D, Bennett, S. J., & Davids, K. (2006). Observational modeling effects for movement dynamics and movement outcome measures across differing task constraints: A meta-analysis. Journal of Motor Behavior, 38(3), 185-205.
Ashford, D., Davids, K., & Bennett, S. J. (2007). Developmental effects influencing observational modeling: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport Sciences, 25(5), 547-558.
Bund, A., & Wiemeyer, J. (2004) Self-controlled learning of a complex motor skill: effects of the learners' preferences on performance and self-efficacy. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 47(3), 215-236.
Chiviacowsky, S. (2014). Self-controlled practice: Autonomy protects perceptions of competence and enhances motor learning. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 15(5), 505-510.
Chiviacowsky, S., Wulf, G., Laroque de Medeiros, F., Kaefer, A., & Tani, G. (2008). Learning benefits of self-controlled knowledge of results in 10-year old children. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 79(3), 405-410. 
Dillman, C. J., Fleisig, G. S., & Andrews, J. R. (1993). Biomechanics of pitching with emphasis upon shoulder kinematics. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 18(2), 402-408.
Ghorbani, S. (2019). Motivational effects of enhancing expectancies and autonomy for motor learning: An examination of the OPTIMAL theory. The Journal of General Psychology, 146(1), 79-92.
Ghorbani, S., & Bund, A. (2016). Observational learning of a new motor skill: The effect of highlighting relative motion information. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 15(4), 514-22. 
Hodges, N. J. (2017). Observations on action-observation research: An autobiographical retrospective across the past two decades. Kinesiology Review, 6(3), 240-260.
Hodges, N. J., & Franks, I. M. (2002). Modelling coaching practice: The role of instruction and demonstration. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20(10), 793-811.
Hodges, N. J., Williams, A. M., Hayes, S. J., & Breslin, G. (2007). What is modeled during observational learning? Journal of Sports Sciences, 25(5), 531-545.
Hooyman, A., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2014). Impacts of autonomy-supportive versus controlling instructional language on motor learning. Human Movement Sciences, 36, 190-108.
Kok, M., Komen, A., van Capelleveen, L., & van der Kamp, J. (2020). The effects of self-controlled video feedback on motor learning and self-efficacy in a Physical Education setting: an exploratory study on the shot-put. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 25(1), 49-66.
Lemos, A., Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2017). Autonomy support enhances performance expectancies, positive affect, and motor learning. Psychology of Sport & Exercise31, 28-34
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.
Maslovat, D., Hayes, S. J., Horn, R., & Hodges, N. J. (2010). Motor learning through observation. In D. Elliott & M.A. Khan (Eds.), Vision and Goal-directed movement: Neurobehavioural perspectives (pp. 315-340). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
McKay, B., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2020a) Autonomy support via instructionally irrelevant choice not beneficial for motor performance or learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, DOI: 10.1080/02701367.2020.1795056
McKay, B., & Ste-Marie, D. (2020b). Autonomy support and reduced feedback frequency have trivial effects on learning and performance of a golf putting task. Human Movement Science, 71, Article 102612.
McCullagh, P. (1986). Model status as a determinant of observational learning and performance. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 319-331.
Meaney, K. R., Griffin, L. K., & Hart, M. A. (2005). The effects of model similarity on girl’s motor performance. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 24(2), 165-178.
Rohbanfard, H., & Proteau, L. (2011). Learning through observation: A combination of expert and novice models favors learning. Experimental Brain Research, 215(3-4), 183-197. 
Simpson, T., Ellison, P., Carnegie, E., & Marchant, D. (2020). A systematic review of motivational and attentional variables on children’s fundamental movement skill development: the OPTIMAL theory. International Review of Sport & Exercise Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/1750984X.2020.1809007
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(556).
Wulf, G., Chiviacowsky, S., & Cardozo, P. (2014). Additive benefits of autonomy support and enhanced expectancies for motor learning. Human Movement Science, 37, 12-20.
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.
Wulf, G., Freitas, E. H., & Tandy, R. D. (2014). Choosing to exercise more: Small choices increase exercise engagement. Psychology of Sport & Exercise15(3), 268-271.
Wulf, G., Iwatsuki, T., Machin, B., Kellogg, J., Copeland, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2017). Lassoing skill through learner choice. Journal of Motor Behavior, 50(3), 285-292.
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: the OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382-1414.
Wulf, G., Lewthwaite, R., Cardozo, P., & Chiviacowsky, S. (2017). Triple play: Additive contributions of enhanced expectancies, autonomy support, and external attentional focus to motor learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(4), 824-834.
Wulf, G., Raupach, M., & Pfeiffer, F. (2005). Self-controlled observational practice enhances learning. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 76(1), 107-111
Wulf, G., Shea, C., & Lewthwaite, R. (2010). Motor skill learning and performance: A review of influential factors. Medical Education, 44(1), 75-84.