目的：本研究目的在探討跆拳道教練領導行為對選手參與動機之影響。方法：以Chelladurai & Saleh（1980）編製之運動領導量表、林季燕和季力康（2003）編製之運動動機量表進行調查，實驗參加者為共126位國內大專校院跆拳道代表隊一般組選手，以所有受試者在領導行為問卷得分加總平均後，取其平均分數前三分之一之問卷資料為民主領導行為組（42人，7.83±0.72 分）、平均分數後三分之一為專制領導行為組（42人，7.83±0.72分），共84人之資料為統計分析之用；本研究經過研究者所屬大學人體實驗之機構審查委員會（Institutional Review Board）審核。本研究以t檢定檢視跆拳道教練專制領導行為及民主領導行為兩組在參與動機各向度得分之平均數的差異，各項統計考驗的顯著水準均定為α ＜ .05。結果：民主領導組之整體運動動機得分（2.57 ± 0.32分）顯著高於專制領導組之得分（2.37 ± 0.25 分），t（82）= 3.22，p ＜ .001，運動動機各面向方面，民主與專制領導二組在內在動機、無動機、及認同動機面向亦皆達到統計上之顯著差異。結論：民主領導行為組之教練比起專制領導行為組之教練，會引發選手較高之運動參與動機。

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of the taekwondo coach leadership behavior on the players' motivation. Methods: The leadership scale of Chelladurai & Saleh (1980) was used to classify 126 college aged taekwondo team players in Taiwan into two leadership groups; the first third of the participants assigned to the democratic leadership group and the last third to the autocratic leadership group. This study was proved by the Institutional Review Board of the researcher's University, so did the sports motivation questionnaire by the field experts (Lin & Ji, 2003). The mean differences of the autocratic leadership group and democratic leadership group were analyzed by t-test. All significant level was set at α < .05. Results: The total motivation score of the democratic group (2.57±0.32) was statistically higher than that of the autocratic group (2.37±0.25). The group differences were also found in the aspects of inner motivation, no motivation, and identification motivation. Conclusion: Compared to the autocratic coaches, it was concluded that the democratic coaches would lead to relatively higher sports motivation.