|
COPYRIGHT 2007 University of South Alabama
Estimated levels of physical inactivity are staggering in the light of the multitude of much publicized physical and mental benefits of regular physical activity (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). To better understand physical inactivity, two approaches have received a great deal of research attention. One approach has attempted to identify constructs associated with motivation (e.g., self-efficacy, goal orientations, self-determination). Though this approach is certainly worthy (Sallis, Prochaska, & Taylor, 2000), examination of these constructs in isolation provide little insight into a broader view of additional constructs that influence exercise motivation. The other approach has related personality with exercise behaviors (e.g., Courneya & Hellsten, 1998). This approach has provided useful information, but to date how personality differs across motivation profiles for strenuous and moderate intensity physical exercise has not been investigated. Hence, the purpose of the present investigation was to integrate both approaches by identifying a range of motivated subgroups for strenuous and moderate intensity exercise and by doing so determine whether personalities of these subgroups differed. By identifying subgroups, appropriate interventions may be formulated based on a personality framework.
Motivation Framework
Social-cognitive models have dominated the exercise psychology literature. The achievement goal approach (Duda, 1989; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984a, 1984b, 1989; Roberts, 2001) has been tremendously helpful in understanding affect, cognitions, and behaviors as related to achievement motivation in both sport and exercise settings (see Biddle, 1999; Duda & Whitehead, 1998; Whitehead, Andree, & Lee, 2004). The achievement goal approach is concerned with the individuals' subjective interpretation of success as they correspond to the task and ego orientated achievement goals. Some researchers (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) have suggested that the approach-avoidance goals distinction should be included in addition to the task-ego goals distinction. Approach goals focus on attaining competence, whereas avoidance goals focus on avoiding incompetence. Elliot and his colleagues view perceived competence as the predictor of achievement goals (see Elliot & Church, 1997), and not as a moderator of goal adoption. Recently, Smith, Duda, Allen, and Hall (2002) revealed that differences between performance-approach and performance-avoidance are minimal. Therefore, we adopted Nicholls' (1989) classic achievement goal theory approach whereby the motivational effects of achievement goals are moderated by levels of perceived competence.
Based on this classic achievement goal approach, a task orientated individual's action is primarily motivated by personal mastery or improvement. Success and failure in achieving personal mastery is subjectively defined by self-referenced perceptions of his or her performance. A task orientation has been consistently related to a variety of motivation indicators such as endorsing effort and persistence as achievement strategies (Lochbaum & Roberts, 1993) and higher levels of intrinsic motivation (Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, & Catley, 1995; Wang & Biddle, 2001; Wang, Chatzisarantis, Spray, & Biddle, 2002). Task oriented individuals, regardless of perceived ability or competence, are hypothesized to be motivationally adaptive.
An ego orientated person strives to win and demonstrate high normative ability. These individuals judge success and failure on other-referenced standards. Research predictions, typically, propose that ego oriented individuals will be motivationally fragile when they doubt their own competence (Nicholls, 1989, Roberts, 1992). This relationship has generally been verified in physical education contexts (Cury, Biddle, Sarrazin, & Famose, 1997; Wang et al., 2002; Wang & Biddle, 2001) though research exists that does not support this relationship (Vlachopoulos & Biddle, 1997).
Given that researchers have established that the two orientations are not mutually exclusive, they have begun 'goal profiling' or examining both goals simultaneously (Fox, Goudas, Biddle, Duda, & Armstrong, 1994). Given the importance of perceived ability to Nicholls' theory, researchers have begun to use both orientations as well as the levels of perceived ability in the process of 'goal profiling' (Wang et al., 2002). For example, Wang and colleagues profiled 818 youths using cluster analysis on the two orientations and perceived competence in order to examine differences in the profiles groups in self-determination, sport ability beliefs, and self-reported physical activity. Three distinct groups emerged from the cluster analysis that corresponded to theoretically consistent differences in the measured variables, thus justifying the use of goal profiling. Several important constructs in addition to self-determination and sport ability beliefs exist that have yet to be examined with 'goal profiling'. Personality is one such construct.
Personality and Exercise
Researchers have examined the relationship between personality and exercise for over 50 years (e.g., Weber, 1953). Investigations have focused on a variety of issues ranging from whether or not exercise participation impacts personality (e.g., Mikel, 1983), how personality relates to exercise motives and barriers (e.g., Courneya & Hellsten, 1998), and how personality influences exercise feeling states (Lochbaum & Lutz, 2005). Pertinent to the present investigation, researchers have investigated whether or not personality is a determinant or correlate of exercise participation. These investigations have used personality as a predictor of adherence to fitness programs (Courneya, Friedenreich, Sela, Quinney, & Rhodes, 2002; Potgieter & Venter, 1995; Rhodes, Courneya, & Jones, 2005; Rhodes, Courneya, & Jones, 2002; Welsh, Labbe, & Delaney, 1991) or the relationship among personality to various measures of exercise behavior (Arai, 1998; Courneya, Bobick, & Schinke, 1999; Rhodes & Courneya, 2003; Rhodes, Courneya, & Bobick, 2001; Rhodes, Courneya, & Jones, 2002; Sale, Guppy, & El-Sayed, 2000; Szabo, 1992; Yeung & Hemsley, 1997).
These investigations have been consistent in that extraversion is a predictor or positively related to exercise behavior in all but one investigation (Yeung & Hemsley, 1997). Also, conscientiousness and openness to experience have been positively related to exercise behavior (Courneya et al., 2002; Courneya & Hellsten, 1998). Less consistent has been the inverse relationship between neuroticism and exercise behavior in nonclinical populations. It is important to note that the correlations among personality and exercise behavior are moderate to weak in nature. Personality (neuroticism) has explained approximately 8% of the variance in exercise adherence, 3% of the variance in strenuous exercise participation (extraversion), and 3% of the variance in moderate exercise participation (openness to experience).
Given the low amounts of explained variance, justification of personality as a topic of study is required. Rhodes and colleagues (2001) suggested that the relationship among individual personality traits is best understood by multivariate examination. Rhodes et al. (2001) examined differences in personality based on stages of exercise change (i.e., from not even considering exercise in their life to those who exercise...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
