the role of self-motivation in exercise adherence, part 2, pgs 32 -70

8/11/2019 The Role of Self-Motivation In Exercise Adherence, part 2, pgs 32 -70

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-role-of-self-motivation-in-exercise-adherence-part-2-pgs-32-70 1/39

32

Results

Participation

in

a1l

aspeets

of the

present

study,

including

supplying

social

security

numbers

for identification,

was

voluntary.

At

the

physiologieal

testing

(PHYS)

and at each

of

the

three

psychological

testings

(PSYI,

PSY2,,lnd

PSY3)

rhere

were

employees

who

provided

a1l or

some of

the informatiorr

requested

and

their

soci-a1

security

numbers,

employees

who

provided

all or

some

of the information

requested

but

not

their

social

securitynumbers,

and employees

who

chose

not

to

participate.

A1so, participation

or the

auount

of information

that

an

individual

provided

at one

testinl;

session

did not necessarily

relate

to what.

he

or

she

did

at other

sessj-ons. As

a result,

the more

data from

different

testing

sessions

that

;t

given

analysis

required

to

be

matched,

the fewer

subjects

had

the

necessary

data

and

identification by social seeurity

number.

Due

to the sma1l

rtumber

of individuals

for

whom

there was

a eomplete

set of

data,

subjects

llere

grouped

according

to how

much information

was

available

that

could

btr matched.

Results

will

be reported

in

groupings

formed

by

the avai-labil-ity

of data,

from

the

broadest

groupings

to the

narrowest

groupings.

The

groupings

usecl in

this study and their

abbreviated

titles, are

present.ed

in

Table 1. A1l

tests of significance were

made at the .05

alpha

1evel,

Ewo-tailecl.

A11

stepwise mulgiple regression analyses

used

a

probability

of

F-to-ent,er

the

regression equation

of(.05.



33

Insert Table

1 about

here

Results

for

A11

Subjects

(Exercj.sers

and Nonexercisers)

September

1984

Psychological Testing,

(n=334)

(PSYI)

The first

group

(PSY1)

included

all those

partici.pating

in

the

first

pyschological

testing. It

was

possible

to match

the different

pi"eces

of

information

in this testing, whether

the individual

provided

his or her

social security number

or

not,

because the

questionnaries

were

stapled

together

in a

packet.

This

resulted in a large number

of subjects

for

whom

data

could

be analyzed.

SMI

was related to other measures frou

the

fall 1984

psychological

testing sessions:

STAI-T,

Reasons

for Starting a

StrucEured Exercise

Program,

and

Reasons for

Not

Starting

a

Structured Exercise

Program.

There

were

L27

persons

who

reported

having

started

an exercise

program

(STRT)

and

200

persons

who

reported

noE

having started an exercise

program

(NST)

.

No

exercise

reports

were available at this time.

Reasons

for

starting

and for not starting

exercise. Of

tl:,e

L27

people

who reported starting

an

exe::cise

program

the reasons most

often

cited

included

"want

to

get

in

shape",89.07",

"exercise

feels

good",

70.87",

"want

to

prevent

heart attacktt,

66.187",

ttyou

should take

care

of

yourselftt,

59.87",

ttwant

to lose weightt',

58.37",

and,

ttwant

to see

how fit

I

am",

52.0%.



34

Of

the

200 people

who

reported

not

starting

an exercise

program

the

reasons most

often cited

were

that

"classes

are too

far

from homett,

42.52,

ttclasses

at bad timerr, 38.57",

t'plan

to start

1ater", 28.52,

and

"fitness

1eve1

is aeceptable'r,

26.37".

The frequencies

of all

responses

to

individual

statements on

the

Reasons

for

Starti-ng

a

Structured

Exercise

Program

are

presented

in

Table

2

ar.d

the

Reasons for

Not

St,arting

a

Structured

Exercise

Program

j-n

Table

3.

Insert

Table

2

about

here

Insert

Table

3

about

here

Cluster analysis.

Cluster analysis is

a statistical

process

that

groups

together items that

covary

with one another.

The

17

reasons

for

starting

an exercise

program

and the

19

reasons

for noE starting an

exercise

program

were analyzed

using the

average

linkage between

groups

method of cluster analysis,

(SPSSX

User's

Guide'

1983).

Analysis

revealed

4 clusters of

reasons

for starting that

seemed

to

go

together, with one

reason

(to

stop

smoking)

not

joining

any

cluster.



35

Each

cluster

was

givett

a name

that described

its

contents.

Cluster

1

was

call

the Health

conce::n

clusrer

(cL1);

it

is made

up

of

wanting

to

rrprevent

heart

attackrt,

"reduce

stress

1eve1tt,

and

"lower

blood

pressurett.

Cluster

2

was called

t:he Self-care

Cluster

(CtZ1;

it

is

made

up

of

wanting

to

ttget

in

shapert,

to

ttdo

something

for

selftt,

and

statements

thattryou

should

take

care

of

yourselfrr

and

that

ttexercise

feels goodtt.

Cluster

3

was

ca11ed

the

Externe.l

Motivation

cluster

(cL3);

it

is

made

up

of

"the

company

is

providing

i.ttt,

"fami.ly

encouraged",

"want

to find

out how

fit,,,

ttfriends

are

taking

pa.rt",

and

ttheard

the

program

is excellenttr.

cluster

4

was

called the

out-of-shape

cluster (cL4); it is

made

up

of

I'wanting

to

lose

weighttt,

ttnever

able

to

exercise

on

owntt,

ttfeeling

out of

shapett,

and

ttdocEor'

encouragedtt.

Analysi-s

revealed

4

clusters

of reasons

for not

starting

that

seemed

to

go

together,

with

one reason

(fanily

opposes

my exercising)

not

joi-ning

any

cluster. Each

cluster

was

given

a

name

that described

its

contents.

cluster

1

was called

the General

Excuses

cluster;

it

is

composed

of

t'I

plan

to

start laterrr,

"exercise

takes

too

much timert,

ttsummer

is a

bad

time for

me

to

start

thingstt,

ttexercise

is

drudgerytt,

"r

am

not

mot.ivated

enough

to do itrr,

"I

am

afraid I

will injure

myselftt,

"I

donrt like

the

kinds

of

exercise

offeredt',

rtl

don't like

to exercisetr,

ttMy

friends

are

not

doing

ittr, andttI

smoke

and donrt

want

to

qui-ttr.

Cluster 2

was

called

the Logistical

Probleurs

Cluster; it is

composed

of "the

classes

are

too

far from

my

homett

and

"the

classes

are at inconvenient

timestt. Cluster

3

was cal1ed

the

Self-conscious

Cluster;

it is

composed

of

"my

doctor

advised

me

not

to exereise'r,

"I

would

feel

silly

running

around like a

kj.d",

and

"I

exercise by myself".

Cluster 4 was

called the

Rationalizatj.on

cluster;

it

composed

of

"my

fitness

level

is adequate",



36

'rI

don't

need

to lose

weighttt,

and

ttl

work

so

hard

I

canrt

exercise

tootr.

Relationships

Between

Psychological

variables.

The

bivariate

correlations

between

the

individual

statements

on

the Reasons

for

Starting

a Structured

Exercise

Program

form

are

presented

in

Table

4

a11d

those

for

the Relasons

for

Not

St;rrting

a

Structured

Exercise

Program

foTm

in Table

5"

Insert

Table

4

about

here

Insert

Table

5

about

here

Pearson

Product-Mcment

correlations

between

the

psychological

variables

available

at

this

stage

were

made i-n

two

parts,

one for

the

group

that

had reported,

starting

an exercise

program

(Stnt)

and

the

other

for

the

group

that

had

reported

not starting

an exereise program

(NSTRT).

A

computed

variable

named

START

was

created

to

indi.cate

how

many

reasons

for

starting

exercise

an

individual

had cited.

START

has

a

value

equal

to

the total number

of reasons for

starting

an exercise

program

cited, 0

to

17.



37

Bivariate

correlaEions

between

the variables

available

at

this stage

of the analysis

for

thr)se who reported

starti-ng an

exercise

program

are

presented

in

Table

6 arrd

significant correlations

are

reported be1ow.

For

those who

repr:rted

starting an

exercise

program

(STRT) (N=126)

signifieant correlations

were found

between SMI and:

STAI

(a=-.38)

and

the

Start

External

Motivat:Lon

Cluster

(a=-.20);

between

START

and: STAI

(r=.22),

Start

Health

(loncern

Cluster

(r=.57),

Start

Self-care Cluster

(r="65),

and

Start

Extrrrnal

Motj-vation

Cluster

(r=.58);

and between the

Start

0ut-of-Shape

Clur;ter

and:

STAI

(R=.21),

START

(R=.70),

Start

Health

Concern Cluster

(r=.27'.t,

Start Self-care Cluster

(r=.25),

and Start

External

Motivation Clrrster

(a=.30)

.

Insert Table 6 about here

For

those

who

rep<>rted

not

starting

an

exercise

program

(NSTRT)

(n=200)

there

were onl.r three

variables available

for

this

stage

of

the

analysis, SMI, STAI-T,

and

NST

(a

computed

variable

created

to indicate

how many

reasons for not starting

exercise an

i-ndividual had

checked,

0

to

l9). Significant correlations

were

found between all

three variables,

SMI

and:

STAI

(r=-.36),,

and

NST

(r=.24);

and between

STAI

and

NST

(.23).

Differences

betwer:n

mean SMI

scores

and

mean

STAI-T

scores

for those

who started

exercise

arrd

those

who

did not start

exercise

were

analyzed

using

a

t-test.

Those who

reported

starting

exercise

displayed

significantly

higher

S1{I

scores

(I=148.4,

S.D.=19.9) than those

who



38

reported

not

starting

,rxgrgiss

(i=t42,2,

S.D.=20.0);

(t=2.69,

p(.05).

However,

there

was

not

a

significant

difference

in

STAI-T

scores

between

the

two

groups.

February

1985

Psychololtical

Testing

(pSy2),

(n=220).

The

second

group

of

data

to

be

aaaLyzed

included

all

those

employees

who

completed

the

secortd

psychological

testing

(PSY2).

Again,

comparisons

between

data

received

lirom

this

group

and"

from

other groups

are limited

because

inclusion in ttLis

group

did not require providing a social

security

number.

Reasons

for

Continuj-ng

and

Disconti.nuing

Exercise.

At

the February

1985

Psychological

Testing,

92

people

reported

continuing

a

structured

exercise

prograu.

Their

reasons

for

conti-nuing

exerci-se

included

',have

more

energy

when r

exercisett,

88.02,

ttexercise

can

prevent

heart

attackrr,

71.72,

ttr feel

more

relaxed.

after exercisett,

68.57",

ttyou

should

Eake

care

of

yourselfrr,

637",

and

ttit

has

been helping

me

lose

weight",

56.52.

The

frequencies

of all

responses

on

the

Reasons

for

Continuing

structured

Exercise,

February

1985

form

are

presented

in

Table

7.

Insert

Table

7

about

here

At

the

same

testinl;,

35

persons

reported

discontlnuing

structured

exerci.se.

The

most.

of

trrn

cited

reasons

were:

t'classes

are

too

f

ar

f

rom

home",

"classes

are at

:Lnconvenient

timest',

and

ttl

was

not

motivated



39

enough

to

do

ittt,

42.92

each,

ttl

sustained

injurytt,

22.92,

and

ttexercise

took

too

much

time'r,

2\).02.

The

frequencies

of

all responses

to

Reasons

for

Discontinuing

Strur:tured

Exercise,

February

1985 are

presented

in

Table

8.

Insert

Table

8

about

here

June

1985

Psycholosical

Testing

(PJI,3)-r--(rt?]

I.

The

third

group

included

all

those

employees

who

participated

in

the

third

psychological

testing

(PSY3).

Again,

inclusion

in this

group

required

only

participation

in

PSY3'

not

social

security

number,

limi-ting

the

comparisons

that

can

be made

with

data

from

other

groups.

At

the

June

1985

Psychological

Testing

(PSY3),

85 people reported

continuing

an

exercise

program.

The

reasons

Bost

often

ci-ted

included:

ttl

have

more

energy

whr:n.

I

exerci-se",

88.02,

ttexercise

can

prevent

heart

attackfr,

68.27",

ttI

feel

more

relaxed

after

exercisett,

67.12,

ttyou

should

take

care

of

yourself''

,

58.87.,

and

ttexercise

has

been

helping

me

lose

weighttt,

58.82.

The frequencies

of

all

resPonses

to

reasons

for

Continuing

a

Structured Exercise

Program,

June

1985

are

Presented

j-n

Table

9.

Insert

Table

9 about

here



40

At the same

time ,1

people

reported

discontinuing

an exercise

program. The

mosE

comaronly

cited

reasons included:

ttclasses

were at

inconvenient timesrr,

5:i.97.,

t'classes

were too

far from my homett,

45.L2,

ttl

was

not

motivated

erLough

to

do

ittt,

37.37",

ttexercise

took too much

timetf

,

25.57., and

"exet'cise

was

drudgerytt,

L5.72. The frequencies of

all

responses

to

Reasons

for

Discontinuing

Structured

Exercise,

June

1985 are

presented

in table

10.

Insert

Table

10

about

here

Fall

1984

Psychological.

Testing

(PSY1)

and

Sumner

1984

Physiological

Testing

(PIIYS)

,

(Group

I)

'

(n=104)

.

Group

I

was

formerl

by including a1l

those

individuals

who

had

participated

in the

phl'siological testing,

the

first set of

psychological

testing

(PSYf),

and

whose information

could

be

matched

by social

security

numbers.

This

group

irrcluded

104

persons

and

was

composed

of

87

men and

16

women.

Further

demographic

information

is

presented

in

Table

11.

Insert

Table

11

about

here

Bivariate

correlat:ions

between

the

variables

available

for this

group

are

presented

in

Table

L2

al.d significant

correlations

that

relate

to



4T

this

study

ate

rePorte,i

be1ow.

stated

otherwise.

)

(n=104

for

each

correlation

listed

unless

Significant

Maximal

Aerobie

(a=.24,

n=96).

corre

lations

Power

(v=.21,

were found

between

n=9)-),

and

Maximum

SI,II

and:

STAI

(r=-.32)

,

Breathing

CaPacitY

Insert

Tab1e

12

about

here

F.esults

for

Subjects

Who

Reported

Starting

an

Exercise

Program

The

present

stud1.

proposed

to

examine

exercise

adherence

in

persons

who

had

chosen

to

star:t

an

exercise

Program.

Therefore,

all

subsequent

groupings

will

include:

only

those

employees who

reported

starting

an

exercise

program

in

ttre

first

psychological

testing

(PSY1).

(n=58)

.

For

those

indivi,iuals

who

had

undergone

physiological testing

and

reporLed

starting

an

exercise

program

in

the

first

psychological

testing,

availabledatawasanalyzed'.Thisgroupwascomposedof4Tmenandll

women.

Further

demographic

information

is

presented

in

Table

1l'

Subiects

who

took

Part

in

siological

testing,

fall

1984

psychological



42

Bivariate

Correlar:iona1

Analyses

The

bivariate cor:relations

beEween all of the available variables

is

presented

in

Table

13,

those

related to this

study

are

reported

be1ow.

(n=58

for each correlar:ion listed

unless

stated

otherwise.)

Significant

corre.Lations

were

found between

SMI

and: the

Start

Health

Concern

Cluster

(r=.38),

the

StarE

External

Motivation

Cluster

(r=-.38),

Resting

Diastolic

Bloorl Pressure

(r=-.38),

Resting

Systolic Blood

Pressure

(r=-.37),

Weight

(r=-..J8),

STAI-T

(r=-.31),

Lean

Body

Weight

(a=-.30),

Percent

Body Fat

(r=-.129),

Maximal

Aerobic Power

(a=.29),

and

Height

(7=-.27).

Other

significant

correlations

were

found

between

the

Start

External

Motivation Cluster

and;

Weight

(s=.36),

Maximal

Aerobic Power

(r=-.29),

and

Percent

Body

Fat

(.r=.34)1

and between

the

Start

Out-of Shape

Cluster

and

START

(R=.69),

Sta::t

External Cluster

(r=.37);

Trunk

Flexion

(a=-.49),

Triglycerides

(r=.36,

tr=45),

Total cholesterol

(r=.32,

n=48), and

lu1axj-mum

Breathing

Capacity

(v=.30

,

n=52)

.

Insert Table

13 about here

Subjects

who

took

part

in summer

1984

physiological

testing

(PHYS),

Seprember

1984 Psychol,:gical

Testing

(PSYI),

June

1985 Psychological

Testing

(PSY3),

and

reported

starting

an

exercise

Program,

(Group

III

n=33

)

.



43

Group

III

includerl

all

employees

who

completed physiologi-cal

resring,

the first

and

third

pslzchological

testings,

reported

having

started

exercise,

and who prov:Lded

their

social

securi-ty

number

at

each

testing

session.

This

groupinl;

was

composed

of

26

men

and 7

women.

Further

demographic

informatiorr

is

presented

in

Table

11.

Changes

in STAI-T

This

grouping

is

t:he

first

one in

which

changes

in the

STAI-T

scores

between

two

testing

sesisions

could be

computed. To

report the results

of

the computations,

the SiTAI-T

scores will

be abbreviated

for

the

three

different

testings

as {'ollows:

(a)

september

L984,

srAr,

(b)

February

1985,

sTArA,

and

(c)

Jrine 1985,

sTArB.

Change

in STAr-T

scores

between

testing

sessions was

ccmputed

by subtracting

the later

score from

the

earlier

score.

The

dlfference

in STAI-T

scores

between

the September

1984

and the

February

1985

testings

is STAI-STAIA;

from

September 1984

to

June

1985

is STAI-STAIB:

and for February 1985

to

June 1985

is

STAIA-STAIB.

t-Tests Between

Continuers

and Dropouts

SMI

scores

and STAI-T

scores frorn

both the Septenber

1984

and the

June 1985

testi.ng sessi.ons for

those who

reported

continuing

exercise

and

those

who

reported

dropping

out were compared

using

a t-tesL. No

significant

dlfferences

between

these two

groups

were found

on

any of the

three

ueasures. Neither

was

there a significant difference

between the

September 1984

and

the

June 1985

STAI-T

scores

for

this

grouping.



44

Reasons

for

start.Lng

exercise

The

most

often

cil:ed

reasons

that members

of this

grouping

had

given

for starting

an

exercir;e

program

in

September

1984

were:

trI

want

to get in

shapett, 90.97",

ttexercir;e

can

prevent

heart

attackrt and

ttI

want

to

lose

weight" 69.77",

"I

want to see

how

fit

I

am'r

66.72,

and

"I

like the way

exercisemakesme feel"., 60.67.. Frequencies for

all the reasons for

starting exercise that this

group

had

given

in September 1984

are

presented

in

Table

2.

Bivari.ate

Correlat:ional

Analyses

The

bivariate corr:elations

between

all available vari-ables

in this

group

are

presented

in

Table

14

and significant

correlations that relate

to the

questions

of thi.s

study

are

reported

below.

(n=33

for all

correlations

listed unl.ess stated otherwise).

Significant correl.ations

were

found

between

SMI

and:

STAI

(r=-.56),

Start

Health

Concern

Cl"uster

(a=.55),

STAIB

(1=-.41),

Start

External

Cluster

(r=-.35),

I{eigtLt

(r=-.36,

n=32), Weight

(r=-.36),

Trunk Flexion

(r=.36,

n=32);

between

STAI and:

STAIB

(a=.71),

STAI-STAIB

(a=.39);

between

STAI-STAIB and Start

Self-care Cluster

(r=-.36),

Weight

(r=.36),

Total

cholesterol

(r=.1r5,

t=29), Glucose

(r=.38,

n=29), Forced

Expiratory

Volume

(r=.41,

n=28),

zrnd

Maximum Breathj-ng Capacity

(r=.37,

a=29);

between the

Start

Healt:h

Concern Cluster and:

START

(a=.50),

&Be

(1=-.50)'

Years

Eurployed

(a=-.58,

n=31),

Hours

per Workday

(r=.36,

n=31),

Resting

Diastolic Blood

Pressut'e

(r=-.42,

n=32), and

Shoulder

Extension

(r=.35);

between the

Start

Self-.care

cluster and:

START

(r=.41),

Start

Out-of-Shape

Cluster

(r=.35),

PercerLt Body

Fat

(s=.37);

and between the

Start



45

Out-of-Shape

Cluster

arrd: START

Total

Cholesterol

(a=.t+0,

n=29)

and

Maximum

Breathing

()apacity

(r=.72),

Trunk

Flexion

(r=-.38,

n=32),

,

Low

density

Lipoproteins (r=.44,

n=29)

(r=.38,

n=29).

Insert

Table

14

about

here

Multiple

Regressicn.

To

test

the

hypothesis

that

a

significant

porti.on

of

the

variance

in

exercise

adherence

would

be

accounted

for

by

the

three

variables

percent

body fat,

sMr

score,

and

weight

taken

Eogether,

a

sEepwise

multiple

regression

analysis

was

conducted

using

a

probability

of F-to-enter

the

regression

equation

of(.05

(sPSSx

userrs

Manual,

1983).

wlth

rhe

June

1985

exercise

report

(Ex2)

as

dependent

variable,

none

of

the

three

variables

entered

the

regression

equati.on.

Exercise

Report

The

final

exercise

report

covering

the

period

from

Sept

1,

19g4,

to

May

15,

1985,

(Ex2)

com:rleted

at

rhe

summer 1985 psychological

tesring,

was

available

for

the

prtrsons

in

this

group.

Reported

exercise

for

this

group

had

a rnean

of

22.1)

weeks,

a

standard

deviation

of 14.6

weeks

and

a

range

of 0

to

36 weeks.

subjects

who

took

part

-Ln

sunmer

1984

Physiological

Testing

(pHys),

September

1984

Psychological

Testing

(PSYI),

February

1985

Psychological



46

Testing

(PSY2),

June 1985

Psychological

Testing

(PSY3),

and

reported

starting

a structured

e

xercise

program,

(Group

IV), n=12.

Group

IV included

those

persons

who

had

compleEed

the physiological

testing,

al1

three

psychological

testings,

reported

starting

an

exercise

program, and

had

provided

their

social

security

numbers at

each

testing.

This

group was composed.

of

10

men

and

2

women.

Further

demographic

characteristics

are

presented

in

Table

11.

Reasons

for starti.ng

exercise

The

reasons

that

tLad

been

cited

most

often

by

this

grouP

for starting

an

exerci-se

program in

Fall

1984

were

"wanting

to

get

i-n

shape"

cited

by

100.02;

rlexercise

feelsi

goodtt

and

ttexereise

can

Prevent,

heart

attacktt

by

75.02;

and

t'wanting

to

lose

weight"

and

t'wanting

to.

find out

how

fit

I

am"

by

66.77""

Frequencies

of all

reasons

for starting

an

exercise

program

for

thi-s

group

are

present<ld

in

Table

2.

Bivariate

Correlal:ional

Analyses

The

bivariate

cor::e1atj-ons

between

all

variables

i.n

Ehis

group

are

presented

in

Table

15 rlnd

signifieant

correlations

that

relate

to

the

questions

of this

stud:f

are

Presented

below.

(n=12

for al1

correlations

listed

unless

stated

oEherwise,)

Significant

correLations

were

found

between

SMI

and:

STAI

(p=-'68),

STAI-STAIB

(r=.60),

EXz

(r=.61),

EX3

(r=.63),

and

Weight

(r=-.59);

between

STAI

and

STAI-STAIB

(r=.69);

betInTeen

STAI-STAIA

and

STAI-STAIB

(r='80);

berween the

Start

llealth

Anxiety

Cluster

and:

I{eight

(r=-.58),

Weight



47

(r=-.63),

and

Years

Employed

(r=-.65);

between

the

Start Self-care

Cluster

and:

Trunk

Extension

(r;=.62),

Shoulder

Extension

(1=.58),

and

Maximal

Aerobic

Power

(r=.87,

rt=9); between

EX2

and:EX3

(1=.95)

and

Maximum Heart

Rate

(r=.69,

n=10);

bel:ween

START

and:

Start

Self-care

Cluster

(t=.76),

Start

Out-of-Shape

Clusiter

(a=.80),

and

Maximal

Aerobic Power

(1=.70);

between

the

Start

Healt:h

Anxiety Cluster

and:

Ileight

(r=-.58),

Weight

(1=-.63),

and

Years

Em1>1oyed

(r=-.65);

and the

Start

Self-care

Cluster

and:

Trunk

Extension

(r=.62),

Shoulder

Extension

(r-.58),

and

Maximal

Aerobic Power

(r=.87,

rr=9).

Insert Table

15

about

here

t-Tes

ts

No significant

di:iferences

were

observed

between

those

who

reported

continuing

and those

who

reported

dropping

out of

exercise

on

SMI

or

any

of

the

three

STAI-T

sc{)res

(September

L984,

February

1985, and

June

1985).

For this

group

there

wits

a significant

difference

between

the

STAI-T

scores

from

September

L984

(X=31.5,

S.D.=8.7)

and

June 1985

(X=28.7,

S.D.=6.6);

(t=2.2,

p(.,J5,

n=12).

No significant

differences

were

observed

between

any

other

combination

of

STAI-T scores.

Multiple

Regression

To

test

the

hypothesis

that

a significant

portion

of

the

variance

in

exercise

adherence

would

be

accounted

for by the

three

variables

percent



/+8

body fat, SMI

score,

arrd weight

taken

together,

a stepwise

multiple

regression

was conductrrd

using a

probability

of

F-to-enter

the

regression

equation

of(.05

(SPSSX

User's

Manual,

1983).

The

multiple correlation

between weeks of

adhere:nce

to

exercise

reported

June

1985

(EX2)

and the

three

variables

of

ther

hypothesis

resulted in

only

SMI

entering

the

regression

equation; Ril=.37.

With

the composite

exercise

report

(EX3)

as

the dependent

variable,

again

only

SMI

entered

the

regression

equation; R2

=.40.

To

further

descritre

the relationship

between

the

amount

of

exercise

adherence and the varierbles employed, another stepwise

multiple

regression

analysis was

conducted

(SPSSX

User's

Guide,

1983)

including all of the

available

psychological.

and

physiological

variables. The

obtained

mu1tipl6 correlation be,tween

days

of

adherence reported June 1985

(EX2)

and the other vari-ables

(Maximum

Heart Rate,

SMI,

change

in STAI-T

from

September

1984

to

June 1985r

and the

Health

Concern Cluster)

was

.96,

F(4,7)=21.g7,

p(.05,

R?,.93.

Results

of the stepwise

procedure

using

EX2

as the dependent variat le are

presented

in

Table L6.

The

obtained

multiple correlation between

days

of

adherence

reported

j-n

the composite

exercise report

(EX3)

and the other

variables

(SMI,

Forced

Expiratory

Volume,

Resting

Systoli.c

Blood Pressure,

Total Cholesterol,

Weight,

and

Trunk

Extension)

was

1.00,

F(6,5)=882.64,

p1.05,

R2=1.00.

Results

of

the

stepwise

procedure

witt.

EX3

as the

dependent

variable

are presented

in

Table

1

Insert

Table

16 about here



Exercise

Reports

Persons

in this

g

exercise

reporting

per

1985

(EX2)

the mean

15.3 weeks,

and

the

r

from

the

summer

1985

a

composite

report

(EX3)

number

of

weeks exerc

range

from

0

to

36 wee

49

Insert

Table

17

about

here

oup

have exercj-se report

data

avallable

from both

ods.

Using only

the

report

made in

the

sumrner

of

of

weeks

exercised

was

24.3,

standard

deviation

ge

from

0 to

36

weeks.

Combining

the

information

the

winter

1985

exercise

reports

Lo make

a

and

presumably

getting fresher reports'

the

mean

ed

was

26.2,

standard

deviation

12.2 weeks,

and the



50

Discussion

Three

main hypotheses

were examined in

this study. The first

hypothesis

was

that a r;ignificant

portion

of

the

variance

j-n

exercise

adherence

would be accounted for

by

three variables:

percent

body fat,

Self-Motivation Inventory

score, and body

weight. The

second hypothesis

was

that the construct

Self-Motivation,

as defined

by

Dishman

and

Gettman

(1980),

would

be suppot:ted

as a major

factor

in

exercise

adherence.

The

third hypothesis was

that the Self-Motivation Inventory

(SMI)

would

be

supported as

a valid

merasure

of Self-Motivation

as defined

by

Dishman

and

Gettman. The

relaEionsrhip

of the results of this

study

with each hypothesis

will

be discussed

individually.

Percent

Body Fat,

SMI,

and

Weight AccountinEi

for

Variance

in

Adherence.

The

results of thj.s

study

do

not

support

Dishman

and Gettmanrs

(1980)

finding

that a significant

portion

of the

variance

in

exercise

adherence

level was

explained

by the variables

percent

body

fat,

SMI score, and weight

taken

together.

The

el'idence does suggest that

exercise

adherence

correlates with a number of variables,

emotlonal and

cognitive

as

well

as

self-motivational

and

p,hysiological. However,

with respect to accounting

for

variance

in adherer.ce, the results of this

study

and the

inferenees

from

those

results

must be

treated with cauEion.

First,

the

number of subjects

utilized in the

analyses

is

sua11

(Group

III,

n=331 Group

IV'

n=12)

and

those

subjects self-selected.

Second, the

same analyses

performed

on Groups

III

and

IV

yiqlded

different resulLs.



51

For

the

grouping

wj-th

a

fu11

set of data

(Group

IV,

n=12)

multiple

correlations

between the

anounts

of

exercise

reported in the

two exercise

reports and

percent

body

fat,

SMI score,

and

body

weight

were

obtained

by

stepwise

linear

regressions

using a

probability

of

F-to-enter the regression

equation

of(.05

(SPSSX

Userrs

Guide, 1983).

With

the

June 1985 exercise

report

(EX2)

as the dependent

variable, only

SMI

entered

the

equation;

R2

="37.

With

the composite

exercise

report

(EX3)

as the dependent

vari-able,

only

SMI

entered the

equation;

R2=.40.

These

results

do

not

support

the

hypothesized

psycho-biological

explanation

of adherence.

The results for Group

IV

do

support

roles

for

qelf-motivational,

physiological,

emotional,

and cognitive

factors i-n exercise adherence.

Significant bivariate

correlations

were

found

between

the

June

1985

exercise

report

(EX2)

and:

SMI

(i=.61)

and

Maximum

Heart Rate

(r=-.69);

and

between

the

composite

exercise report

that

combined

information

from

both the

February

1985 report

and

the

June

1985 report

(EX3)

and SMI

(r=.63).

The

amount

of

exercise

reported did not correlate significantly with

percent

body

fat,

weight

or

any

other

variable

than those

already

mentioned

for

ej-ther

EX2

or

EX3.

A

multiple

correlation

between

EX2

and

Maximum Heart

Rate,

SMI,

the change

in

STAI-T scores

from

September

1984 to

June

1985,

and

the

l{ealth Concern

Cluster of

reasons

for starting

exercise

(R2=.96)

was

obtained

by

a

stepwise

linear regression

(SPSSX

User's

Guide,

1983). This

multiple correlation with

EX2

as the

dependent

variable

lends

suPport

to a

broader

spectrum

of

factors

than

hypothesized

being

involved

in

adherence

(self-motivational,

phyr;io1ogica1,

emotional,

and

cogniEive).

A

multiple

correlation

beLween

EX3 and

SMI,

Forced

Expiratory

Volume,

Resting

Systolic

Blood

Pressure,

Total

Cholesterol,

Weight,

and

Trunk

Extension

1p2=1.0)

was

obtained

by stepwise

linear regression

(SPSSX

Userrs

Guide,

1983).

This



52

Eultiple

correlation

wi.th

EX3

as

the dependenE

variable

supports

a

mix

between

self-motivatiorLal

and

physiological

factors

in exercise

adherence,

but

the cognitive

and

emotional

factors

that

appeared

in

the equation

with

EX2

are not representec,.

Perhaps

an

emotional

factor

can

be

inferred

from

the

presence

of SMI

in

the

formula

since

SMI

and

STAI-T

were found

to

correlate

posiLi,vely

in this

study.

For

the

grouping

r^rith

data

from

PHYS,

PSYI,

and

PSY3

(Group

rrr,

n=33),

there were

no

significant

correlati-ons

bet\,reen

amount

of

exercise

and

any

other

variable.

Because

Group III

did

not include

PSY2,

the

only

exercise

rePort

available

was EX2.

A

multiple

correlation

between EX2

and

percent

body fat,

sMr

score,

and

weight

using

a

probability

of

F-to-enter

the

regression

equation

of1i.05

(SPSSX

Userts Guide, 1983)

resulted

in none

of

the three variables

entering

the

regression

equation. Not

only does

this

result

not

support

the

hypothesis,

but it

is different

from

that with

Group

IV

(n=12).

Perhaps

there is such a large

number

of variables

affecting

adherence

in

a

variety

of

patterns

that no speci.fic

variables

show

up as

significant

correlates with

exercis3

adherence.

The

variables

that correlated with

the

two

exercise

reports within

Group

IV

and

the lack

oE correlations

in Group

III

were

unexpected.

In

a

previous

study,

percent

body

fat,

SMI,

and

weight

measured

before

an

exercise

Program

were

sl:ovm

to be major correlates

with

adherence and the

roles of other

types

of factors

were dovmplayed

(Dishman

& Gettman, 1980).

A1so,

the defini-tion of

rfstarting

an

exercise

programtt

in

the

present

study

seemed

to

favor

the cor.relation

of

physiological

factors

with exercise.

By

defining

starti-ng

exerc:lse

as starting

a

program

1n line

with the company



53

exercise

Program

in

terms of recommended

schedule,

intensiEy,

and duration,

it

seems

like1y

that a

number

of the

were actually eontinuirLg an ongoing

should

have

been in

betrter

shape to

likely

to

continue

to urdhere.

This

physiological

variablesr

and exerci"se

results of

the

present

study

did not

persons

counted

as

starting

exercise

personal

program.

Regular exercisers

begin with

and should have been more

would result in correlations

between

in

Group III

and Group

IV,

but the

indicate

this

happened.

Differences

betwee,n

members of

Group

III

(n=33)

and

IV

(n=12)

in

variables related Eo e:i:ercise do

not

seem

to

be responsible

for the

difference in results t,etween the

two

groups.

t-tests

on common

variables

between the

12

persons

included

in both

groups

and the

21

persons

only in

Group

IlI

revealed

a si.gnificant

difference

between

the

groups

on only one

variable; the

21

persor:s

only

in Group

III

had

a significantly

higher score

1ra.05)

on

the STAI-T e.dministered

at

PSY3

(A=34.7,

S.D.=8.0) than

the

12

persons

in

Group

IV

(?=,28.7,

S.D.=6.6).

A

significant

difference in the

final

STAI-T

score

aIor.e

does

not

seem

li.kely to

account

for all of

the

other

differences in

re

sults

between the

groups.

Since significant

differences

in

means

of common

variables between

the

groups

of

participants

were not

found, the most

1ikely

source

of

error in

this

phase

of the studf

is in the

exercise

reports.

Self-reports

of

exercise

have been shor,m

to be accurate

(self-reports

correlating

highly,

r=92,

with covert spot

checks

by

observers)

when

made

shortly after

eaeh

session

(King

&

Fredericksen,

1984).

Ilowever, acceptable

use of

time

at the

refinery

made

it necessiary

in Ehe

present

study

to

include

exereise

reports

with

the

psychological testing

sessions.

This

meant that the

participants

had to

remember

what

they

had been doing

over as

much

as

40

weeks to



54

complete

Ex2,

the

exercise

report

made

at

the

June

l9g5

psychological

testing.

Those persons

who

adhered

1002

had

no

difficulty

in filling

out

the

reports, but

those

who

dropped

out or

stopped and

restarted

ha4

a

more

difficult

task.

compa:ring

the

second

exercise

repor

(Ex2)

and

the

composite

exerci-se

report

(EX3)

for participants

1n

Group

IV

(n=12),

who

had

both

exercise

reports

irvailable,

shows

more

reports

of

no exercise

in

EX2

than

in EX3.

Apparent-Ly

when

people

had

to remember

over

the longer

period,

they were

likely

to clirim

no

exerci-se

if

they

were

unsure;

thereby

underreporting

short pt:riods

of exercise.

The

failure

to

report

shorter

periods

of

exercise

in EX2

accentuated

the extremes

of

participation,

O

and

36 weeks.

This

exagget:ati.on

of

the

extremes

is

displayed

in

the means

and

standard

deviati.ons

of

reported

exercise

for

both reports;

EX2

(i=24.3,

s.D.=15.3)

and EX3

(i=2',6.2,

s.D.=12.2).

Group rrr

(n=33)

had

only EX2

available

because

membe,rship

in

Group

III

did

not

include PSY2

where

part

of

the

composite

report

(IlX3)

was

made. The

mean

weeks

of

exercise

reported

in

EX2

for

Group

rrr

(1'.=22,0,

S.D.=14.6)

was

also less

than

that

reported

for

EX3

in

Group

IV.

It

appears

very

1ike1y

that the

correlations

relylng

upon

the

single

report

of

exercise

over

the 36

weeks

of the

study

(EX2)

are

confounded

by

underreporting

of

partial

adherence.

The

composite

exercise

rePort

(EX3)

seems

to

rnoderate

this effect

of

underreporting

sma11 amounts

of exercise,

but

EX3ts

reports

still

include

a

largememory

factor. rt

would

have

been

preferable

for

all

the reports

to have

been

made

much sooner

after

the exercise.



55

Self-Motivation

as

a

Factor

in

Exercise

Adherence

Both

in

the

preserrt

study

and in an

earlier

study

(oldridge,

1980),

lack

of motivation

was

a reason

commonly

cited for

discontinuing

an

exercise

program.

It

cloes

seem

reasonable

to infer

that a

person

who

has

stopped following

an err.ercise

program

was

not

motivated

enough

to

continue.

Yet,

neither

the litere.ture

on

exercise

adherence

and

treatment

compliance

nor

the results

of this

study support

self-motivation

as more

than one

of

a

number

of factors

in

exercise

adherence. Instead,

the results

of

this

study

suggest

that se1{-motivational,

emotional,

physi-ological,

and

cognitive

factors

all

contribute

to

patterns

of exercise

adherence. One

of

the most

challenging factors

in attaining

adherence

to many long

term

health regimens

is

the

lack

of immediate

gratification

for

adhering

(Varni

&

A11ander,

1984)

however

exercj-se

may

be different

in this

regard

with both

physiological

and

psychological

rewards reported.

SMf of Starter, Nonstarters,

Continuers

and

Dropouts.

The

relationships

between

SMI

scores and whether

or not

an

individual

had started, not

started, dropped out, or continued

exercise

suggest

that

abilities to succeed

in

a

given

si.tuation temper

the

effect

of

self-mot.ivation"

Participants

in

the

September 1984

psychological

test sessj,on

(PSYl)

who

reported starting

an

exercise

program

exhibited significantly higher

SMI

scores

(X=taA.4,

t=126)

than

those

who reported. not

starting an exercise

program

(X=142.2,

n=197). However,

there

r^/as

no

significant

difference

between SMI

scores

either for

those

persons

in the

February 1985

psychological

testing

session

(PSY2)

who

reported continuing

(F152.0,



56

rL=24)

and

those

who

reported

dropping

out

(1=U+q.44,

n=9)

in

the

June

1985

psych,logical

testing

session

(psy3)

who

continuing

(f=159.1,n=l.0)

and.

those

who

reported

dropping

or for

those

reported

out

(I=131

.5,n=2)

These

results

with

SMI

scores

agree

with

observations

in

the field

of

treatment

compliance

tltat health

beliefs

measured

before

entry

into

treatmen

are

poor

predictors

of

compliance,

but

health

beliefs

measured

after

therapy

has

progressed

are

better

predi-ctors

(Luborsky,

et

aI.,

19g0).

Positive

health

beliefsr

have

been

observed

to

increase

with

compliance

(Bruhn,1983)

.

Perhaps

in the

present study

the

d.ecision

to starr

was

a

poor

measure

of

self-uotivat

ion

than

the decision

to

continue

exercise.

Continuing

is likely

tc depend

not

only

on the

1eve1

of

self-motivation,

but also

on

abilities

and

responses

specific

to exercise.

It

is unforEunaLe

that the

present

study

did not

include

retests

on

the SMI

to

see

if SMf

scores responded

to adherence

as

health

beliefs

have.

Reasons

Ci-ted

for

Exercise

Participation

Status.

Reasons

cited

for

starting,

not

starting,

continuing,

and

discontinuing

an exercise

Program

support

the concept

of a

mix

of factors

shaping

exercise

behavior. Reasons

for exercising

were

mostly

participant

factors

and

reasons

for

not exercising

included

more

program

factors.

Reasons

for

Starting

an

Exercise

Program.

The

most

often

cited

reasons

for

starting

an

exercise

program

(see

Table

2)

were

partici-pant

factors:

rtI

want

to

get

in

shapet',

ttl

like

the way

exercise makes me

feelrt,

"r

want

to

prevent

hearE

attackfr,

"You

should

take

care

of

yourself",

and

rrl

want

to

lose

weighttt.

These

reasons for

starting

an

exercise

program



57

support

the

Health

Bel.Lef Model

(Rosenstock,

1974)

as

a

means

of

explaining

exercise

adherence.

In

the

IIBM

format,

the

starters

displayed

a

perception

of

risks :hat

applied

the them

(Heart

attack,

obesity),

they

saw

exercise

as

an

act:Lon

they could

take to reduce

the risks,

and

they

expected

the

benefits r>f

exercise

(diminished

chance

of heart

attack,

weight

loss,

feeling

good)

to outweigh

the

costs

(time

and

inconvenience

of exercise).

The

reasorls

cited for

starting

an exercise program

provi-ded

information

on

the

cogrriti.ve processes

in

goal

setting

and

expectations

involved

in deciding

to start

exercisi.ng

(Meichenbaum,

L975)

that would

be

expected

to contribttte to decisions to continue

exercise

or

drop

out

later.

As

opposed

to

l:he most

often

cited

reasons

for

starting an

exercise

program,

the

l-east

cited reasons

\rere more

external,

including

ttlrve

heard

the

prograrr

is excellenttt,

ttMy

doctor

encouraged

mett,

ttl

have

never

been able

to

exer:cise

on

my

owntt,

ttMy

friends

are taking

partrr,

and

rrl

want

to stop

smokin6;tt.

Reasons

forNot

Sterrting

an

Exerci-se

Program.

Reasons

cited for

not

starting an

exercise

program

differ

from

those

cited

for

starting

in that

each

respondent

tended

to check

fewer

reasons

and

there

was

less agreement

between respondents

on what the most important

reasons were,

but

program

factors

topped

the list:

(see

Table

2

ar.d

Table

3).

The

first two,

"The

classes

are too far frc,m my home"

and

ttThe

classes

are at

inconvenient

timestr

simply

may

have

been

rationalizations for not

parEicipating

since

being

unable to schedul.e

exercise

would be one r^ray

to

resolve

a cognitive

di.ssonance

(Festinger,

1957)

if

a

person

thought exercise

was

important,

but

was

not

going

to

dc,

j-t.

However,

tiue

is limited and exercise is

not

the only

important

acti.vity vying for time in an adultrs 1ife.

Also,

the



58

respondents

were

not

unwilling

to aceept

personal

responsibli.ty

since

t'I

was not

motivated

e::.ough to

do

itt' was the fourth

most often

cited

reason

for

not startinl3.

The

third

most often cited

reason,

ttl

exercise

by myselftr wai a

poorly

designed

choice and

the results from

it were confusing.

Pe:rsons who

cited this reason may have

thought

that

they

had to

participat,r

in

the company

program

or

some

other

group

exercise

program

to re')ort

starting,

when in

actuality

they

may have

had

an

individual

program;

some

who

cited this reason

may

have had

an ongoing

program

and

did not

corrsider

themselves starters; or some citing

thi-s

reason

may

have been

rr:ferring to a level of exercise that did not qualify

as aerobic

exercise.

.tn

the

first

two situationsttI

exercise

on

my

owntt

would have been

checkerl

because

the

quesEionnaires

were

not

clear

enough, in

t.he

last

sit:uation the

response

night

have been

a

way

to

deal with cognitive dir;sonance

over

not

starting

by denying the

need

to

exercise

(Festinger,

1l)57).

Reasons

for Contirruing

Exercise. Reasons most

often cited

for

continuing

exercise

wer:e

participant

factors with

program

factors

apparently being of

1it:tle importance.

The five

most often cited reasons

were the same for both

PSY2

and

PSY3:

"I

have more energy when

I

exerciser',

t'You

should

take

care <>f

yourself",

and

t'ft

has been helping

me

lose

weight". The

paralleL;

between

the

reasons

for

starting and

the reasons

for

continuing suggest

that those

who continued

r^rere

meeting their

expectations

in their

r:xercise

program.

Dishman

and

Gettmen

(1980)

defined

self-motivation

as

a

generaLi-zed

tendency

to

persist

in the absence

of external

reinforcement

including



59

skil1 in

delaying

gratiEi-cation.

However, the

most

often cited reasons

for

continuing

exercise

do not. seem

to support a major role

in

the

exercj-se

adherence observed in

this study

for

self-motivation

as

defined by

Dishman

and

3ettman.

"I

have more energy

when I

exercisett,

and

t'I

feel

more relaxe:l after exercise"

indicate the

presence

of rewards

which

are intrapersonal,

being

psychological,

physiological,

or both in

origin

(Morgan,

1984),

but

they

are

both

irrmediate

and

speci-fic to

exercise.

The

Utility

lfode1

of

Preventive Behavior

(Cohen,

1984)

suggests

that

continuing

because

|tExercise

can

prevent

heart atEacktr also

provides

immediate

gratification

through

the alleviation of anxiety

and

again

it is

specific to exercise.

.r-'inally,

individual

perceptions

of

a stressful

experience

(exercise

is

physiologically

stressful, though it is

usually

a

positive

stress)

show

marked and consistent differences that affect the

ability to

persevere

(Kr>riat,

et a1.,

L974). It

is

possible

that the

iuportant cognitive ski.Ll

in

self-motivation

as it relates to

exercise

is not

delaying

gratifir:ation, but rather

percei-ving

the physiological

and

psychological

resporrses

to

exercise

as

positive.

Reasons

forDroppinll

Out

of

Exercise.

The

reasons

for

dropping

out

of

exercise reflected a shift

from what had been said upon starti.ng

to

a

pattern

very similar

Eo

that

in the reasons

for not

st.arting,

external

factors

were

cited

more

often

than

internal factors

as reasons

for

dropping

out of exereis,:,

but there

was

a mix

of the two. In both

PSY2

and

PSY3

the most

often

ciLed reasons

for dropping

out were

"The

classes

were too

far from my hornett,

ttThe

classes

were

at

i.nconvenient

timesrt,

andttl

wasntt motivated

enough to do ittt.

Apparently

the

obstacles

to

exercise

loomed

larger

;rfter

dropping

out.

Because of the

construction

of the

forms, it was noE

possible

to

determine

much

about

how

exercise



felt

to

those who dro

positive

outcomes cite

ttExercise

was

drudge

good

feelings

reported

177"

of those

reporting

"I

rdas not losing

weig

respondents

in PSY2

a

who

later

dropped

out

SMI

scores were

not si

out and those

who

cont

exercise

playing

the

60

out, however, negative para1le1s

to the

by

those

who

continued were

not

chosen often.

comes

close to finding a

negative paral1e1

to

the

by

those

who

continued,

but

lt was

cited by

only

dropping

out in PSY2

and

16Z

in PSY3.

Similarly,

t

like Ifd

hoped" rdas

cited

by only

9% of

tt.e

4Z

in

PSY3.

Something

changed

for the

starters

it

does

not seeru

to

be

self-motivation.

That

the

ificantly

different between

those

who dropped

d exercise,

lends

support to the specifics

of

e major

role in adherence.



6L

SMI

as a

Measure

of

Self-motivation

The

results

of

th.Ls

study

supported

the

hypothesis

that

SMI

measures

the

general-i-zed,

nonspecific

tendency to

persevere

defined

by

Dishman

and Gettman

(1980)

as lielf-Motivation,

but

there

seem to

be

other factors

contributing

to the

SM.[

score

as

we11.

Emotional

and

physiological

correlates

of SMI

suggost

t.hat

at

least

some

of

the

broader

range

of

factors

associated with

self-motivation in exercise

adherence

are

also

included

in the SMI score.

Anxiety.

The

significant correlation between SMI and STAI-T was

unexpected

because

it

had

not beerr reported in

the

literature. Yet,

consistently a

signifiiant

negative

correlation between

SMI

and STAI-T indicated that

parti.cipants

with higtLer SMI

score

(and

more self-motivatj.on) tended to

have

lower

STAI-T

scor€rs

(and

less anxiety).

SMI

and

STAI-T

correlated

significantly

for

all of the

particl-pants

in

PSY1

(n=334r

r=-.37) which

included those

persons

who reported sLarting

an exercise

program

(r=L?7,

r=-.36).

Though

st.art€rrs

and nonstarters

displayed

signiflcant

difference

in SMI scores, there

wErs no

significant difference between the starters

and

the nonstarters

on STAI-T

scores.

These

results

suggest

that

the

degree to

whj-ch

a

persron

reports

an

ability to

persevere

in the

SMI

is

significantly correlat€rd

with his or

her level of

anxi-ety

at the time

of

the

SMI.

Because

the

S|MI

and

the STAI-T

were

administered

at the same

session, at the

workplEice,

within the

context of an employer

sponsored

exercise

program,

specj.fic

situational

factors

were

likely to

be involved



62

in

these

results.

Such

faccors

could

have

been

job-related,

exercise-

related,

or

both.

For

Group

rV

(n=12;

the June

1985

srAr-T

score

was

significantly

lower

than

the

September

1984

STAI-T

score

which

suggesrs

that

lowering

anxiety

rdght

be

a factor

in

adherence.

However,

this

lowering

of anxiety

wari not

observed

in Group

III

(n=33)

or

in

comparisons

of

the

February

1985

SIIAI-T

with

either

the

Seprernber

1984

or the

June

1985

STAI-T

for

Group

.tV"

Reasons

Cited

for

Starl:ing

Exercise.

The

reasons

cited for starting

exercise

and the

clusters

formed

from

those

reasons

support

IiMr

as

a measure

of Self-Motivat.ion,

but

also

suggest

that

other

fact:ors,

both general

and

specific,

are

included.

A

negative

correlation

bertween

SMI

and

the cluster

called

External

Motivation

(r=-.20)

was

expected

si.nce

citing

external

reasons

for

starting

does

not

fit r^rith

the

concept

of self-motivation.

A positive

correlation

between

STAI-T

and START

(SfAnl=

the

total

number

of

reasons

cited for starting)

(1=.20)

implies

that

the more

reasons

a

person

cited

for

starting

exercise,

the more

anxious

he or

she

was

or

vice

versa.

STAr-T

and

the

cluster

called

Out-of-Shape

also

had a

positive

correlati.on

(r=.21).

The

correlations

between

START

(the

total number

of

reasons

cited for

starting)

and

the STAI-T

along

with

the

correlation

between

SMI

and

STAI-T

suggest

that

not

only

dld

anxiety

correlate

with

SMr,

but

anxiety

is

1ikely

to

have

been

correlated

with

specific

exercise

setting.

Physiological

Factors.

Physiological

factcrs

related

to

being

in

shape

correlated

with

SMI

in

two

of

the larger grrupi-ngs.

For

the

group

that

was

in

psyl

and



63

completed

the

fitness

irssessment

(pHys)

(n=104),

higher

sMr

scores

correlated

with

higher Maximal

Aerobic

Power

(r=.21)

and

a higher

Maximum

Breathing

capacity

(r=,24).

For

the

group

rhat

completed

psy1,

pHys,

and

reported

starting

erxercise

(n=58),

higher

SMr

scores

correlated

significantly

with

beirLg

shorter

(Heightt

t=-.27),

lighter

(weighr,

r=-.38;

Lean

Body

WeigtLt,

r=-.30;

Percent

body Fatr

r=-.29),

having

lower

blood

pressure,

(Resting

systolic

Blood

pressurer

r=-.37; Resting

Diastolic

Blood

Pressure,

r=-.38),

and

being

in

better

shape

(Maximal

Aerobic

Power,

r=.29).

The

SMI

test

was

taken

after

most

of the

parti-cipants

in

PHYS

had

been

tested and

had

received

the

report

of thei-r

scores.

rt

may

be

that the

people

who

had

the

higher SMI

scores were

in better

shape because

theyhadmore

self-motivation.

However,

it

might

also

be

that

higher

scores

on the

physiological

testing

increased

intrinsic

motivation

in

a

similar way

to that

already

reported

for

competitive

sports

(tr{einberg,

L97e).

Conclusion

Summary

of

Findings.

The

results

of this

study

support

self-motivation

as

a factor

in

exercise

adherence,

but not in

the form or

to the

degree

of

significance

hypothesized.

Percent Body

Fat,

SMI score,

and

Weight

taken

together

di-d

not

account

for

a

slgnifi-cant

portions

of the variance

in exercise.

adherence

as

reported by

Dishman

and Gettman

(1980).

Self-motivation

was

supported

as

p1ayin13

a role in exerci.se

adherence,

but

it did not



54

appear

to

be

either

inrlependent

of the

situation

or without short-term

and

immediate

gratificirtion.

SMI

did

seem to

measure

self-motj-vation,

but

evidence

of

emotiorral

and

sj-tuation-specific influences

on

the

SI'1I

score

were

also

found.

Problems in

Meths5 o s&'/.

Some of the

desigrr

flaws of the

present

study

were

inherent

in the

industrial

plant

settirlg.

The

operating

schedule

of the refinery

required that

psychololgieal

testing

be conducted

at regular

department

meetings

and include e'reryone

attending

those meetings.

Management

recommended

using Sociirl

Security numbers

as identification

numbers

beeause

time

was lirnitr:d in the

department

meetings

and

they

provided a

simple,

reliable

form

r:f

identification.

Instead

of

random

selection

of subjects,

individua.Ls

attending

departmental

mee-tirgs

self-selected

by

choosing

to

fill out tl:e

questionnaires

or

not and by

choosing to

identify

themselves

by their social security

numbers

or not.

People

who

missed the

meetings

whrlre the

questionnaires

were administered

due

to

job

assignments,

illner;sr oE

vscdtion

were

lost from the study.

Since

the

testing

was

done at

cornpany

meetings

and

soci.al

securi-ty

numbers

were

used

as identification,

Ehere

\^ras concern

about

confidenLiality

among

participants.

This fo:rmat

for testing

meant

that

exercise

reports

were

made

only twice,

requiring

participants to remember

what they

had done

over

relatively

long

p,31ieds.

Other

problems wiEh this

study

resulted

from

a more

general

lack of

foresight

and

have bee:e

noted

in the

Discussion.

The

main

difficulties

occurred

as a

result

oE

not explaining

the

purpose and

methods

of the

study clearly

enough

t3

get

the

parEicipants to

identify

themselves

and



and

and

and

continue

in the

st

not

having

paralle

from

continuers

Future

Study.

Further

investiga

a)

the

role

playe

correlation

between

SM

b)

whether

or

not

have

been observed to

c)

how

the

percep

continue and those

who

65

y;

not

assuring

confidentiality

clearly

enough;

information frou

starters

and

non-starters

dropouts.

ion

by

and

SMI

t

ion

drop

is

suggested

into

the

following:

anxiety

in the SMI

score

as

implied

in

the

STAI.T,

increases r^lith

adherence

as

health

beliefs

of exercise differs between

those who

out.



66

Aho, I^I.

1977.

their beliefs

92,65-71.

References

Relationship

of

wives

t

preventive

health

orientation

to

about

heirrt

disease

in husbands.

Public

Health

Reports,

Allain,

C., Poon,

L.,

tlhan,

C.,

Richmond,

W.,

and

Fu,

P., L974.

Enzymatic

determinaEion

of

total serum

cholesterol.

Clinical

Chemistry,

20r_

470-475.

Auerican

College

of Sports Medicine,

L978.

The

recommended

quantity

and

quality

of

exercise

fo::

developing

and mainEai-ning

fitness

in

healthy

adults.

Medicine

and licience

in Sports, 10,

vii-x.

Andrew,

G.,

and

Parker.,

J.O.,

1979.

Factors

related to

dropout

of

post

myocardial

infarction

ltatients

from

exercise

programs.

Medicine

and Science

in Sports, 11,

376-3711.

Baekeland,

F.

&

Lundwal-l,

L., 1975.

Dropping

out of treatment: a critical

review.

Psychological

Bulletin,

82, 738-783.

Bandura,

A.

and Cervonrr,

D., 1983.

Self-evaluative

and

self-efficacy

mechanisms

governing

motivational

effects

of

goal

systems.

Journal

of

Personality

and Social l,sychology,

45, 1017-1028.

Berger,

P., Watson,

S., Akil,

H., Elliott,

G., Rubin, R.,

Pfefferbaum,

A.,

Davis, K.,

Barchas,

J.,

and Li, C., 1980.

Beta-endorphin

and schizophrenia.

Archives

of General Ps),ehiatry,

37, 635-640.

Behnke,A.,andWi1mor€t,J.,L974.Eva1uation

and Composition. Engle:wood

Cliffs:

Blumenthal,

J., Willianrs,

S.,

Needels,

T.,

and

Wa11ace,

A., 1982.

Psychological

changes Erccompany

aerobic exercise

j-n

healthy

middle-aged

adults. Psychosomatic

Medi.cine,

44, 5L9-527.

Bluuenthal,

J., WillianLs,

S.,

Wa1lace,

A., Williams,

R.,

and

Needels,

T.,

1982. Physiological

ar:d

psychological

variables

predict

compliance to

prescribed

exercise

the,rapy in

patients

recovering from

myocardial

infarction. Psychosome.tic

Medicine,

44, 529-536.

Bruhn,

J", 1983.

The a.pplication

of theory in

childhood asthma self-help

programs.

Journal

of

l.11ergy

and

Clinical

lurmunology,

72, 561-577.

Center

for

Fitness

Eval.uation,

Western Washington

University,

1984a.

IExplanation

of

measur€ and

individual

test

results

of

maximal aerobic

power,

YOz

max.l

Unpublished

information sheet.

(Available

from Center for

Fitness Evaluation,

Western Washington

University, Bellingham,

Washington

98225.)

Center for Fitness Evaluation, 1984b.

IExplanation

of measure and

individual test results

of hydrostatic weighing.

I

Unpublished

information

sheet.



67

center for

Fitness Eva--uation,

1984c.

IExplanation

of measures

and

individual

flexibility

test results.l

Unpublished

information

sheer.

Center for Fitness Eval-uation

,

1984d.

IExplanation

of measures

and

individual test results; of

puluonary

function

analysis.

]

Unpublished

information

sheet.

Cohen, D., 1984.

Utilj.ty

model

of

preventive

Epidemiology

and

Corrmurrity

Health,

38

,

61-65

.

behavior. Journal

of

Co1t,

E.,

Wardlaw,

S.,

and

Frantz, A., 1981.

The effects

of running

on

plasma

beta-endorphin.

Life

Sciences,

28214,

L637-L640.

Condiotte,

M.,

and Lictrtenstein,

E., I981.

Self-efficacy and relapse

in

smoking

cessation

progt'ams.

Journal

of

Consulting

and Clinical Psychology,

49,

648-658.

de

Vries, H., 1981. Tranquilizer effect of exercise: a critical

review.

The

Physician

and Sport:smedicine,

9:11, 47-55.

Deci, E.,

1975. IntrirLsic

motivation.

New

York:Plenum.

Dishman, R.

166-180.

Disharan,

R.

adherence.

Dishman, R.

to habitual

rI5-132.

Festinger,

Petersen.

,

1982.

Hee.lth

psychology

and exercise adherence.

Quest,

33,

&

Gettman, L.,

1980.

Psychobiologic influences

on exercise

Journal

of

Sport Psychology,

2, 295-310.

,

Ickes, IJ.,

&

Morgan,

W., f980.

Self-motivation

and adherence

physical

activity. Journal of

Applied

Social Psychology, 10,

L., L957. /.

theory of cognitive dissonance.

Evanston, IL:Row,

Fetsch,

R. & Sprinkle, R.,

1983. Effects

of

running

on depressed adults.

American

Mental

llealth

Counselors

Association

Journal.

5. 75-84.

Fink, D.,

L976,

Tailoring the consensual regiuren.

In

Sackett,

D. and

Haynes,

R.

(Eds.),

Comlliance

with

therapeutic

regimens. Baltimore:

The

Johns Hopkins

University

Press.

Folkins,

C.

&

Sime,

W., 1981. Physical fitness training and

mental health.

American

Psychologist, 36,

373-389.

Friedewald,

W., Levy, X.., and Fredrickson,

D.,

1972.

Estimation

of the

concentration of low-density

lipoprotein in eholesterol

in

plasma,

without

use

of the

preparative

ultracentrifuge.

Clinical

Chemistry,

18, 499-502.

Gale,

J., Eckhoff, W.,

Mogel,

S., &

Rodnick,

J.,

1984.

Factors

related

to

adherence to an exercise

program

for healthy adults.

Medicine

and Science

in Sport.s and

Exercise, 16,

544-549.



58

Gerner,

R.,

Catlin,

D., Gorelick,

D.,

Hui, K., Li,

C.,

1980.

Beta-

endorphins:

intravenous

infusions

causes

behavioral

change

in

psychiatric

patients.

Archives

of General

Psychiatry,

37, 642-647.

Grossman, A.

and Sutto:a,

J., 1985.

Endorphins

-

what

are they

-

how are

they

measured

-

what

irs their role in exercise?

Medicine and

Science

in

Sports

aird

Exercise, L7,

74-81.

Ilartley,

L., 1985.

Growth

hormone

and

catecholamine

response

to exercise

in relation

to

physical

training. Medicine

and Science

in Sports, 7,

34-36.

Haynes,

R.,

1976. A

c:ritical

review

of the

"determinants"

of

patient

compliance

with

therapr:utic

regimens. In

Sackett, D.

and Haynes, R.

(Eds.)

Compliance

with

theraprrutic

regimens. Baltimore:

The Johns

Hopkins Press.

Ilunt,

W., Barnett,

L.,

and Branch, L., Lg7l.

Relapse

rates

in addictive

programs.

Journal

of

(llinica1

Psychology,

27,

455-456.

Janal

, M.,

Co1t,

E.,

C.Lark,

W.,

and

Glusman,

M., 1984.

Pain

sensitivity,

mood, and

plasma

endocrine

levels

in man following

long

distance running

-

effects

of naloxone.

ilain,

19,

13-25.

Jenkins, C., 1979.

An

approach

to

diagnosis

and

treatment

of

problems

of

health related

behavio::. International Journal

of

Health Education,

12,

246.

Johnson,

B., L977. Pra<:tical

Fl"*ibility M""".."*

Portland, Texas:

nrow,

Kaplan,

G.,

and

Cowles,, A., 1978.

Health

locus of control

and health value

in prediction of

smokirrg

reduction.

Health Edrcation

Morogr"phs,

6,

L29-t37

.

Kaplan,

K., Mendelson,

L., & Dubroff, M., f983.

The

effect

of a

jogging

program

on

psychiatric

inpatients with

symptoms of depression. Occupational

Therapy

Journal

of

Reserarch,

3, 173-L75.

Katch,

F., Michael, E.,

and Horvath, S., 1967. Estimation

of

body

volume

by

underwater weighing:

clescripti-on of a

simple

method. Journal

ol

3ppLi"4.

Physiology, 27,

96-100.

Kincey,

J., 1983.

Conrpliance with a

behavioural weight-loss

programme:

target setting and locrrs

of control.

Behavioural Research

Journal,

21,

r09-114.

Ki-ng, A. & Frederiksen, L., 1984.

Low-cost

strategies

for

increasing

exercise

behavior.

Rel.apse

training and

social support.

Behavior

Modification.

8. 3-27.

Koriat,

A., Melkman, R., Averill, J., and Lazarus, R., 1972. The self-

control

of emotional

reractions

to a stressful

fi1m. Journal of

Personality,

40,601-619.



69

Lefton,

L.,

1982. Psyr:hology,

2nd.

edition.

Boston:Allyn and

Bacon.

Lipid

Research Clinics

Program,

L975.

Manual of

Laboratory Operations,

Volume

I. Lipid

and

Lir)oprotein

Analysis.

(DHEW

publication

number

(NIH)

95-628).

Bethesda,

Ma::y1and: National

Institutes

of

Health.

Luborsky,

L., Mintz,

J,, Auerbach,

A., Christoph,

P.,

Bachrach,

H., Todd,

T.,

Johnson,

M.,

Cohen,

M., and

0rBrien, C.,

1980. Predicting the

outcome

of

psychotherapy. Archives of General

Psychiatry, 37, 471-481.

Marlatt, G., and Gordott,

J.

'

1980. Determinants

of relapse:

implications

for

maintenance

of

behirvior

change.

In

Behavioral

Medicine:

Changing

Health

Lifestyles, eds,

Davidson and

Davidson.

Brunner/MazelzNew

York.

Martin,

J.

&

Dubbert, l?.,

1982. Exercise

applications

and

behavioral

medicine:

(:urrent

status

and

future

directions.

Consulting

and

Clinica.L

Psychology, 50,

1004-1017.

promotion

in

Journal of

Meichenbaum,

Press.

D.,

1977

.

Cognitive behavior

modification.

New

York:Plenum

Moore,

M., 1982.

Endo:rphins and

exercise:

Physician and

Sportsmerlicine,

10,

111-119.

a

puzzLLng

relationship.

Morgan,

W., L979.

Anx:Lety reduction

following

acute

physical

activity.

Psychiatric

Anna1s,

9:. ,

L4L-147

.

1985.

Affr:cti-ve beneficence

of

vigorous

physical

activity.

organ,

W.,

l'ledicine

and

Science irr

Sports

and

Exercise,

17:1, 94-100.

Morris, A.

and

l{usman,

B., L978. Life quality

changes

following

an

endurance

conditioning

program.

American

Corrective

Therapy

Journal,

32,

3-6.

Morri.s,

J., Everitt,

M.,

Pollard,

R., Chave,

S.,

& Semmenc€,

A.,1980.

Vigorous

exercise

in 1,:isure-time:

Protection

against

coronary

heart

disease.

Lancet,

2, l2O7-12L0.

Oldridge,

N.,

Wicks,

J.,

Ilanley,

C.,

Sutton,

J., and

Jones,

N.,

f978.

Noncompliance

in an

ex,arcise

rehabilitation

program

men

who

have

suffered

a

myocardial-infaretio:n.

Canadian

Medical

Association

Journal,

118

361-364.

gldridge, N., L979.

Ccmpliance

of

post myocardial

infarction patients

to

exercise

programs.

Meclicine and

Science

in Sports,

11, 373'375.

Paffenbarger,

R. Jr.,

Wing,

A.,

and

l{yde

an

index

of

heart

attack

risk

in college

Epidemiology,

108,

L6L-175.

Rosenstock,

T., 1974.

The health

betief

model

and

preventive

health

behavior.

Ilealth

Education

MotoEPt

":-2,-

354-386.

,

R.,

L978.

Physical

activitY

as

alumni.

Arnerican

Journal

of



70

Ruppel,

G., L982.

Manual

of

Pulnonary

Function

T

St. Louis:

C.V.

Mosby

Co.

sackett,

D.

and

Ilaynes,

R.,

L976.

compliance

with

therapeutic

regimens.

Baltimore:

The

Johns

Hopkins

University

presi.

Schafer,

L.,

Glasgow,

R.,

and

McCaul,

K.

,

1982.

Increasing

adherence

in

diabetic

adolescents.

Journal

of Behavioral

Medicine,

5,

353-362.

Siri,

W.,

1956.

Gross

composition

of

the body.

In

Lawrence,

J.,

and

Tobias,

C.

(Eds.)

Adva::ces

in Biological

and

Medical

Physics

IV.

New York:

Academi-c

Press.

Spielberger,

C.,

Gorsu,:h, R.,

& Lushene,

R.,

1970.

The

State-Trait

Anxiety

rnventory

(srAr).

Rivirrside,

cA:

consulring

rsychoGgists-FlEss.

sPSSX

userrs

Guide.

19113.

New York:

McGraw-Hill

Book

company.

Tllglycerides

- Int.

tleagent

Enzymatic

Essay,

(Beckman

Publication

number

0L5-245445),

1983.

Fu.Llerton,

California:

Beckman

lnstrumlnts

rrrcorporat.a

varni,

J., & wallander,

J.,

1984.

Adherence

to health-related

regimens

in

pediatric

chronic

diso::ders.

Clinical

Psychology

Review,

4,

585-596.

Weinberg,

R., 1979.

Irrtrinsi-c

motivation

in a competiti.ve

setting.

Medicine

and

Science

irr

Sports,

11, 146-L49.

weinstein,

w.

& Mayers,,

A.,

1983.

Running

as

treatment

for

depression:

is

it

worth

it? Journal

of Sport

Psychology,

5,

288-301.

Wilmore,

J., 1969. A

siimplified

method

for

determination

of

residual

lung

volumes.

Journal

of

Alrplied Physiology,

27,

96-100.

the role of self-motivation in exercise adherence, part 2, pgs 32 -70

Documents