1

Modelling competence motives and physical exerciseintentions: The role of individual, social and environmental characteristicsADALGISA BATTISTELLI*, FRANCESCO MONTANI*, LUCIANO BERTINATO**,SELENE URAS***, MARCO GUICCIARDI****

*Laboratory Epsylon EA 4556 Dynamics of Human Abilities & Health Behaviors, UniversityPaul Valéry (Montpellier III), Montpellier, France* *Department of Neurological and Vision Sciences, Neuropsychological, Morphological andMotor Sciences,University of Verona,Verona, Italy* * *Center for advanced studies, research and development in Sardinia (CRS4), Science andTechnology Park Polaris,Pula, Italy* * * *Department of Psychology, University of Cagliari,Cagliary, Italy

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationships between indi-vidual differences (self-efficacy and body image), social factors (family support) andenvironmental characteristics (local authorities support), and competence motivesand subsequent physical exercise intentions. Participants were 1084 students (551males, 553 females) aged between 13 and 19 (M = 15.7, SD = 1.6) from three dif-ferent Secondary Schools. Structural Equation Modelling analyses confirmed thehypothesized model: family support, local authorities support, self-efficacy and bodyimage significantly predicted competence motives, which were in turn positivelyassociated with physical activity intentions. Furthermore, mediation analysesrevealed that competence motives fully mediated the relationship between localauthorities support and self-efficacy, on one hand, and exercise intentions, on theother, and partially mediated the link between family support and intentions.These findings suggest the importance of assessing the unique contributions of psy-chosocial variables in affecting the motivational determinants of physical activityintentions.

KEY WORDS: Body image, Competence motives, Environment, Physical activity,Self-Efficacy.

Introduction

The invaluable benefits of participation in physical exercise for individ-ual well-being and health have been widely recognized by psychological

Correspondence to: Adalgisa Battistelli, Laboratory EA Dynamics of Human Abilities &Health Behaviors, Universiy Paul Valéry, (Montpellier III), 4 Blvd Henry IV, 34000 Monpellier,France (e-mail: adalgisa battistelli@univ-montè3.fr)

Int. J. Sport Psychol., 2012; 43: 1-00

research on sport and physical exercise (Biddle, Cavill, & Sallis, 1998; Calfas& Taylor, 1994; Hagger, Chatzinarantis, & Biddle, 2002). Accordingly,numerous scholars have attempted to investigate correlates and determinantsof exercise-related behaviours and outcomes by adopting an individual-based perspective (Giles-Corti & Donovan, 2002; Hall & McAuley, 2010).This approach, however, has been criticized, as it places excessive emphasison intra-individual factors and disregards the context within which physicalactivity is enacted (McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988; McLeroy etal., 1988; Stokols, 1996). Consequently, a growing body of research hasbegun to focus on broader determinants of physical exercise using a socialecological perspective (Spence & Lee, 2003). This approach specificallyposits that physical activity is affected by the integrated contribution ofintrapersonal factors (e.g., biological, psychological, and behavioural influ-ences), social determinants (e.g., family or peer support, modeling), andenvironmental influences (e.g., facilities, accessibility, communities) (Sallis &Owen, 1997, 1999). Specifically, social factors differ from environmentalones, in that the former reflect the immediate setting within which individu-als interact, whilst the latter reflect a more distant milieu, influencing physi-cal activity at a broader level (Spence & Lee, 2003; Cerin, Leslie, Sugiyama,& Owen, 2010). Thus, the social ecological framework allows scholars tointegrate a rich array of factors from multiple ecological levels (e.g., individ-ual, family, community) into comprehensive models of physical exercise.

Drawing on this theoretical perspective, research has effectively con-tributed to extend current knowledge of how the synergy between individ-ual, social and environmental influences can facilitate or inhibit personalinvolvement in physical activity, beyond individual characteristics (Susser &Susser, 1996; Spence & Lee, 2003). In this regard, several studies have pro-posed and shown that physical exercise and physically active lifestyles are afunction of intra-individual and environmental factors we well as of theirinterrelationships (e.g., Humbert et al., 2006; Prodaniuk et al., 2004; Cerin etal., 2010; Plotnikoff, Pickering, Flaman, & Spence, 2010). For example, Pro-daniuk and colleagues (2004) showed that the perceived environment influ-enced physical activity in the workplace via self-efficacy, whilst Cerin et al.(2010) indicated that social support and sport facilities played an importantrole in reducing perceived barriers to physical exercise (i.e., lack of motiva-tion and time constraints), which in turn negatively impacted on leisure-timephysical activity.

Despite developments of social ecological models to explain physicalactivity, however, the present literature has not yet provided an in-depth,comprehensive clarification of how individual and contextual characteristicscan exert their joint influence on personal engagement in physical exercise

2

(Plotnikoff et al., 2010; Prodaniuk et al., 2004). Several recommendationshave indeed been made for further assessing the psychological mechanismsthat bridge the link between intra-individual and environmental factors andphysical exercise (e.g., Bauman, Sallis, Dzewaltowski, & Owen, 2002; Bara-nowski, Anderson, & Carmack, 1998; Lewis, Marcus, Pate, & Dunn, 2002).

Building on a social ecological perspective (Spence & Lee, 2003), thecore purposes of the present research are therefore twofold: first, to extendcurrent knowledge of the role played by the individual and the surroundingenvironment in predicting physical activity intentions; and second, to gaindeeper understanding of the motivational mechanisms that can explain howintra-individual and contextual factors are linked to exercise intentions. Toaddress the first purpose, we identify a range of variables that have beenindependently shown to influence participation in physical activity, butwhich integrated contribution to explaining exercise intentions has not yetbeen adequately investigated, namely: family support, local authorities sup-port, self-efficacy and body image. Consistent with a social ecological per-spective (Spence & Lee, 2003), these variables represent three fundamentaldomains that have been argued to jointly affect physical activity (Humbert etal., 2006): intrapersonal (represented by self-efficacy beliefs and body imageperceptions); social (expressed by familiar support), and environmental (rep-resented by local authorities support). Incorporating these factors into amodel of physical activity intention would thus help to move a step forwardtowards getting a clearer understanding of the links between the various lev-els of the environment and the individual’s determination to exercise.

Furthermore, as our second purpose is to explain the way such individ-ual and contextual determinants play together to predict exercise intentions,we identify competence motives as a potential mediator linking intraper-sonal, social and environmental factors to the formation of a decision to ini-tiate physical activity. Competence motives constitute one specific kind ofparticipation motives, which refer to the contents of individuals’ goals forparticipating in physical activity (Ingledew & Markland, 2008). In otherterms, participation motives denote what sport- or exercise-related goalspeople intend to pursue (Ryan et al., 1996), and, in accordance with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), can vary in the degree to whichthey are intrinsically- or extrinsically-oriented (Markland & Ingledew, 2007).In this regard, because competence motives tend to be experienced asautonomous, they reflect intrinsically-oriented foci of action, and, consistentwith a self-determination approach, have been hence argued and empiricallydemonstrated to positively contribute to a broad array of sport- and exercise-related outcomes, such as: self-reported exercise behaviour (Frederick-Recascino, 2002; Ingledew & Markland, 2008), behavioural regulation

3

(Markland & Ingledew, 2007; Ingledew & Markland, 2008) and persistencein sport (Pelletier & Sarrazin, 2007; Ryan et al., 1997).

Whilst the specific role of competence motives in affecting physicalactivity intentions has not been yet adequately assessed, some research find-ings indirectly support a positive link between these autonomously-orientedmotives and the individual’s determination to exercise. For example, in astudy conducted by Hagger et al. (2002) global autonomous motives, amongwhich skill learning and improvement were listed as self-determined reasonsfor engaging in physical exercise, were found to be directly associated withstudents’ intentions to participate in physical activity. Additionally, Biddleand colleagues (Biddle, Soos, & Chatzisarantis, 1999; Biddle & Goudas,1996; Lintunen, Valkonen, Leskinen, & Biddle, 1999) showed that task ori-entation, a motivational construct that has been demonstrated to be strictlyrelated to competence motives (Biddle, Wang, Kavussanu, & Spray, 2010;White, Duda, & Keller, 1998), positively predicted exercise intentions. Bothtask orientation and competence motives indeed reflect a primary concernfor skill mastery, personal learning and improvement (Biddle et al., 2010),which are essential to raise the individual’s intention to be physically active(Biddle et al., 1999). Taken together, these theoretical and empirical premisesmake it hence reasonable to expect a positive relationship between compe-tence motives and physical exercise intentions.

Furthermore, a few individual and demographical characteristics havebeen demonstrated to affect these autonomously-oriented goals that peopleseek to accomplish when engaging in physical exercise (e.g., Goudas & Der-mitzaki, 2004; Kirby, Kolt, & Liu, 1999; Klint & Weiss, 1987). For example,Goudas and Dermitzaki (2004) reported a positive relationship betweencompetence motives (i.e., learning motor skills) and outcome expectanciesamong secondary school students. Additionally, Mathes and Battista (1985)found gender differences in the perceived importance of competencemotives, such that women rated competence-related motives significantlylower than men. Notwithstanding these findings, however, competence-related motives have been often ignored in the past literature on psychosocialdeterminants of participation motives (e.g., Ingledew & Markland, 2008;Andrade, Salguero, González-Boto, & Márquez, 2006). Additionally, moststudies have primarily focused on individual-level antecedents of compe-tence motives, thereby disregarding the role exerted by broader contextualinfluences (e.g., Klint & Weiss, 1987; Kirby et al., 1999). Consistent with asocial ecological framework, and in accordance with the purposes of the pre-sent research, we seek to extend the aforementioned stream of research byassessing the relationships between family support, local authorities support,self-efficacy, body image and competence motives. In this regard, theoreti-

4

5

cally a case can be made for assuming competence motives to be positivelypredicted by these individual, social and environmental factors, as well as tomediate their relationship with physical activity intentions.

Firstly, family has been widely demonstrated to represent a criticalsource of social support that is positively correlated with youth physicalactivity (e.g., Gustafson & Rhodes, 2006; Sallis, Prochaska, & Taylor, 2000;Trost et al., 2003; Raudsepp, 2006; Hagger et al., 2009). To date, no study, toour knowledge, has specifically investigated the relationship between thisform of social support and competence motives. However, prior research hasdemonstrated that parental support and encouragement of physical activitycan play a pivotal role in enhancing individuals’ aspirations to exercise withthe aim of learning new skills and achieving personal improvements (White,Kavussanu, Tank, & Wingate, 2004; White, 1996). For example, Van-Yperenand Duda (1999) indicated that people’s perceptions that parental supportcontributed to their sport success was positively associated with an increasedconcern for skill development and improvement, which in turn enhancedsport performance. Accordingly, we posit that when individuals receiveextensive help and encouragement from their family, they will recognizegreater possibilities of being successful in a given physical exercise domain,and will hence be more motivated to learn and improve sport skills to achievethe expected performance improvements, which will in turn enhance theirdetermination to be physically active. Thus, competence motives areexpected to be positively associated with family support and to mediate itsrelationship with exercise intentions.

Secondly, whilst no research, to date, has investigated the relationshipbetween local authorities support and competence motives, the role of envi-ronmental determinants in fostering healthy and physically active lifestyleshas received growing attention in the literature (Giles-Corti & Donovan,2002). Several environmental supportive factors have indeed been empiri-cally revealed to positively contribute to participation in sport and physicalactivity, such as: the presence of facilities for sport and leisure-time physicalexercise (e.g., Cerin et al., 2010; Brownson et al., 2001), neighbourhood sup-port (e.g., Kahan, 2005; Wilson, Ainsworth, & Heather, 2007; Sallis, King,Sirad, & Albright, 2007), the presence of walking paths (e.g., Hall &McAuley, 2010; Reed & Ainsworth, 2007), environmental support concern-ing safety (e.g., Wilson, Kirtland, Ainsworth, & Addy, 2004), and opportuni-ties to participate in organized sports at school (e.g., Barnett, Loughlin, Gau-vin, Paradis, & Hanley, 2006). We integrate this stream of research byinvestigating whether the environmental support provided by local authori-ties can indirectly foster individuals’ intention to exercise, by boosting com-petence motives for participation. In this regard, local authorities, by secur-

6

ing access facilities that enable sport and physical activities, would indeedprovide individuals with effective environmental opportunities for upgrad-ing their physical skills and abilities. Accordingly, people who perceive localauthorities as supportive of physically active lifestyles may be more likely toregard skill development and personal improvement as valuable and attain-able outcomes to be achieved, and would hence be more determined to ini-tiate physical exercise for competence-related motives. Therefore, we expectcompetence motives to bridge the link between local authorities support andphysical activity intentions.

Among psychological determinants of sport and physical exercise, avariable that has received progressive attention is the individual perceptionof one’s abilities or competences to successfully deal with one’s environmentby effectively performing a given course of action (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ban-dura, 1986). In particular, perceived competence has been widely assumed toindirectly predict individuals’ engagement in physical activity by positivelyaffecting intrinsic motivation and autonomously-oriented forms of extrinsicmotivation (e.g., Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Losier &Vallerand, 1994). Effectively, sport and exercise psychology literature hasprovided empirical evidence on the effects of perceived competence on moti-vation for sport and physical activity (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2001; Pelletier et al.,1999; Standage et al., 2003). For example, Losier and Vallerand (1994) high-lighted, in a longitudinal study on adolescent hockey players, the positiveinfluence of perceived competence on self-determined motivation, and Klintand Weiss (1987) demonstrated that students high in perceived physicalcompetence were motivated to participate in sport programs by skill devel-opment reasons rather than by other participation motives.

Physical activity and exercise have been further argued and demon-strated to be positively linked to another psychological state that is strictlyassociated to perceived competence, namely self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986,1989; McAuley, Pena, & Jerome, 2001; Sallis, Hovell, & Hofstetter, 1992).Despite sharing common features, however, the two constructs are distinctfrom each other. Perceived competence, indeed, reflects a subjective view ofone’s abilities to master a given task. Conversely, self-efficacy is not con-cerned with the skills an individual possesses but with the judgements ofwhat an individual can do with his or her skills (Feltz, 1988).

Prior research assessing the role of self-efficacy in fostering sport andphysical activity has demonstrated a positive relationship between this indi-vidual-level construct and a number of exercise-related outcomes, such as:physical activity in the workplace (e.g., Plotnikoff et al., 2010; Prodaniuk etal., 2004), physically active lifestyles among older people (e.g., Hall &McAuley, 2010), and exercise behaviour in chronic disease populations (e.g.,

7

Sharma et al., 2003). However, the role of efficacy beliefs has not been ade-quately assessed with respect to the goals individuals seek to accomplishwhen engaging in physical exercise. In this regard, we assume that a positiverelationship between self-efficacy and competence motives can be expected.Indeed, people who have a strong belief in their ability to be successful inspite of difficulties (i.e., have high self-efficacy) tend to be attracted by chal-lenging activities and to regard them as tasks to be mastered (Bandura,1989). Thus, they would be more likely to seek challenges in sport and phys-ical activities that are optimal for their capacities, thereby developing astronger determination to exercise for competence-related motives. Accord-ingly, we posit that self-efficacy beliefs will be positively associated with com-petence motives for physical activity, which will in turn mediate the linkbetween such participation motives and exercise intentions.

Finally, research has widely emphasized the critical effect of negativebody images on both exercise-related motivational processes and outcomes.In particular, body image has been found to be significantly associated to themotives underlying individual choice to engage in a physical activity, withmost empirical evidences showing that individual dissatisfaction with one’sbody is conducive to increased focus on extrinsically-oriented motives (e.g.,fitness and appearance) and, indirectly, to reduced engagement in physicalexercise (e.g., Ingledew, Hardy, & De Sousa, 1995; Ingledew & Sullivan,2002; Smith, Handley, & Eldredge, 1998; McDonald & Thompson, 1992).For example, Ingledew and Sullivan (2002) revealed gender differenceamong adolescents in the influence of body mass and body image on physi-cal activity motives: weight management motives were positively associatedwith body mass index in older males, and with perceived and ideal body sizein older females, whereas intrinsically-oriented motives were negativelyrelated to body mass index or perceived body size in both older males andfemales. In particular, challenge motives (similar to competence motives)were found to be negatively associated with perceived body size among oldermales.

Given body image has been found to exert a significant negative effecton autonomously-oriented participation motives within exercise settings, weexpect this individual-level factor to be indirectly and negatively linked tophysical activity intentions, through its negative relationship with compe-tence-related motives.

Taken together, consistent with a social ecological framework, our argu-ments suggest that different individual, social and environmental determi-nants of physical activity can jointly contribute to explaining the individual’sdetermination to be physically active, and that the relationship between fam-ily support, local authorities support, self-efficacy, body image and exercise

intentions can be understood in light of the mediating role exerted by com-petence-related motives (Figure 1 shows the hypothesized research model).Additionally, since gender has been argued and found to significantly affectexercise-related behaviours and outcomes (e.g., Ingledew & Sullivan, 2002;Rolls, Federoff, & Guthrie, 1991; McDonald & Thompson, 1992; Mathes &Battista, 1985), we further assessed the role of this demographic characteris-tic on competence motives and exercise intentions.

Method

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

The participants were 1084 students (551 males, 553 females) agedbetween 13 and 19 (M = 15.7, SD = 1.6) from three different SecondarySchools. The survey was part of a broader project of a Region of NorthernItaly, aimed at promoting physical exercise among adolescents. Consent toconduct the investigation was given by parents. Each participant volunteeredto complete a questionnaire. The students were requested to respond anony-

8

Fig. 1. - The hypothesized research model.

mously to a multi-section inventory. After explaining the purpose of the sur-vey, the core researcher distributed the questionnaire, which took 20 minutesto complete. In the first part of the questionnaire participants were asked toindicate the following background information: age, gender, type of school,and school year. In the second part of the questionnaire, students completedthe scales described below.

MEASURES

Family and local authorities support. Family and local authorities supportwere measured with a scale created for a research project aimed at investigatingmotivational determinants of sport behaviour among adolescents (Uras et al.,2009). This scale, which was drawn on Spence and Lee’s (2003) social ecologicalmodel, is composed of two sub-scales that assess two distinct forms of support:family support and local authorities support. Family support and local authori-ties support were respectively measured with four and three items, ranging from1 (“not at all true for me”) to 5 (“totally true for me”). Sample items include: “myparents encourage me to do physical activity” (family support), “the local author-ities (Region, Province, City Council) regularly provide information on theopportunities for physical activity in the area” (local authorities support). Empir-ical support to the discriminant validity of these two measures was provided byUras et al. (2009). In order to further assess the distinctiveness of family and localauthorities support, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis of the respec-tive items. Results indicated that the two-factor solution yielded a good fit to thedata, χ2 = 39.55, df = 13, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04, SRMR = .03. This model wasthen compared with a one-factor model, which provided a significantly worse fitto the data: χ2 = 554.30, df = 14, Δχ2 = 514.75, Δdf = 1, p < .01, CFI = .66,RMSEA = .19, SRMR = .12. Standardized factor loadings for the four indicatorsof family support were .47, .62, .72, and .82, while the standardized factor load-ings for the three indicators of local authorities support were .55, .65, and .75.

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was assessed using the general competence sub-scale of the Italian version of the general self-efficacy inventory (Pierro, 1997),the factorial structure of which has been validated on several occasions (Sherer& Adams, 1983; Sherer et al., 1982; Almudever, Croity-Belz, & Hajjar, 2007).The scale specifically entails seven items, but, based on Churchill’s (1979) sug-gestions, two items with low factor loadings (< .40), as indicated by confirma-tory factor analysis, and poor item-total correlations (< .25) were deleted in thepresent study. Standardized factor loadings for the five indicators used in thepresent study were .49, .53, .53, .57, and .66. Responses were rated on a scaleranging from 1 (“not at all true for me”) to 5 (“completely true for me”). Exam-

9

10

ple items are “when I set difficult goals, I rarely accomplish them”, “I feel I’mnot able to face most of the problems in my life”.

Body image. Body image was assessed with the seven highest loadingitems from Marsch and Roche’s (1996) Silhouette Matching Task (SMT),which was in turn drawn from previous work by Stunkard et al. (1983). Con-sistent with Churchill’s (1979) recommendations, two items from the originalnine-item scale were eliminated due to their low factor loadings, as revealedby confirmatory factor analysis (< .40) and weak item-total correlations (<.20). The first part of the test shows a picture comprising twelve human fig-ures (males on the first line, females on the second line). Each couple of fig-ures (one male and one female) is associated with a number ranging from 1to 12. Under the picture, a range of items are presented that assess the cur-rent and future perception of one’s body image. Participants were requestedto respond by indicating the number of the figure they conceived as the mostappropriate for each item. External validity of this scale was previously estab-lished by Hau et al. (2005) in a sample of Chinese children.

Competence motives for physical activity. We assessed competence motiveswith the seven-item sub-scale of Ryan et al.’s (1997) MPAM-R (Motives forPhysical Activity Measure-Revised), which measures five distinct motives:appearance, fitness, social interaction, competence and enjoyment. In Ryan etal.’s (1997) study, all items loaded on their corresponding factors, suggestingthat the competence motives were effectively distinguishable from the otherfour motives. Competence reasons for participating in physical activities wererated on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true for me) to 5 (completely true forme). Sample items include: “to obtain new skills”, “to get better at activity”.

Physical exercise intentions. Adapting items from the scales of Hein,Muur, and Koka (2004) and of Courneya (1994), we used a three-item mea-sure to assess physical activity intentions. The three items, which rangedfrom 1 (“not at all true for me”) to 5 (“completely true for me”), were: “Iintend to exercise every day in the coming months”, “I intend to exercisethree times a week in the coming months”, and “I intend to exercise regu-larly”. Psychometric qualities of this scale were supported in a study con-ducted by Montani, Bertinato, and Battistelli (2011).

Results

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF CONSTRUCT MEASURES

Before testing the present framework, we assessed construct validity ofall variables using CFA, based on Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) recom-

11

mended two-step procedure. To assess the model fit, we considered modelchi-square (the higher the values the worse the model’s correspondence tothe data) and the following fit indexes: the standardized root mean squareresidual (SRMR), for which values of less than .10 are favourable (Schreiber,Stage, King, Nora, & Barlow, 2006); the root-mean-square error of approxi-mation (RMSEA), which should be less than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993);the comparative fit index (CFI), for which values of .90 or greater are rec-ommended (Schreiber et al., 2006); the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), whichalso should be greater than or equal to .90 (Hu & Bentler, 199). As expected,the hypothesized six-factor model, which consisted of 29 observed variablesand six latent factors, provided an adequate fit to the data: χ2 (362) =1877.48, CFI = .90, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04. The range ofloadings for the examined factors were as follows: competence motives, .70to .83; family support, .47 to .82; local authorities support, .55 to .75; self-efficacy, .49 to .66; body image, .69 to .95; physical activity intentions, .58 to.78. These results suggest acceptable validity for our study measures. Table 1reports descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, Cronbach’s Alphas)and correlations for the major variables. The sample reported mean scoresfor all the dimensions considered. Additionally, most scales reported accept-able levels of alpha coefficients, based on Nunnally’s (1978) criterion of .70.Only the local authorities support scale (.67) and the self-efficacy scale (.69)were moderately below .70, but they were retained as they were reasonablyclose to the criterion.

HYPOTHESIZED AND ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURE MODELS

To validate our research model, we conducted structural equation mod-elling (SEM), which allowed comparisons between the hypothesized pattern

TABLE IMeans, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variables Mean SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

1. Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) 1.49 .50 –2. Competence motives 3.35 1.03 -.21** (.91)3. Family support 3.55 .95 .01 .36** (.74)4. Local Authorities support 3.03 1.03 .06 .15** .13** (.67)5. Self-efficacy 3.72 .78 -.03 .10** .09** .00 (.69)6. Body image 5.04 1.79 .04 -.07* .01 .01 -.07* (.94)7. Physical activity intention 3.03 1.15 -.13** .58** .38** .12** .07** .01 (.73)

Note. N=1084. Internal consistency values (Cronbach’s Alphas) appear across the diagonal in parentheses.* p < .05, ** p < .01.

of relationships and alternative theoretically plausible models, and con-trolled for gender. To test the mediating effects of competence motives, wefirst compared the hypothesized fully mediated model with two other mod-els: a partially mediated model, which also entailed direct paths from indi-vidual and contextual variables to physical activity intention; and a non-mediated model, which involved only a direct relationship betweenindividual and environmental characteristics and physical activity intentions.Consistent with James and Brett’s (1984) suggestions, we tested the fullmediation model by using the SEM approach, which, unlike Baron andKenny’s (1986) approach, assesses the indirect relationship between theindependent variable and the dependent variable through the mediator,rather than estimating the decrease in the coefficient of the relationshipbetween the independent and the dependent variable once the mediator isentered. Estimation of the hypothesized model resulted in a fit of χ2 =1894.06, df = 391, and the fit indexes revealed a good fit of the data to themodel: CFI = .90, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04. To further test themediated effect of competence motives, the fully mediated model was com-pared with the non-mediated model and the partially mediated model. Thefit of the non-mediated model to the data (χ2 = 2138.01, df = 389) was sig-nificantly worse than that of the hypothesized model (Δχ2 = 243.95, Δdf = 2,p < .01): CFI = .89, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06. Conversely, thepartially mediated-model, in which direct relationships between the individ-ual and contextual variables and physical activity intentions were alsoincluded, showed a moderately better fit than the hypothesized model, (χ2 =1836.98, df = 387; Δχ2 = 57.08, Δdf = 4, p < .01), as indicated by the follow-ing fit indexes: CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04. Inspectionof the specific paths suggested a significant direct relationship between fam-ily support and intention. Subsequently, we tested an alternative, theoreti-cally plausible model, to assess the possibility that the psychological determi-nants (self-efficacy and body image) were explained by the environmentalcharacteristics (family and local authorities support). This model (χ2 =2088.15, df = 394), had a significantly worse fit than the partial mediationmodel (Δχ2 = 251.17, Δdf = 7, p < .01): CFI = .89, TLI = .88, RMSEA = .06,SRMR = .08. In summary, the hypothesized model was improved by allowinga direct path from family support to exercise intention. This direct relation-ship, which has been effectively supported by prior research on physicalactivity, suggesting that social support can directly affect exercise intention(e.g., Wankel, Mummery, Stephens, & Craig, 1994; Fuchs, 1996), is consis-tent with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), whereby social influ-ences (conceptualized as subjective norms) are expected to exert a directimpact on behavioral intention. The final model was a very good fit: χ2 =

12

1841.06, df = 390, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .04. Sincethis fit was not significantly different from that of the partially mediatedmodel (Δχ2 = 4.08, Δdf = 3, ns), we retained the final, more parsimoniousmodel. Overall, this model accounted for 55% of the variance in physicalactivity intentions and for 27% of the variance in competence motives.

All significant standardized path coefficients are shown in Figure 2.Physical activity intentions had a positive relationship with motives (b = .59,p < .01), which were also significantly associated with family support (b = .39,p < .01), local authorities support (b = .15, p < .01), self-efficacy (b = .07, p <.05) and body image (b = -.07, p < .05). The final model also indicates thatfamily support was directly and positively related to physical activity inten-tions (b = .27, p < .01). Finally, gender had no relationship with physical exer-cise intentions (b = -.01, ns), but was significantly and negatively linked tocompetence motives (b = -.23, p < .01), suggesting that in our study, compe-tence motives were considered more important by men than by women.

13

Fig. 2. - Final model of competence motives. Note. For gender: 1 = male, 2 = female.* p < .05, ** p < .01.

Finally, to provide a test of the statistical significance of the indirect (i.e.,mediated) effects, which reflect the product of the estimated independentvariable → mediator relationship and the estimated mediator → dependentvariable relationship (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets,2002), we calculated bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (MacKinnon,Lockwood, & Williams, 2004; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). As shown in Table2, all the expected indirect relationships were statistically significant, thussupporting the critical role of competence motives in mediating the link ofindividual, social and environmental factors with physical activity intentions.Yet, because body image was not significantly associated with exercise inten-tions (see Table 1), the mediation of competence motives in this relationshipcould not be supported.

Discussion

The main purposes of this study were to extend current findings on thecomplex psychosocial dynamics underlying the individual determination toparticipate in physical activities, and to shed further light on the motivationalprocesses that can explain the relationship between individual, social andenvironmental characteristics, and exercise intentions. Firstly, results fromstructural equation modelling analyses confirmed the hypothesized relation-ships between all independent variables and competence motives. In partic-ular, family support, local authorities support and self-efficacy were found tobe positively associated with competence motives, whereas a negative rela-tionship was found between body image and competence motives. Further-more, consistent with previous work on sport and physical exercise (Haggeret al., 2002; Chatzinarantis, Biddle, & Meek, 1997; Sheeran, Norman, &Orbell, 1999), competence motives were in turn positively associated tophysical activity intentions, and were found to fully mediate the link of self-efficacy and local authorities support with subsequent intention as well as to

14

TABLE IIIndirect Effect of Family Support, Local Authorities Support, Self-Efficacy And Body Image On Physical

Activity Intentions

Variable Indirect effect 95% confidenceinterval

Family support → competence motives → intention 23** [.19, .28]Local authorities support → competence motives → intention .09** [.05, .13]Self-efficacy → competence motives → intention .04* [.01, .08]

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

partially mediate the relationship between family support and intentions. Incontrast, the mediating role of competence motives in the link between bodyimage and exercise intentions was not supported. This could suggest that,consistent with empirical research on this domain (e.g., Stanley, Cumming,Standage, & Duda, 2012), motivational factors other than motives, such asautonomous or controlled motivational regulation, may more adequatelyexplain this relationship.

Another important result from this study refers to the unique relation-ship between social, environmental and psychological characteristics, on onehand, and competence motives and exercise intentions, on the other. Thehypothesized model effectively reported a significantly better fit than thealternative model, which assessed the possibility that self-efficacy and bodyimage could be predicted by contextual factors (family and local authoritiessupport). These findings are consistent with current literature, as they cor-roborate the relevant role played by both support and psychological charac-teristics in fostering autonomously-oriented motivational determinants ofphysical activity (e.g., Losier & Vallerand, 1994, Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Gillet et al., 2010; Ingledew & Sullivan, 2002). Furthermore,consistent with a social ecological framework (Spence & Lee, 2003), thisstudy also significantly added to the extant state-of-art in sport and exercisedomain, as individual differences and contextual characteristics were simul-taneously assessed, and their unique contributions were further highlightedon competence motives and subsequent exercise intentions. Specifically, ourresults indicate that social and environmental factors have a stronger influ-ence on competence motives than individual characteristics. The importanceof considering the unique predictive role of both individual and social/envi-ronmental determinants in explaining the motivational processes underlyingindividuals’ intention to engage and persist in physical activities is therebystressed by this study. Finally, although it was not the subject of our hypothe-ses, our results revealed a negative relationship between gender and compe-tence motives, which is in accordance with Mathes and Battista’s (1985) find-ings suggesting that men tend to be motivated by competence-related goalsmore than women.

We also recognize the theoretical and methodological limitations of ourstudy. Firstly, the research was cross-sectional, therefore we cannot definitelyassume any causal relationships among the studied variables. In particular wecannot state that either psychosocial factors influenced competence motivesor that motives in turn had an effect on subsequent exercise intention. A sec-ond limitation of our research was the use of self-report measures, which maylead to common method bias. Thus, future investigations are needed to repli-cate the present findings by using longitudinal methods and by including

15

objective measures. Thirdly, in this study we only focused on competencemotives, thereby excluding other kinds of goals individuals might seek whenengaging in physical activity. Therefore, further research is required to assessthe role played by both extrinsically- and intrinsically-oriented participationmotives in the relationship between psychosocial variables and exercise-related outcomes. Fourthly, we only considered one criterion, namely physi-cal activity intention. Further research should thus examine the role playedby both motivational and psychosocial determinants on other relevant phys-ical activity results, such as self-reported frequency of exercise behaviour,psychological wellbeing and persistence in exercise. Finally, in light of ourresults, future research is also required to further investigate the interactionsbetween individual and environmental factors with respect to other motiva-tional determinants of physical activity results, such as behavioural regula-tion and psychological need satisfaction. The critical role exerted by bodyimage in attenuating the positive effect of other psychosocial determinantson participation in physical exercise also requires further investigation, con-sistent with some empirical evidence (e.g., Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis,2003; Markland, 1999). In this way it would be possible to better understandunder what conditions the expected positive influence of a given antecedent,whether at the individual or contextual level, does not occur or is signifi-cantly attenuated. A final issue is that the possibility to generalize this modelto other domains, such as agonistic sport, remains to be established. Doingso will help to strengthen the validity of our proposed framework.

From a practical point of view, these results first suggest that for individ-uals to develop autonomously-oriented motives for physical activity, otherforms of support should be given, beyond those provided by long-heldesteemed and influential figures (such as coaches or teachers). The support ofboth family and local authorities was indeed found to be positively associatedwith competence motives, thus highlighting the crucial role that is exerted byparents and, to a lesser extent, by local authorities (Region, Province, and CityCouncil). In this regard, helping people to explore and choose an activity, pre-senting relevant information on sport opportunities as well as providingrequired means and facilities might all encourage individuals’ motivation toengage in physical activity. Specifically, intervention programs should bedeveloped in order to encourage parents and caregivers to positively reinforcetheir children for participating in physical activity, as well as to support theirteens’ physical exercise by providing practical support, such as transportingtheir children to and from sport facilities, providing financial support forequipment and attending their children’s activities. Educational programs toeducate and inform parents about the importance of regular physical exerciseduring childhood and adolescence would also be recommended. Yet, in order

16

to increase teens’ motivation to learn and improve sport skills, concomitantcommunity-level initiatives by policy developers and community groups topromote access to physical activity programs and facilities is also warranted.Finally, pedagogical activities may help people, especially adolescents, to rein-force the view that exercise-related skills are incremental and can be learnedthrough persistence and effort, thereby boosting their belief in their ability tobe successful in physical activities.

Taken together, the present findings extended researchers’ understand-ing of the role played by psychosocial processes on the motivational determi-nants of physical exercise intentions, by revealing that social factors (familysupport), environmental characteristics (local authorities support) and indi-vidual differences (self-efficacy and body image) uniquely contributed to theprediction of competence motives. Another contribution of the present workis that it indicated that the relationship between psychosocial factors andexercise intentions can be explained in light of the mediating role exerted bycompetence motives.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I (1991) The theory of planned behavior . Organizational Behavior and HumanDecision Processes, 30, 179-211.

Almudever, B., Croity-Belz, S., & Hajjar, V. (2007). Activity system model, perceivedself-efficacy, and newcomer integration behaviour. Industrial Relations, 62, 613-640.

Amorose, A. J., & Anderson-Butcher, D. (2007). Autonomy-supportive coaching andself-determined motivation in high school and college athletes: A test of self-determinationtheory. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 654-670.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: Areview and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

Andrade, A., Salguero, A., González-Boto, R., & Márquez, S. (2006). Motives for par-ticipation in physical activity by Brazilian adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 102, 358-367.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social c. (1991). The theory of planned behavior.cBanduraognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44, 1175-1184.

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms gov-erning the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,1017-1028.

Baranowski, T., Anderson, C., & Carmack, C. (1998). Mediating variable framework inphysical activity interventions. How are we doing? How might we do better? American Jour-nal of Preventive Medecine, 15, 266-297.

Baron, R., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

17

18

Barnett, T. A., Loughlin, J. O., Gauvin, L., Paradis, G., & Hanley, J. (2006). Opportu-nities for student physical activity in elementary schools: A cross-sectional survey of frequencyand correlates. Health Education & Behavior, 33, 215-232.

Bauman, A., Sallis, J. F., Dzewaltowski, D. A., & Owen, N. (2002). Toward a betterunderstanding of the influence of physical activity. The role of determinants, correlates, causalvariables, mediators, moderators, and confounders. American Journal of Preventive Medecine,23, 5-14.

Biddle, S. J. H., & Goudas, M. (1996). Analysis of children’s physical activity and itsassociation with adult encouragement and social cognitive variables. Journal of School Health,66, 75-78.

Biddle, S., Cavill, N., & Sallis, J. (1998). Policy framework for young people and health-enhancing physical activity. In S. Biddle, J. Sallis, & N. Cavill (Eds.), Young and active? Youngpeople and health enhancing physical activity-evidence and implications (pp. 3-16). London:Health Education Authority.

Biddle, S. J. H., Soos, I., & Chatzisarantis, N. (1999). Predicting physical activity inten-tions using a goal perspectives approach: A study of Hungarian youth. Scandinavian Journal ofMedicine & Science in Sports, 9, 353-357.

Biddle, S. J. H., Wang, C. K. J., Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M. (2010). Correlates ofachievement goal orientations in physical activity: A systematic review of research. EuropeanJournal of Sport Science, 3, 1-20.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A.Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Brownson, R. C., Baker, E. A., Housemann, R. A., Brennan, L. K., & Bacak, S. J. (2001).Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. AmericanJournal of Public Health, 91, 1995-2003.

Calfas, C. J., & Taylor, W. C. (1994). Effects of physical activity on psychological vari-ables of children. Pediatric Exercise Science, 6, 406-423.

Cerin, E., Leslie, E., Sugiyama, T., & Owen, N. (2010). Perceived barriers to leisure-time physical activity in adults: An ecological perspective. Journal of Physical Activity andHealth, 7, 451-459.

Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Biddle, S. J. H., & Meek, G. A. (1997). A self-determinationtheory approach to the study of intentions and intention-behaviour relationship in children’sphysical activity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 343-360.

Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing con-structs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64-73.

Courneya, K. S. (1994). Predicting repeated behavior from intention: The issue of scalecorrespondence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 580-594.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuit: Human needsand the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Feltz, D. (1988). Self-confidence and sport performance. In K. B. Pandolf (Ed.), Exer-cise and Sport Science Reviews, 16, 423-457.

Frederick-Recascino, C. M. (2002). Self-determination theory and participation motiva-tion research in the sport and exercise domain. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbookof self-determination research (pp. 277-294). Rochester, NY: University Of Rochester Press.

19

Fuchs, R. (1996). Causal Models of Physical Exercise Participation: Testing the Predic-tive Power of the Construct “Pressure to Change”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26,1931-1960.

Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R. J. (2002). The relative influence of individual, social andphysical activity. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 1793-1812.

Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., Amoura, S., & Baldes, B. (2010). Influence of coaches’autonomy support on athletes’ motivation and sport performance: A test of hierarchicalmodel on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 155-161.

Goudas, M., & Dermitzaki, I. (2004). Participation motives in physical education: Anexpectancy-value approach. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 1168-1170.

Gustafson, S. L., & Rhodes, R. L. (2006). Parental correlates of physical activity in chil-dren and early adolescents. Sports Medicine, 36, 79-97.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzinarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). The influence ofautonomous and controlling motives on physical activity intentions within the Theory ofPlanned Behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 283-297.

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L., Hein, V., Pihu, M., Soós, I., Karsai, I., Lintunen, T.,& Leemans, S. (2009). Teacher, peer, and parent autonomy support in physical education andleisure-time physical activity: A trans-contextual model of motivation of Applied Psychology,69, 307-321.

Kahan, D. (2005). Jewish day-schooled adolescents’ perceptions of parental and envi-ronmental support of physical activity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76, 243-250.

Kirby, R. J., Kolt, G. S., & Liu, J. (1999). Participation motives of young Australian andChinese gymnasts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 363-373.

Klint, K. A., & Weiss, M. R. (1987). Perceived competence and motives for participat-ing in youth sports: A test of Harter’s competence motivation theory. Journal of Sport Psychol-ogy, 9, 55-65.

Lewis, B. A., Marcus, B. H., Pate, R. R., & Dunn, A. L. (2002). Psychosocial in four cul-tures. Psychology and Health, 24, 689-711.

Hall, K. S., & McAuley, E. (2010). Individual, social environmental and physical envi-ronmental barriers to achieving 10000 steps per day among older women. Health EducationResearch, 25, 478-488.

Hau, K. T., Sung, R. Y. T., Marsh, H. W., Yu, C. W., & Lau, P. W. C. (2005). Factorialstructure and comparison between obese and non-obese children’s physical self-concept. InH. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.) Advances in self-research (Volume 2)(pp. 257-278). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Hein, V., Muur, M., & Koka, A. (2004). Intention to be physically active after schoolgraduation and its relationship to three types of intrinsic motivation. European Physical Edu-cation Review, 10, 5-19.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structureanalysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Humbert, L., Chad, K. E., Spink, K. S., Muhajarine, N., Anderson, K. D., Bruner, M.W., Girolami, T., Odnokon, P., & Gryba, R. (2006). Factors that influence physical activityparticipation among high- and low-SES youth. Qualitative Healhth Research, 16, 467-483.

Ingledew, D. K., & Sullivan, G. (2002). Effects of body mass and body image on exer-cise motives in adolescence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 323-338.

Ingledew, D. K., & Markland, D. (2008). The role of motives in exercise participation.Psychology and Health, 23, 807-828.

20

Ingledew, D. K., Hardy, L., & De Sousa, K. (1995). Body shape dissatisfaction and exer-cise motivations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13, 60.

James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Jour-nalmediators of physical activity behavior among adults and children. American Journal of Pre-ventive Medicine, 23, 26-35.

Lintunen, T., Valkonen, A., Leskinen, E., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). Predicting physicalactivity intentions using a goal perspectives approach: A study of Finnish youth. ScandinavianJournal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 9, 344-352.

Losier, G. F., & Vallerand, R. J. (1994). The temporal relationship between perceivedcompetence and self-determined motivation. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 793-801.

Markland, D. (1999). Self-determination moderates the effects of perceived compe-tence on intrinsic motivation in an exercise setting. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21,350-360.

Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (2007). The relationships between body mass andbody image and relative autonomy for exercise among adolescent males and females. Psychol-ogy of Sport and Exercise, 8, 836-853.

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1996). Predicting self-esteem from perceptions of actualand ideal ratings of body fatness: Is there only one ideal “supermodel”? Research Quarterly forExercise and Sport, 67, 13-23.

Mathes, S. A., & Battista, R. (1985). College men’s and women’s motives for participa-tion in physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 719-726.

McAuley, E., Pena, M., & Jerome, G. (2001). Self-efficacy as a determinant and an out-come of exercise. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 235-261). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

McDonald, K., & Thompson, J. K. (1992). Eating disturbance, body image dissatisfac-tion and reasons for exercising: Gender differences and correlation findings. InternationalJournal of Eating Disorders, 11, 289–292.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002).A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psycholog-ical Methods, 7, 83-104.

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for theindirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 39, 99-128.

McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspectiveon health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15, 351-377.

Montani, F., Bertinato, L., & Battistelli, A. (2011). Une modélisation de la motivationidentifiée et de l’intention de pratiquer de l’activité physique: Le rôle de l’auto-efficacité indi-viduelle et du support familial. [Modelling identified motivation and physical activity inten-tions: The role of self-efficacy and family support]. Proceedings of the Annual Study Days ofFrench Society of Sport Psychology, Bordeaux.

Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motiva-tion in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225-242.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Pelletier, L. G., & Sarrazin, P. (2007). Measurement issues in self-determination theory

and sport. In M. S. Hagger, & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Self-determination theory in exer-cise and sport (pp. 143-152). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., Trison, K., & Green-Demers, L. (1999). Why do people fail to

adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotiva-tion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2481-2504.

Pierro, A. (1997). Caratteristiche strutturali della scala di general self-efficacy. [Structuralcharacteristics of general self-efficacy scale]. Bollettino di Psicologica Applicata, 221, 29-38.

Plotnikoff, R. C., Pickering, M. A., Flaman, L. M., & Spence, J. C. (2010). The role ofself-efficacy on the relationship between the workplace environment and physical activity: Alongitudinal mediation analysis. Health Education & Behavior, 37, 170-185.

Prodaniuk, T. R., Plotnikoff, R. C., Spence, J. C., & Wilson, P. M. (2004). The influenceof self-efficacy and outcome expectations on the relationship between perceived environmentand physical activity in the workplace. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Phys-ical Activity, 1, 1-11.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing andcomparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Raudsepp, L. (2006). The relationship between socio-economic status, parental supportand adolescent physical activity. Acta Pediatrica, 95, 93-98.

Reed, J., & Ainsworth, B. (2007). Perceptions of environmental supports on the physi-cal activity behaviors of university men and women: A preliminary investigation. Journal ofAmerican College Health, 56, 199-204.

Rolls, B. J., Federoff, I. C., & Guthrie, J. F. (1991). Gender differences in eating behav-ior and body weight regulation. Health Psychology, 10, 133-142.

Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not createdequal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P. M. Goll-witzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation toBehavior (pp. 7-26). New York: Guilford.

Ryan, R. M., Frederick-Recascino, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997).Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28, 335-354.

Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (1997). Ecological models. In K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, & B. K.Rimer (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edi-tion) (pp. 403-424). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (1999). Physical activity and behavioral medicine. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sallis, J. F., Hovell, M., & Hofstetter, R. (1992). Predictors of adoption and maintenanceof vigorous physical activity in men and women. Preventative Medicine, 21, 237-251.

Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, J. J., & Taylor, W. C. (2000). A review of correlates of physicalactivity of children and adolescents. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32, 963-975.

Sallis, J. F., King, A. C., Sirad, J. R., & Albright, C. L. (2007). Perceived environmentalpredictors of physical activity over 6 months in adults: Activity counseling trial. Health Psy-chology, 26, 701-709.

Schreiber, J. B., Stage, F. K., King, J., Nora, A., & Barlow, E. A. (2006). Reporting struc-tural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Edu-cational Research, 6, 323-337.

Sharma, L., Cahue, S., Song, J., Hayes, K., Pai, Y. C., & Dunlop, D. (2003). Physicalfunctioning over three years in knee osteoarthritis: Role of psychosocial, local mechanical, andneuromuscular factors. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 48, 3359-3370.

Sheeran, P., Norman, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Evidence that intentions based on atti-tudes better predict behaviour than intentions based on subjective norms. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 29, 403-406.

21

22

Sherer, M., & Adams, C. H. (1983). Construct validation of the self-efficacy scale. Psy-chological Reports, 53, 899-902.

Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercadante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). Self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663-671.

Smith, B. L., Handley, P., & Eldredge, D. A. (1998). Sex differences in exercise motivationand body-image satisfaction among college students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 723-732.

Spence, J. C., & Lee, R. E. (2003). Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity.Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 7-24.

Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). Predicting motivational regulationin physical education: The interplay between dispositional goal orientations, motivational cli-mate and perceived competence. Journal of Sport Sciences, 21, 631-647.

Stanley, D. M., Cumming, J., Standage, M., & Duda, J. L. (2012). Images of exercising:Exploring the links between exercise imagery use, autonomous and controlled motivation toexercise, and exercise intention and behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 133-141.

Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecology theory into guidelines for communityhealth promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 282-298.

Stunkard, A. J., Sorenson, T., & Schulsinger, F. (1983). Use of the Danish adoption registerfor the study of obesity and thinness. In S. Kety, L. P. Rowland, R. L. Sidman, & S. W. Matthysse(Eds.), The genetics of neurological and psychiatric disorders (pp. 115-120). New York: Raven Press.

Susser, M., & Susser, E. (1996). Choosing a future for epidemiology: II. From black boxto Chinese boxes and eco-epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 674-677.

Uras, S., Betinato, L., Lanza, M., & Battistelli, A. (2009). Familiar context and motiva-tions among adolescents. Paper presented at the 12° ISSP World Congress of Sport Psychol-ogy, Marrakesh.

Trost, S. G., Sallis, J. F., Pate, R. R., Freedson, P. S., Taylor, W. C., & Dowda, M. (2003).Evaluating a model of parental influence on youth physical activity. American Journal of Pre-ventive Medicine, 25, 277-282.

Van-Yperen, N. W., & Duda, J. L. (1999). Goal orientations, beliefs about success, andperformance improvement among young elite Dutch soccer players. Scandinavian Journal ofMedicine & Science in Sports, 9, 358-364.

Wankel, L. M., Mummery, W. K., Stephens, T., & Craig, C. L. (1994). Prediction ofphysical activity intention from social psychological variables: Results from the Campbell’ssurvey of well-being. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 59-69.

White, S. A. (1996). Goal orientation and perceptions of the motivational climate initi-ated by parents. Pediatric Exercise Science, 8, 122-129.

White, S. A., Duda, J. L., & Keller, M. R. (1998). The relationship between goal orien-tation and perceived purposes of sport among youth sport participants. Journal of Sport Behav-ior, 21, 474-483.

White, S. A., Kavussanu, M., Tank, K. M., & Wingate, J. M. (2004). Perceived parentalbeliefs about the causes of success in sport: relationship to athletes’ achievement goals andpersonal beliefs. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 14, 57-66.

Wilson, D. K., Ainsworth, B. E., & Heather, B. (2007). Body mass index and environ-mental supports for physical activity among active and inactive residents of a U. S. Southeast-ern county. Health Psychology, 26, 710-717.

Wilson, D. K., Kirtland, K. A., Ainsworth, B. E., & Addy, C. I. (2004). Socioeconomic statusand perceptions of access and safety for physical activity. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 28, 20-28.

Manuscript submitted , Accepted for publication November 2012.