the relationship between goal orientation and self-efficacy for exercise

The Relationship Between Goal Orientation and Self-Eff icacy for Exercise

JENNIFER CUMMINGI AND CRAIG HALL University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada

This study examined exercisers’ motivational profiles and investigated whether different combinations of task and ego orientation would reflect different levels of coping and task self-efficacy. Male (n = 106) and female (n = 174) exercisers were administered an exercise version of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (Duda & Nicholls, 1992) and an instrument measuring coping and task self-efficacy. The results of a K- means cluster analysis on the questionnaire scores resulted in a 5-cluster solution that maximized between-group differences and minimized within-group differences. A MANOVA indicated that the different cluster groups could be distinguished by their coping and task self-efficacy. More specifically, exercisers with high levels of task orientation, regardless of their corresponding levels of ego orientation, were characterized by having higher levels of self-efficacy than exercisers with low levels of task orientation combined with low to high levels of ego orientation.

Regular physical activity has long been acknowledged for its role in promot- ing health and psychological well-being. For example, a I996 U.S. Surgeon General’s report on physical activity indicated that significant health benefits can be obtained through moderate amounts of physical activity, such as reduced risk of coronary heart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabetes mellitus. However, inactivity continues to be a serious problem in the population. A comparison of surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Finland, and the United States indicates that only about 10% of adults engage in vigorous exercise at least three times per week for 20+ min at a time (Stephens & Caspersen, 1993). One third of adults are active at a lower level, either engaging in activities that are less vigorous or less frequent, while one quarter to one third of adults are completely sedentary.

To help understand how to increase activity levels of the population, researchers have been concerned with describing the motivational profile of individuals who exercise on a regular basis (e.g., Wang & Biddle, 2001). In attempt- ing to understand why people are motivated to exercise regularly, it is important

ICorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer Cumming who is now at the School of Sport and Exercise Science, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected]

747

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2004, 34.4, pp. 747-763. Copyright 0 2004 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

748 GUMMING AND HALL

to use theory to guide our research (Dishman, 1982; Sonstroem, 1982). One motivational theory that has that been successfully employed in both education and sport to explain behavior is the goal orientation theory of achievement motivation (Nicholls, 1984, 1989). More specifically, research in education and sport has shown this theory to be useful in explaining behaviors that are also important in exercise programs, such as exertion of effort, preference for choosing difficult tasks, and sustained involvement versus a lack of persistence (for a review, see Duda, 2001; Duda & Hall, 2001).

The goal orientation theory of achievement motivation is a social cognitive theory that holds that variations in behavior are not necessarily a result of high or low absolute amounts of motivation, but are a manifestation of the qualitatively different goals adopted by individuals (Roberts, 1992, 200 1). More specifically, individuals adopt goals that will most closely reflect their cognitive beliefs about what is required to maximize achievement in that particular context. In other words, individuals have a personal theory of what achievement means to them for that situation or task. They will then focus on particular achievement goals to meet their needs and satisfy their personal theory (Hanvood, Hardy, & Swain,

Nicholls (1984, 1989) identified two specific achievement goals, which he labeled task and ego. A task-involved goal is defined as a focus on the development of competence, whereas an ego-involved goal is defined as an underlying concern for demonstrating competence or an avoidance of being judged as incompetent. Furthermore, Nicholls (1984, 1989) proposed the existence of two orthogonal goal orientations that would reflect an individual’s proneness to become task- or ego-involved in a particular achievement setting, such as exercise. A task-oriented person would be more likely to define success or to construe competence in terms of mastery or task improvement, and would tend to adopt a self-referencing criterion for evaluation. On the other hand, an ego-oriented person would be more likely to define success or construe competence in normative terms, such as outperforming others or being the best on a task. Individuals’ goal orientation will influence their definition of success, which, in turn, will impact their motivation to perform physical activity (for reviews, see Duda, 2001; Duda & Hall, 2001; Roberts, 2001).

In sport and physical education, a high task orientation has been linked frequently to adaptive motivational behaviors (Duda & Hall, 2001). Because task- oriented individuals hold the belief that effort is a critical determinant of success and engage in the activity for its own sake as an end in and of itself, they tend to try hard and to be more persistent when faced with obstacles and difficulty. Moreover, a task orientation has been found to be positively associated with various indicators of motivation, including intrinsic motivation (Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, & Catley, 1995; Kavussanu & Roberts, 1996; Wang & Biddle, 2001), positive affect (Ntoumanis & Biddle, 1999), and the tendency to seek out new

2000).

GOAL ORIENTATION AND SELF-EFFICACY 749

and challenging experiences and to try hard in difficult situations (Tank & White, 1996; White & Zellner, 1996). Finally, a task orientation has been positively linked to self-reported moderate to vigorous physical activity levels (Biddle & Goudas, 1996; Chi, 1993; Dempsey, Kimiecik, & Horn, 1993).

In contrast, a high ego orientation frequently has been linked to maladaptive motivational behaviors. For example, research in sport has shown that ego- oriented individuals feel successful when they demonstrate evidence of high ability, but experience failure and negative emotions when their ability is evaluated as being lower than others (Papaioannou & Kouli, 1999). As a result, ego- oriented individuals tend to withdraw from tasks or to reduce their effort when faced with difficulty or defeat in order to protect their self-esteem. Because the aim of an ego-oriented individual is to demonstrate superior ability, situations in which he or she cannot outperform others or gain favorable judgments regarding ability may lead to feelings of incompetence, less persistence, and lower behavioral intensity (Duda et al., 1995).

In research, however, the dimensions of task and ego orientation have been found consistently to be orthogonal in nature (Chi & Duda, 1995; Duda & Whitehead, 1998; Roberts, Treasure, & Kavussanu, 1996). In other words, all different possible combinations of task and ego orientation may exist. For example, it is possible for an individual to be high in task and ego orientations or to exhibit any one of the other three most commonly examined combinations (high tasWlow ego, low tasWhigh ego, or low tasWlow ego; Swain & Harwood, 1996). These combinations have been referred to as goal profiles, and reflect the relative levels of task- and ego-involved tendencies socialized to an individual. As a result, researchers have argued that a goal-profiling analysis should be used when examining the potential effects of goal orientations of interest (e.g., Goudas & Biddle, 1994; Hardy, 1997; Harwood et al., 2000; Harwood & Treasure, 2000).

Results from studies adopting a goal-profiling analysis have found that when a high ego orientation is combined with a high task orientation, motivation is often high (Cumming, Hall, Harwood, & Gammage, 2002; Duda, 1989; Hardy, 1997; Wang & Biddle, 2001). For example, Duda (1989) found that adolescents who are regular participants in physical activity and have persisted in organized, competitive sport emphasized both social comparison (i.e., ego orientation) and mastery-based (i.e., task orientation) means to goal attainment more so than dropouts or nonparticipants. Therefore, a high ego orientation may not necessarily be motivationally maladaptive, as long as it is combined with high levels of task orientation. As a result, high-egohigh-task individuals would be motivated over the long term because they have a strong orientation to fall back on when their sense of normative competence is in jeopardy (Duda, 2001).

The goal orientation theory of achievement motivation has been used to explain people’s behaviors in education, sport, and physical activity. It is also possible that exercise participation may be considered an achievement behavior,

750 CUMMlNG AND HALL

and the goal orientation theory may be useful in explaining why people are motivated to exercise on a regular basis, especially if the goal profiles of the participants are considered. Therefore, the first purpose of the present study is to determine if different goal orientations exist among regular exercisers.

Given the multidimensional nature of motivation, Wang and Biddle (200 1) suggested that it is worthwhile to investigate other variables together with goal orientation-such as individuals’ conceptions of ability beliefs, perceived competence, and behavioral regulations-to gain a deeper understanding of motivation. One variable that has received little attention in combination with goal orientation, but that has been shown to influence exercise behavior, is self efficacy, which Bandura (1997) defined as the “belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Individuals with high levels of self-efficacy for exercise behavior have been shown previously to exercise more frequently and are more likely to adhere to an exercise program (Bandura, 1995, 1997; McAuley & Jacobson, 1991; McAuley, Wraith, & Duncan, 199 1 ; Rodgers & Gauvin, 1998).

Two types of self-efficacy have been identified as being important in an exercise setting: coping and task (Maddux, 1995). Task self-eficacy refers to individuals’ confidence in their ability to perform the elemental aspects of a task (e.g., confidence in their ability to perform a weightlifting move that is technically cor- rect), and coping self-eficacy refers to individuals’ confidence in their ability to perform these tasks under challenging conditions (e.g., when tired or in a bad mood). Self-efficacy can arise from a number of different sources, the most important of which is mastery experiences (for a review, see Bandura, 1997). In other words, by carrying out a task successfully, an individual will develop the belief that he or she has the necessary capabilities. These beliefs become even more resilient if the individual has successhlly overcome obstacles and adversi- ties to perform the behavior. Similarly, failure experiences can lead to fragile or weak efficacy beliefs.

An individual’s goal orientation is expected to influence his or her self- confidence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988) and, as a natural extension, his or her level of self-efficacy (Kavussanu & Roberts, 1996). More specifically, an individual with a high task orientation is more likely to develop self-efficacy beliefs because his or her perceptions of competence are self-referenced, and the main concern of the person is on mastery of the task and improving current levels of performance. In comparison, an individual with a high ego orientation has perceptions of competence that are normatively referenced and is therefore dependent on the performance of others, a factor over which the individual has no control. As a result, it is more difficult for an individual with high levels of ego orientation to develop and maintain self-efficacy. Support for this contention has been found in an educational setting where a negative relationship has been shown to exist between ego orientation and self-efficacy, and a positive relationship between


task orientation and self-efficacy (Patrick, Ryan, & Pintrich, 2000; Philips & Gully, 1997; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996).

If considered in terms of a goal-profiling analysis, the achievement goal theory would predict that individuals with a high ego orientation and a low task orientation should have comparatively lower levels of self-efficacy than individuals with a high ego orientation and a high task orientation. Without corresponding levels of task orientation, highly ego-involved individuals should be characterized by weak efficacy beliefs because they tend to give up in the face of difficulty. Conversely, highly ego-involved individuals possessing balanced levels of task orientation should persist in the face of difficulty, and should therefore develop stronger efficacy beliefs.

In summary, research has not investigated the relationship between individual differences in goal orientation profiles and self-efficacy in an exercise setting. This is important to do since a participant’s goal orientation likely influences his or her self-efficacy, and in turn, self-efficacy influences exercise participation and adherence. The second purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine individuals’ motivational profiles to determine whether different combinations of task orientation and ego orientation reflect different levels of coping and task self-efficacy.

Method

Part icipants

The 280 volunteer participants (106 male, 174 female) were exercisers who were recruited from a large university community and who engaged in a broad range of exercise activities (e.g., aerobics, weight training, running, swimming). The average age of the participants was 21.84 years (SD = 3.77), and all participants indicated that they exercised a minimum of once per week.

Instruments

The two instruments used in this study were the Task and Ego Orientation in Exercise Questionnaire and an exercise self-efficacy questionnaire. In addition, relevant demographic information including age, gender, exercise frequency, and primary type of exercise was also collected.

Task and Ego Orientation in Exercise Questionnaire (TEOEQ). The TEOEQ is a modified version of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (Duda & Nicholls, 1992), which measures an individual’s orientation to being task- or ego-involved in sport. For the purposes of the present study, a number of the items (6 items) on the original questionnaire were slightly modified to reflect more exercise-specific terms. The TEOEQ consists of 13 items, 7 of which


correspond to a task orientation and 6 to an ego orientation. Participants were instructed to respond to the statement “I feel most successful in exercise situations when. . . .” Items on the task scale include “I work really hard” and “I learn a new move and it makes me want to exercise more,” and items on the ego scale include “I am the best exerciser” and “I work harder than other exercisers.”

Item responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Internal consistencies were calculated for both subscales of the TEOEQ and were found to be adequate, providing some indica- tion that the two subscales are relevant to the exercise domain. Specifically, the alpha values for the task and ego subscales were .79 and 39 , respectively.

Exercise SeZf-EfJicacy Questionnaire (ESEQ). The ESEQ was based on the instrument used by Rodgers and Sullivan (2001) to measure participants’ task and coping self-efficacy, and was consistent with other researchers’ assessments of self-efficacy with respect to exercise behaviors (e.g., McAuley et al., 1991; Rodgers & Gauvin, 1998). The questionnaire consists of eight items, four of which correspond to task self-efficacy and four to coping self-efficacy.

Participants were instructed to rate how confident they feel on an 11 -point Likert scale ranging from 0% (no confidence) to 100% (completely confident). This type of assessment represents a combination of the strength and magnitude dimensions of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, as discussed by Lee & Bobko, 1994). Mugnitude indicates individuals’ perceptions of reaching a certain level of task performance, whereas strength indicates individuals’ confidence in performing each task level. An example of an item on the task self-eficacy scale is “How confident are you that could pace yourself to avoid overexertion?” and an example of an item on the coping self-efficacy scale is “How confident are you that you can exercise when you are tired?’ Internal consistencies were also calculated for both subscales of the ESEQ and were determined to be adequate. Specifically, the alpha values for the coping and task self-efficacy subscales were .82 and .75, respectively.

Procedure

The questionnaires were administered in several possible ways. Approxi- mately 80% of the participants were recruited for the study immediately following an exercise session. These participants were contacted directly by one of the investigators following an exercise session and were informed of the nature of the study and that their participation was requested. Those participants who vol- unteered were given a letter of information, a consent form, and the two questionnaires. Completed materials were then returned to the investigators. The remaining participants were recruited for this study in other locations (e.g., at work, at school). In these situations, one of the investigators approached the individuals and requested their participation.


Results

Preliminary Analysis

Prior to analyzing the data, the scores for the TEOEQ were reverse-coded so that a higher score would reflect a higher goal orientation. This was undertaken simply to make interpretation of the results easier. The items on the subscales of the TEOEQ were then averaged to arrive at an ego score and a task score for each participant. The items for the subscales of the ESEQ were also averaged to arrive at a coping self-efficacy score and a task self-efficacy score for each participant.

Means and standard deviations were calculated for each questionnaire subscale (i.e., task, ego, coping self-efficacy, and task self-efficacy). In general, participants reported having a higher task orientation ( M = 4.26, SD = 0.51) than ego orientation ( M = 2.99, SD = 0.91), and possessed higher levels of task self- efficacy ( M = 81.18, SD = 13.12) than coping self-efficacy ( M = 57.85, SD =

19.37).

Goal Profile Analysis

Goal profile groups were generated through a cluster analysis procedure similar to those used recently in the literature (Cumming et al., 2002; Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000). That is, we used an iterative partitioning method (i.e., K- means cluster analysis) to classify participants into groups based on their task and ego orientation scores, with neither the group membership of the individual or the number of groups being defined beforehand. The purpose of a cluster analysis is to minimize within-group variance and to maximize between-group variance using scores from a set of variables (Aldenderfer & Blashfield, 1984). In the present study, a participant was classified into a group where he or she had a more similar goal orientation profile to the other individuals within the group than with individuals outside of the group.

The stages of the cluster analysis decision process were guided by the procedures outlined by Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998). First, all of the variables were standardized using z scores ( M = 0, SD = l) , and the univariate distributions of the clustering variables (i.e., task and ego) were inspected for normality and missing data. No cases with missing data were found, but seven cases were identified as outliers based on having a standard score greater than 3 and were eliminated from further analyses. Next, several K-means cluster analyses were conducted to partition the data. A five-cluster solution was then determined to be the best fit, based on the number of participants in each cluster and the significant difference between cluster groups on both the task-orientation subscale, F(4, 269) = 98.01, p < .0001; and ego-orientation subscale, F(4,269) =

307.97, p < .0001. In comparison, three- and four-cluster solutions lacked participants in some of the clusters, or failed to show a significant difference among


Table 1

TEOEQ Scores jor the Goal Profile Groups

Ego orientation Task orientation

Clusters n M S D z M SD z

1. Low ego/moderate task 62 1.90 0.38 -1.20 4.46 0.30 0.39 2. Moderate egollowtask 55 2.57 0.40 -0.46 3.74 0.36 -0.96 3. Moderate egohigh task 80 3.02 0.33 0.00 4.55 0.27 0.58

5. High egohigh task 44 4.28 0.43 1.42 4.61 0.26 0.68 4. High egollow task 33 3.93 0.45 1.03 3.75 0.35 -0.99

Note. TEOEQ = Task and Ego Orientation in Exercise Questionnaire (Duda & Nicholls, 1992).

the cluster groups. We then validated the stability of a five-cluster solution using a two-thirds random sample (Hair et al., 1995) to recluster the data. Approxi- mately 99% of the participants retained their original cluster membership, indi- cating a stable cluster pattern. The sample size, means, standard deviations, and standardized scores for the five clusters are presented in Table 1.

Goal profile groups were interpreted as being low, moderate, or high on the two goal orientations using a z score criterion of k0.50 (Cumming et al., 2002; Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000; Wang & Biddle, 2001). The z scores of each cluster group were examined and classified accordingly. The results of this classification indicate that participants in Cluster 1 had a low-ego/moderate-task profile, participants in Cluster 2 had a moderate-ego/low-task profile, participants in Cluster 3 had a moderate-ego/high-task profile, participants in Cluster 4 had a high-ego/ low-task profile, and participants in Cluster 5 had a high-egohigh-task profile.

Using Bonferroni’s adjustment 0, < .025), separate ANOVAs were calculated to examine whether significant differences existed between the cluster groups on the their task orientation and ego orientation scores. For task orientation, an ANOVA, F(4, 269) = 98.01, p < .025, q 2 = .59, followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reveals that participants in Cluster 1 (low ego/moderate task), Cluster 3 (moderate egohigh task), and Cluster 5 (high e g o h g h task) had a significantly higher task orientation than did participants in Cluster 2 (moderate ego/low task) and Cluster 4 (high egollow task). For ego orientation, an ANOVA, F(4,269) =

98 .01 ,~ < .025, q2 = 32, followed by Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reveals significant differences between all five cluster groups, with participants in Cluster 5 (high egoihigh task) having the highest level of ego orientation, and participants in Cluster 1 (low ego/moderate task) having the lowest level of ego orientation.


Goal orientation andselfeficacy. Means and standard deviations for the coping self-efficacy and task self-efficacy scales for each cluster group are presented in Table 2. To examine for differences in self-efficacy, a MANOVA was conducted with the groups created by the cluster analysis serving as the inde- pendent variables and the self-efficacy scales (i.e., coping and task) serving as the dependent variables. The results reveal that the assumption of homogeneity of the variance-covariance matrices was violated (Box’s M = 23.37), F( 12, 219232) = 1.91, p = .03. Therefore, we adopted Olson’s (1979) recommendation to report Pillai’s trace criterion, which is considered robust to violations of this assumption. A significant multivariate effect was found (Pillai’s trace = . lo), F(8,538) = 3 . 7 0 , ~ < .001, q2 = .05, with an observed power of 98.7%.

At the univariate level, a significant effect was found for both coping self- efficacy, F(4, 269) = 2.71, p < .001, q2 = .04; and task self-efficacy, F(4, 269) =

6 . 1 1 , ~ < .001, q 2 = .08. Tukey’s HSD post hoc test reveals that Cluster 1 (low ego/moderate task), Cluster 3 (moderate egohigh task), and Cluster 5 (high ego/ high task) had significantly higher coping self-efficacy and task self-efficacy than did Cluster 2 (moderate ego/low task) and Cluster 4 (high ego/low task).

Gender dgferences in cluster membership. Some studies conducted in sport have found gender differences in goal orientation (e.g., Newton & Duda, 1993; White & Zellner, 1996), while others have not (e.g., Cumming et al., 2002). Therefore, gender differences in cluster membership were examined in the present study. The frequency of male and females in each cluster group is presented in Table 2. A one-way ANOVA indicates that significant gender differences existed in cluster membership, F(4, 269) = 7.46, p < .001, q2 = . lo. Tukey’s HSD post hoc test was then calculated and revealed that these significant differences were for Cluster 1, 3, 4, and 5. More specifically, Cluster 1 (low ego/ moderate task) and Cluster 3 (moderate egohigh task) contained a higher ratio of females to males than did Cluster 4 (high ego/low task) and Cluster 5 (high ego/ high task). More specifically, 77.4% of the exercisers in Cluster 1 and 72.5% of the exercisers in Cluster 3 were female. In comparison, 60.6% of the exercisers in Cluster 4 and 6 1.4% of the exercisers in Cluster 5 were male.

Given these gender differences in cluster membership, a MANOVA was conducted to check if gender influenced self-efficacy. Gender served as the indepen- dent variable, and the exercise self-efficacy scales (i.e., task and coping) served as the dependent variables. No significant multivariate effect for gender was found (Pillai’s trace = .004), F(2,271) = 0.54, p > .05.

Discussion

To date, limited research has examined the goal orientation theory of achievement motivation in an exercise setting, but this theory has been applied successfully in explaining behavior in both education and sport (Duda & Hall, 2001).


Moreover, the existing research has tended to report the results of each goal orientation separately without fully considering the interaction of task and ego orientation (Biddle & Goudas, 1996; Chi, 1993; Dempsey et al., 1993). For example, Dempsey et al. found that children’s task orientation and level of perceived competence were positively associated with self-reported moderate to vigorous physical activity levels. Given that individuals may possess varying combinations of low to high levels of task and ego orientation, it is important for researchers to consider the orthogonal nature of these goal orientations (Hanvood & Treasure, 2000). For this reason, the first purpose of the present study was to examine whether different combinations of goal orientation actually exist among exercisers. To this end, the TEOEQ was administered to regular exercisers, and differences in task orientation and ego orientation were found. Consequently, the various goal profiles of these exercisers were then examined.

To treat goal orientation as orthogonal and in a manner that avoided the arbi- trary attachment of high and low labels that exists when performing mean-split or median-split procedures, different goal profiles were calculated through the use of a cluster analysis (Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000). With this type of analysis, neither the group membership of the individual or the number of groups was determined beforehand. Instead, the cluster analysis allows the number of groups to be determined by the best fit of the data. More specifically, the final solution will consist of cluster groups that maximize between-group variance and minimize within-group variance on scores from a set of variables. In the present study, five goal profile groups emerged.

Adopting procedures used in previous research (Cumming et al., 2002; Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000; Wang & Biddle, 2001), labels were given to the task orientation and ego orientation scores according to a z score criterion of f0.50. Exercisers in Cluster 1 had a low-ego/moderate-task profile, exercisers in Cluster 2 had a moderate-ego/low-task profile, exercisers in Cluster 3 had a moderate- egohigh-task profile, exercisers in Cluster 4 had a high-ego/low-task profile, and exercisers in Cluster 5 had a high-egohigh-task profile. As noted by Hodge and Petlichkoff, however, these labels represent relative differences (i.e., how standardized scores compare to each other) in goal orientation, and not the actual strength of the goal orientation. To examine the strength of the goal orientation, the recommendation has been for readers to examine the absolute differences in the unstandardized means and standard deviations (Hodge & Petlichkoff, 2000).

For example, the moderate label given to the task score for exercisers in Clus- ter 1 actually reflects a very high task orientation when considered in an absolute sense ( M = 4.46, SD = 0.30). It was not surprising, therefore, to find that no significant differences existed between the moderate task score for exercisers in Cluster 1 and the high task scores for participants in Cluster 3 or 5 . In comparison, the moderate label given to the ego orientation score for exercisers in Cluster 2 reflected a low ego orientation when considered in an absolute sense ( M = 2.57,

758 GUMMING AND HALL

SD = 0.40). Furthermore, significant differences were found between the moderate ego orientation scores for exercisers in Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 . More specifically, the exercisers in Cluster 3 had a significantly higher ego orientation score than did exercisers in Cluster 2, even though each cluster group was labeled as moderate ego, according to the z scores.

Given that exercisers have different goal profiles, these profiles may be employed to help understand other variables that influence exercise participation. The second purpose of the present study was to examine whether the different goal profile groups that resulted from the cluster analysis would reflect different amounts of task and coping self-efficacy. We were particularly interested in examining self-efficacy because there is considerable evidence that this variable plays an important role in the adoption of and adherence to exercise regimens (McAuley, Pena, & Jerome, 2001). Based on research suggesting that goal orientation will influence self-confidence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), and as a natural extension self-efficacy (Kavussanu & Roberts, 1996), we predicted that exercisers with a high ego orientation and a low task orientation would have comparatively lower levels of self-efficacy than individuals with a high ego orientation and a high task orientation. The rationale behind this hypothesis is that without corresponding levels of task orientation, highly ego-oriented exercisers should be characterized by weak efficacy beliefs because they tend to give up in the face of difficulty. Conversely, it was predicted that highly ego-oriented exercisers with corresponding levels of high task orientation should persist in the face of diff- culty and, as a result, should develop stronger efficacy beliefs.

We found that the various goal profile groups differed in task and coping self- efficacy. More specifically, exercisers in Cluster 1 (low egoimoderate task), Clus- ter 3 (moderate ego/high task), and Cluster 5 (high egohigh task) had significantly higher coping self-efficacy and task self-efficacy than did exercisers in Cluster 2 (moderate egoilow task) and Cluster 4 (high ego/low task). Therefore, these results indicate that exercisers with higher levels of task orientation, regardless of their corresponding level of ego orientation (Clusters 1, 3 , and 5) , possessed more coping and task self-efficacy than did exercisers with lower task orientation scores and moderate to high levels of ego orientation (Clusters 2 and 4).

Although we cannot make causal inferences from these data about the effect of goal orientation on the development of self-efficacy, we can draw some con- clusions concerning the relationship between the two variables. More specifically, an exerciser’s task orientation, but not ego orientation, appears to influence self-efficacy. We make this statement based on our finding that a higher task orientation was related to greater self-efficacy, regardless of the individual’s level of ego orientation. One application of this finding is to provide an exerciser having a low task orientation with socialization experiences that foster a task orientation or structure the exercise context so that it is more task involving (Roberts, 2001). Of these two possibilities, Biddle (2001) argued that it is easier for practitioners


to intervene to enhance motivation by manipulating the structure of the environ- ment (i.e., motivational climate). For example, fitness instructors might provide participants with challenging and diverse tasks to accomplish; evaluate and rec- ognize their participants based on task mastery and individual progress; promote cooperation and peer interaction; and adjust time requirements for accomplishing tasks based on personal capabilities (Biddle, 2001).

When considered in terms of a goal-profiling perspective, there was a significant difference in the distribution of males and females across the different goal profiles. We found more males with a goal profile that consisted of high levels of ego orientation, regardless of whether the corresponding level of task orientation was low or high in magnitude (Clusters 4 and 5). In comparison, a higher propor- tion of females tended to have goal profiles that consisted of high levels of task orientation, with corresponding levels of low to moderate ego orientation (Clus- ters 1 and 3). An explanation for these gender differences is that males are more preoccupied with recognition and the acquisition of status and power than are females (Duda, 1989; Papaioannou & Macdonald, 1993). Research showing that male adolescents are more likely to participate in exercise for recognition, in addition to health and strength improvement, lends some support to this explanation (Tappe, Duda, & Menges-Ehrnwald, 1990). However, further research is needed to more fully explain gender differences in goal orientation within an exercise setting.

One limitation to the present study that must be noted is that while the major- ity of participants completed the questionnaires immediately following an exercise session (i.e., SO%), some participants completed the questionnaire in other locations, such as at work or at school. This manner of collecting the data may have resulted in inflated task self-efficacy scores for those participants who completed the questionnaires immediately following an exercise session, because acute exercise has been found consistently to enhance task self-efficacy (e.g., McAuley, Blissmer, Katula, & Duncan, 2000; Mihalko, McAuley, & Bane, 1996).

This study demonstrated that different combinations of goal orientation exist among exercisers. Early research in goal orientation often concluded that a high task orientation was more desirable than a high ego orientation because it was positively related to various indicators of motivation and adaptive motivational patterns of behavior (Duda & Hall, 2001). Using a goal-profiling approach that considers the orthogonal nature of goal orientation, we also found that a high task orientation was positively related to an indicator of exercise motivation (i.e., self-efficacy). But, unlike this early research, we did not find that a high ego orientation was necessarily maladaptive. This study, therefore, provides preliminary evidence that goal profiling is a useful approach in helping researchers to better understand exercise motivation. Further research employing this approach is warranted.


References

Aldenderfer, M. S., & Blashfield, R. K. (1984). Cluster analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bandura, A. (1995). On rectifying conceptual ecumenism. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), SeFeficacy, adaptation and adjustment. Theory, research, and application (pp. 347-375). New York, N Y Plenum.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.

Biddle, S. J. H. (2001). Enhancing motivation in physical education. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 101-127). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

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

Chi, L. ( 1993). The prediction of achievement-related cognitions and behaviors in the physical domain: A test of the theories of goal perspectives and self- efficacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.

Chi, L,, & Duda, J. L. (1995). Multi-group factor confirmatory factor analysis of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 66,91-98.

Cumming, J., Hall, C., Hanvood, C., & Gammage, K. (2002). Motivational orientations and imagery use: A goal profiling analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 127-136.

Dempsey, J. M., Kimiecik, J. C., & Horn, T. S. (1 993). Parental influence on children’s moderate to vigorous physical activity participation: An expectancy- value approach. Pediatric Exercise Science, 5, 15 1 - 167.

Dishman, R. K. (1 982). Compliance/adherence in health-related exercise. Health Psychology, I , 237-267.

Duda, J. L. (1 989). Goal perspectives, participation, and persistence in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 20,42-56.

Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129-1 82). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Duda, J. L., Chi, L., Newton, M., Walling, M. D., & Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26,40-63.

Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport: Recent exten- sions and future directions. In R. Singer, H. Hausenblas, & C. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 4 17-443). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.


Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84,290-299.

Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspectives in the physical domain. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in sport and exercise ps-v- chology measurement (pp. 2 1-48). Morgantown, W V Fitness Information Technology.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95,256-273.

Goudas, M., & Biddle, S. (1994). Perceived motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in school physical educational classes. European Journal of Psy- chology of Education, 9,241-250.

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (3rd ed.). New York, N Y Macmillan.

Hardy, L. (1997). The Coleman Roberts Griffith address: Three myths about applied consulting work. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 9,277-294.

Hanvood, C., Hardy, L., & Swain, A. (2000). Achievement goals in sport: A cri- tique of conceptual and measurement issues. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Harwood, C. G., & Treasure, D. C. (2000). Point, counter-point: Goal profiling. Association for the Advancement of Applied Sport Psychology Newsletter, 15,

Hodge, K., & Petlichkoff, L. (2000). Goal profiles in sport motivation: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22,256-272.

Kavussanu, M., & Roberts, G. C. (1 996). Motivation in physical activity contexts: The relationship between perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and self-efficacy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychologv, 18,264-280.

Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1994). Self-efficacy beliefs: Comparison of five measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,364-369.

Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory: An introduction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Sel$efJcacy, adaptation, and adjustment. Theog research, and application (pp. 3-33). New York, N Y Plenum.

McAuley, E., Blissmer, B., Katula, J., & Duncan, T. (2000). Exercise environ- ment, self-efficacy, and affective responses to acute exercise in older adults. Psychology and Health, 15, 341-355.

McAuley, E., & Jacobson, L. (1991). Self-efficacy and exercise participation in sedentary adult females. American Journal of Health Promotion, 5, 185- 19 I .

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

McAuley, E., Wraith, S., & Duncan, T. E. (1991). Self-efficacy, perceptions of success, and intrinsic motivation for exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psy-

Psychology, 22,235-255.

7-12.

chology, 21, 139-155.


Mihalko, S. L., McAuley, E. L., & Bane, S. M. (1996). Self-efficacy and affective responses to acute exercise in middle-aged adults. Journal of Social Behavior and PersonaliQ, 11,375-385.

Newton, M. L., & Duda, J. L. (1993). Elite adolescent athletes’ achievement goals and beliefs concerning success in tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 1. Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 39-73). New York, N Y Academic Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ntoumanis, N., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). Affect and achievement goals in physical activity: A meta-analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Sciences in Sports, 9, 3 15-332.

Olson, C. L. (1979). On choosing a test statistic in MANOVA. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 589-596.

Papaioannou, A., & Kouli, 0. (1999). The effect of task structure, perceived motivational climate, and goal orientation on students’ task involvement and anxiety, Journal of Applied Sport Psychologg, 11,5 1-7 1.

Papaioannou, A., & Macdonald, A. (1993). Goal perspectives and purposes of physical education among Greek adolescents. Physical Education Review, 16,

Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The differential impact of extrinsic and mastery goal orientation on males’ and females’ self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 153-1 71.

Philips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal-setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 792-802.

Roberts, G. C. (1992). Motivation in sport and exercise: Conceptual constraints and convergence. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 3- 29). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G. C. (2001). Understanding the dynamics of motivation in physical activity: The influence of achievement goals on motivational processes. In G. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 1-50). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Kavussanu, M. (1996). Orthogonality of achievement goals and its relationship to beliefs about success and satisfac- tion in sport. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 398-408.

Rodgers, W. M., & Gauvin, L. (1998). Heterogeneity of incentives for physical activity and self-efficacy in highly active and moderately active women exercisers. Journal of Applied Social Psycholoay, 28, 101 6-1 029.

P S ~ C ~ O ~ O Q , 15,437-448.

41-48.


Rodgers, W. M., & Sullivan, M. J. L. (2001). Task, coping, and scheduling self- efficacy in relation to frequency of physical activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31,74 1-753.

Sonstroem, R. J. (1982). Attitudes and beliefs in the prediction of exercise participation. In R. C. Cantu & W. J. Gillepsie (Eds.), Sports medicine, sports sciences: Bridging the gap (pp. 3-16). Lexington, MA: Heath & Co.

Stephens, T., & Caspersen, L. J. (1993). The demography of physical activity. In C. Bouchard, R. J. Shephard, & T. Stephens (Eds.), Physical activity, $tness, and health: Consensus statement (pp. 204-213). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Swain, A. B. J., & Hanvood, C. G. (1996). Antecedents of state goals in age- group swimmers: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Sports Sciences,

Tank, K., & White, S. A. (1996). Goal orientation and trait anxiety among male and female athletes at different levels of sport involvement. Research Quar- t e r b f r Exercise and Sport, 67(Suppl.), S123.

Tappe, M. K., Duda, J. L., & Menges-Ehrnwald, P. (1990). Personal investment predictors of adolescent motivational orientation towards exercise. Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 15, 185-192.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1996). Physical activity and health: A report ofthe Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Wang, C. K. J., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2001). Young people’s motivational profiles in physical activity: A cluster analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol-

White, S. A., & Zellner, S. R. (1996). The relationship between goal orientation, beliefs about the causes of sport success, and trait anxiety among high school, intercollegiate, and recreational sport participants. The Sport Psychologist,

Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulating learning. Learning and Individual Diferences, 8 ,2 1 1-238.

14,111-124.

ogy, 23, 1-22.

10, 58-72.

the relationship between goal orientation and self-efficacy for exercise

Documents