Home > Journals > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness > Past Issues > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 June;42(2) > The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 June;42(2):233-8



To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian




Original articles  SPORT PSYCHOLOGY 

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2002 June;42(2):233-8


language: English

Motives for exercise participation as predictors of exercise dependence among endurance athletes

Hamer M., Karageorghis C. I. *, Vlachopoulos S. P. **

From the Physical Activity and Health Research Unit, De Montfort University, Bedford, United Kingdom *Department of Sport Sciences, Brunel University Middlesex, United Kingdom **Department of Physical Education and Sports Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki at Serres, Greece


Back­ground. To inves­ti­gate ­whether ­motives for exer­cise par­tic­i­pa­tion pre­dicted exer­cise depen­dence (ED) ­among endu­rance ath­letes. The ratio­nale for the ­study cen­tred ­upon a ­test of the ­affect reg­u­la­tion ­model util­ising con­structs ­that ­form ­part of the ­Self-Deter­mi­na­tion ­Theory as pre­dic­tors of ED. It was hypo­the­sised ­that non ­self-deter­mined moti­va­tion, spe­cif­i­cally ­external reg­u­la­tion, ­would be pre­dic­tive of ED.
­Methods. ­Design: cor­re­la­tional ­design, ­with a ­time gap ­between pre­dictor and depen­dent var­i­ables. Set­tings: com­pet­i­tive ­sports envi­ron­ment. Par­tic­i­pants: 188 com­pet­i­tive endu­rance ath­letes ­were ­recruited ­from ama­teur ­sports ­clubs. Inter­ven­tions: ­none. Meas­ures: the Behav­i­oural Reg­u­la­tion in Exer­cise Ques­tion­naire was admin­is­tered ­before a ­training ses­sion to ­measure the pre­dictor var­i­ables (­motives for exer­cise par­tic­i­pa­tion), and the Run­ning Addic­tion ­Scale was admin­is­tered ­before a sim­ilar ­training ses­sion, one ­week ­later, to ­measure the depen­dent var­i­able (ED).
­Results. Mul­tiple regres­sion anal­ysis ­revealed ­that the ­strongest pre­dictor var­i­able of ED was intro­jected reg­u­la­tion (β=0.29, p<0.001), fol­lowed by iden­ti­fied reg­u­la­tion (β=0.19, p<0.05). ­External reg­u­la­tion and ­intrinsic moti­va­tion ­were ­weak and non-sig­nif­i­cant pre­dic­tors. The ­total var­i­ance in ED ­explained by the exer­cise par­tic­i­pa­tion ­motives was 15% (R2= 0.15).
Con­clu­sions. ED was pre­dicted by ­motives ­that did not sup­port the ­tenets of the ­affect reg­u­la­tion ­model. ­Results are dis­cussed in ­light of the poten­tial influ­ence of exer­cise par­tic­i­pa­tion ­motives on ED and ­their impli­ca­tions for inter­ven­tion strat­e­gies and diag­nosis of the ED syn­drome.

top of page