Ideally applied motivation research is interested in the ingredients of motivation that may have some immediate practical value in increasing exercise participation. In contrast, strict theoretical research focuses on proving or dis-proving theories related to reasons for exercise participation. Some of those theories can get bogged down in minutiae that seem to have little practical value. Although, one theoretical researcher said there is nothing more practical than a good theory. In any case, with the exercise participation rate not progressing rapidly, any practical solutions are needed.
In 1973 21% of the US population was getting enough exercise to obtain a training effect. Fifty years later (2023) 23% of the US population meets the standards set by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) for aerobic and strength training. Thus, after 50 years of research in exercise motivation there has been only a relatively small increase (21% to 23%) in significant exercise participation in the US. Obesity rates are at an all time high. Heart disease, in part related to lack of exercise, remains a leading cause of death. The question this brings up is with all the research in exercise motivation over 50 years, why has not exercise participation in the US increased more? In my opinion part of the reason for this is, even though excellent practical research has been been done much of it remains unknown to the general public. Usually, researchers get paid for research and teaching at a university level, not for making their research known to the general public. Their research is normally published in journals hidden in libraries, and not readily available to the public.
One of the few exceptions I know of to the hidden research was an applied research attempt here in Tucson back in 2003, called The Mayor’s Challenge. It was designed to motivate exercise adherence in the general public. This was initiated by a professor at the U. of AZ named Lauve Metcalf. She had been in corporate fitness with Pratt & Whitney and Campbell Soup before her position at the U. of AZ. It was advertised in the Tucson papers, and ran for 12 weeks with Monday evening meetings from 5:30 to 7:00 pm at the Duval Auditoruim in the University Medical Center. The mayor of Tucson at the time was one of the motivated participants, encouraging the public to take part in a healthy lifestyle. Topics were designed to instill the motivating factors for exercise and healthy nutrition. For example, why obesity and weight gain are a national problem, 10 top nutrition tips, short & long term goals, understanding the mind/body connection, barriers to long term weight loss, crucial elements for success, social support, etc. Much of her content was apparently from her book, Reshaping Your Body, Rethinking Your Mind, which seems to be out of print, not found on Amazon, or in the library.
I probably should include the published portion of my master’s thesis in this applied research section. It was published in Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1990, 70, 1040-1042. The thesis was a major undertaking that ended up being 351 pages, with 202 references. The statistical analysis included bivariate correlation, multiple linear regression, t-tests, and z-tests. I was mainly concerned with a competitive, goal oriented, cognitive approach to running in contrast to a more playful, intrinsic approach, and their relationship to long term running adherence. Supposedly, understanding motivations for adherence would help define what approach would sustain participation.
A sample of relevant research at the time was from Mickel (1979) who proposed three running stages as we aged, 1. Competitive, 2. Humanistic-fitness, and 3. Transpersonal. Of course, the competitive was all about winning races, drive for excellence, fame, awards, etc. In the humanistic-fitness stage, that likely occurred in middle age, the runner began to notice the benefits of running such as feeling better, increased energy, loss of weight, etc. And they began to experience exhilaration, ecstasy, and peak experiences. The transpersonal stage included power and wonder that transcended the normal boundaries of ego and everyday categories of time and space, which could be related to the runner’s high. In this stage the runner might exhibit intrinsic motivation defined by Harris (1978, p. 60) as “enjoyment of an activity for its own sake”.
Four hundred thirty five Running Questionnaires (RQ’s) were either mailed or handed to potential subjects. RQ’s contained tests for Type A & B behavior, self motivation (SMI), and intrinsic motivation (TRQ test). Also, the RQ determined each runner’s months of running, average miles per week, average minutes per mile, and concern with time and distance. Type A runners were predicted to display a more competitive, goal oriented style of running emphasizing more mileage and speed than Type B runners, who were more likely to exhibit a more playful or intrinsically motivated approach. The self motivation test (SMI) measured their ability to commit to the pursuit of a goal.
Of the 435 RQ’s given out 230 were returned, 102 were Atlanta GA Track Club members. For statistical reasons the subjects were limited to male runners between the ages of 25 to 39 (mean age 33.6). The total number of useable RQ’s for analysis was 149 – 102 Type A’s, and 47 Type B’s.
Results showed that Type A and B runners scored an equal mean of 123 on the intrinsic motivation test (TRQ). Thus, Type A behavior did not appear to adversely influence intrinsic motivation. In fact, rather than being related to a playful, transpersonal approach to running, for this sample of runners intrinsic motivation was positively correlated with increases in speed and distance. The major significant finding was Type A runners reported higher self motivation scores than Type B runners. In conclusion, the long term running adherence for these runners apparently was partially motivated by the intrinsic satisfaction that occurred both during and after the runners efforts to reach their individual time or distance goals. The Type A and B runners did not differ significantly on months of running adherence.
One note about my published thesis – my adviser for it was Dr. David Pargman at Florida State University, who had 5% input. He essentially stole my research and published it with his name first. Apparently, this type of thievery is not unheard of in academia. I just happened to run across the condensed version of my thesis in a library, and let Dr. Pargman know I had found it. He obviously was not about to let me know of his unethical publication of it, citing him as the main author. He did send me copies of the condensed version from Perceptual and Motor Skills for use in my job applications. On the other hand, I suppose I should be grateful that he thought enough of my thesis effort to have it published in a condensed form, even though he took the main credit for it.
To finish the description of my thesis on a positive note – during my search for subjects to fill out the RQ I was helped with 300 names and addresses of male Atlanta GA Track Club members, given by Julia Emmons the director of the club back in 1985. I was having trouble before that getting enough subjects, because some race directors and potential subjects thought my research questions were an invasion of their privacy. However, Julia Emmons had experience in research, apparently from her Ph.D. in English History, and was quick to help with members from her club.