Understanding Motivation for Exercise: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Abstract

Understanding the factors that motivate health-enhancing physical activity has considerable merit given the role of this lifestyle behaviour in combating disease and promoting quality of life. The purpose of this article is to provide a broad overview of research investigating participation issues in exercise from the perspective of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2002). Evidence informing the application of SDT to the study of motivational issues in exercise is reviewed around three central questions: (a) Does the quality of motivation regulating exercise behaviour "matter"?, (b) How important are basic psychological needs within exercise contexts?, and (c) Can contextual variables be manipulated to create adaptive environments for exercise? The available evidence is supportive of many propositions set forth within SDT by Deci and Ryan's (2002). Future avenues for exercise motivation research are offered based on the available evidence with a view to addressing unresolved issues and advancing SDT's development.

Full text

Understanding Motivation for Exercise: A Self-Determination
Theory Perspective
Philip M. Wilson, Diane E. Mack, and Kimberly P. Grattan
Brock University
Understanding the factors that motivate health-enhancing physical activity has considerable merit given
the role of this lifestyle behaviour in combating disease and promoting quality of life. The purpose of this
article is to provide a broad overview of research investigating participation issues in exercise from the
perspective of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2002). Evidence informing the application
of SDT to the study of motivational issues in exercise is reviewed around three central questions: (a) Does
the quality of motivation regulating exercise behaviour “matter”?, (b) How important are basic psycho-
logical needs within exercise contexts?, and (c) Can contextual variables be manipulated to create
adaptive environments for exercise? The available evidence is supportive of many propositions set forth
within SDT by Deci and Ryan’s (2002). Future avenues for exercise motivation research are offered
based on the available evidence with a view to addressing unresolved issues and advancing SDT’s
development.
Keywords: exercise behaviour, motivation, basic psychological needs, organismic integration
Since Kraus and Raab (1961) coined the phrase “hypokinetic
disease,” health professionals have maintained an interest in the
importance of regular physical activity. This is hardly surprising
given the longstanding observation that engaging in regular phys-
ical activity confers a variety of health benefits including reduced
likelihood of coronary heart disease, adult onset diabetes, obesity,
certain cancers, and more recently, metabolic syndrome (Bou-
chard, Blair, & Haskell, 2007; Gilmour, 2007). Convincing epide-
miological evidence has linked physical inactivity with reduced
life expectancy for Canadians irrespective of gender (Katzmarzyk,
2006). Furthermore, health economists have provided compelling
data to justify the endorsement of campaigns to increase physical
activity implicating these initiatives as a viable cost-effective
strategy to reduce the burden of chronic disease on Canada’s
health care system (Katmarzyk & Janssen, 2004).
Consistent with the biomedical benefits derived from regular
physical activity, a growing body of research implicates a variety
of psychological health consequences stemming from the adoption
or maintenance of more physically active lifestyles (Fox, 2002).
For example, emerging data suggest that variations in cognitive
functioning in older adults are, in part, attributable to levels of
fitness emanating from regular physical activity (Colcombe et al.,
2003). Mental health benefits stemming from regular physical
activity include enhanced self-esteem, vitality, and satisfaction
with life (Fox, Stathi, McKenna, & Davis, 2006), and reductions in
levels of ill-being marked by psychological maladies such as
depression, anxiety, and chronic stress (Acevedo & Ekkekakis,
2006). Collectively, the evidence is supportive of the biomedical
and psychological benefits derived from adopting and maintaining
physical activity at a level commensurate with public health guide-
lines.
Given the value of regular physical activity to combating dis-
ease onset and progression, it seems paradoxical that population-
health reports often reveal insufficient participation in health-
enhancing physical activity, particularly in adults. Recent data
(Gilmour, 2007) derived from the Canadian Community Health
Survey indicate that 47.8% of Canadians aged 12 and over were
inactive during their leisure time.
1
Substantial variation was evi-
dent across population strata with physical activity rates varying as
a function of age, gender, geographic region, immigration status,
ethnicity, and income (Gilmour, 2007). The trend favouring sed-
entary behaviours is not unique to Canada (Bouchard et al., 2007)
and has led experts to identify physical inactivity as a key public
health epidemic rivalling obesity (Katzmarzyk & Janssen, 2004).
Consequently, a concerted effort has been made to understand why
some people engage in physical activities such as exercise and
sport with fervour, whereas others prefer to maintain a more
sedentary lifestyle (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2007).
1
Measuring physical activity is challenging in free-living populations
where social desirability and recall bias contaminate self-report estimates.
Inactivity was classified by Gilmour (2007) as using less than 1.5 kilo-
calories/kilogram of body weight/day. Stated differently, inactive Canadi-
ans walk less than 30 minutes per day (Gilmour, 2007).
Philip M. Wilson and Diane E. Mack, Department of Physical Education
& Kinesiology, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock University;
Kimberly P. Grattan, Faculty of Applied Health Sciences, Brock Univer-
sity.
The first and second authors were supported by grants from the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC Grant
410-2005-1485; 410-2007-1832) during manuscript preparation. The third
author was supported by an institutional graduate fellowship at the time of
writing this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Philip M.
Wilson, Department of Physical Education & Kinesiology, 500 Glenridge
Avenue, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, L2S 2A1. E-mail:
phwilson@brocku.ca
Canadian Psychology Copyright 2008 by the Canadian Psychological Association
2008, Vol. 49, No. 3, 250–256 0708-5591/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0012762
250

One theoretical perspective that appears useful for understand-
ing various motivational issues in physical activity settings is
self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2002). SDT ac-
counts for the quality of motivation regulating behaviour, as well
as, the processes that facilitate motivational development (Deci &
Ryan, 2002) that holds considerable appeal for understanding
“why” people initiate, persist, and terminate their involvement in
various physical activities (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2007). One
application of research embracing SDT as a guiding framework
has examined the applicability of the theory to exercise contexts.
Exercise and physical activity are not synonymous terms, with
exercise typically conceived of as a subset of leisure-time behav-
iour involving repeated bodily movements in planned and struc-
tured physical activities designed to maintain or improve physical
fitness (Bouchard et al., 2007). This review will focus on the
application of SDT to the study of issues germane to exercise (see
Pelletier & Sarrazin, 2007, and Vallerand, 2007, for reviews of
SDT in sport).
Self-Determination Theory: A Brief Overview
Central to SDT is an organismic-dialectic metatheory that ac-
counts for the ongoing challenges faced by humans in terms of
assimilating and adapting to social environments (Deci & Ryan,
2002). The current SDT framework has evolved from early re-
search examining the factors shaping intrinsic motivation (Deci,
1971) into a multifaceted approach comprised of subcomponents
(or “minitheories”; Deci & Ryan, 2002, p. 9) that explain different
facets of human growth, assimilation, and integration of the self
with the social world. Initial work in the area of SDT focussed on
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) that describes the impact of
psychological needs and social conditions on the propensity to
regulate behaviour for intrinsic reasons (Deci, 1971). Given that
many social activities are not intrinsically appealing (e.g., main-
taining a low-fat/calorie diet), a substantial body of research has
examined the nature and function of variations in extrinsic moti-
vation. Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) describes the degree
of internalization accompanying extrinsically motivated behav-
iours (Deci & Ryan, 2002) and stipulates that the quality of
extrinsic motivation regulating behaviour varies from highly con-
trolled to more volitionally endorsed (or self-determined) pro-
cesses. The practical importance of this distinction is reflected in
the consequences associated with self-determined as opposed to
controlled functioning. Deci and Ryan (2002) acknowledge that
both controlling and self-determined motives are capable of reg-
ulating behaviour. However, behavioural engagement aligned with
more controlling extrinsic motives is associated with poorer men-
tal health and highly contingent self-worth, whereas engagement
for more self-determined reasons is linked with both sustained
behaviour and more authentic mental health. Causality Orienta-
tions Theory (COT) delineates individual differences in personal-
ity with respect to how people are orientated toward self-
determined or controlled functioning across life domains (Deci &
Ryan, 2002). Basic Needs Theory (BNT) is the fourth subcompo-
nent comprising SDT, and is concerned with the role of compe-
tence, autonomy, and relatedness needs in relation to motivation
and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to provide a broad overview of the
research examining SDT as a guiding framework for understand-
ing exercise motivation. To address this purpose, evidence is
summarised that addresses key questions drawn from the SDT
framework. Future directions are offered based on the available
evidence as plausible areas worthy of additional inquiry to further
our understanding of how basic SDT principles can be used to
understand exercise participation.
Applications of Self-Determination Theory to Exercise
Science Research
The approach to understanding human motivation and develop-
ment provided within SDT offers a macrolevel framework for
addressing a number of important questions pertaining to exercise
participation. SDT holds considerable appeal as an approach for
understanding both initiation and persistence issues in exercise
given that the theory specifies both the nature and function of
motivation, as well as, the sociocontextual conditions that foster
(or forestall) motivational development and well-being. The SDT
approach provides considerable flexibility for understanding pat-
terns of exercise behaviour, well-being outcomes associated with
exercise participation, and intrapersonal (e.g., basic psychological
needs) and interpersonal (e.g., autonomy supportive contexts) fac-
tors which promote more adaptive (or self-determined) motives for
exercise. The following section provides an omnibus summary of
the evidence attesting to a number of key questions integral to
understanding exercise behaviour.
Does the Quality of Motivation Regulating Exercise
Behaviour “Matter”?
One substantive question stemming from applications of SDT to
the study of exercise behaviour concerns the motivation-
consequence link specified within OIT (see Markland & Ingledew,
2007, for a review). Initial research in this area centred on the
development of instruments to assess exercise motivation consis-
tent with SDT. Building upon early instrument development re-
search (Ryan, Frederick, Lepes, Rubio, & Sheldon, 1997), Mark-
land and colleagues created the Behavioural Regulation in
Exercise Questionnaire (BREQ; Mullan, Markland, & Ingledew,
1997) and subsequent modification (BREQ-2; Markland & Tobin,
2004). The BREQ assesses three extrinsic motives (external, in-
trojected, identified regulations) for exercise plus intrinsic regula-
tion whereas the BREQ-2 includes an assessment of amotivation.
Recent attempts to assess integrated regulation for exercise have
been forthcoming and do not appear to compromise the validity of
responses to the BREQ (Wilson, Rodgers, Loitz, & Scime, 2006).
A complimentary line of research examining the behavioural
and well-being consequences associated with different exercise
motives has emerged in conjunction with instrument development
initiatives. Cross-sectional studies have supported the tenability of
SDT’s differentiated approach given that more self-determined
exercise motives irrespective of their intrinsic or extrinsic origin
predict actual and intended behavioural frequency (Wilson &
Rodgers, 2004; Wilson, Rodgers, Fraser, & Murray, 2004), as well
as, markers of behavioural change for exercise (Daley & Duda,
251
SPECIAL ISSUE: MOTIVATION AND EXERCISE

2006; Landry & Solmon, 2004; Mullan & Markland, 1997). It is
particularly interesting to note that evidence from these studies
implies that self-determined extrinsic motives (particularly identi-
fied regulation) may be as important as intrinsic regulation in
terms of understanding patterns of behavioural variation in exer-
cise. Such observations are wholly consistent with Ryan’s (1995)
assertion that well-internalised extrinsic motives can be as useful
for behavioural regulation as intrinsic motives when the target
behaviour may not be inherently self-rewarding. An isolated num-
ber of studies, however, have also reported that introjected regu-
lation is associated with more frequent exercise participation
(Thøgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006) with one investigation
noting this effect for women only (Wilson et al., 2004). Compli-
menting this line of inquiry, additional studies have demonstrated
initial support for links between more self-determined exercise
motives (particularly intrinsic regulation) and markers of well-
being such as enhanced physical self-worth (Thøgersen-Ntoumani
& Ntoumanis, 2007) and positive affect experienced globally
across life (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2007). Taken collec-
tively these observations raise interesting questions about the
divergent influences stemming from identified and intrinsic regu-
lations in terms of motivating persistent exercise behaviour as
opposed to nurturing psychological well-being that seem worthy of
further empirical attention (Burton, Lydon, D’Alessandro, &
Koestner, 2006).
Although the lion’s share of research concerning the motivation-
consequence link in exercise has focussed largely on the OIT’s
regulatory continuum, a recent line of inquiry initiated by Van-
steenkiste and colleagues has examined the motivational role of
goal contents within exercise (Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Lens,
2007). Goal contents represent the aspirations people focus on
during their pursuits (i.e., “what” goals are pursued; Deci & Ryan,
2002) whereas motives represent the reasons for pursuing such
aspirations (i.e., “why” goals are pursued; Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Initial research indicated that holding intrinsic (e.g., health) as
opposed to extrinsic (e.g., attractiveness) goals were associated
with adaptive consequences including sustained exercise behav-
iour (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, & Lens, 2004). Subsequent
studies have identified basic psychological needs and cognitive
mechanisms (e.g., rigidity) as mediators transmitting goal con-
tents’ influence on performance and well-being (Vansteenkiste et
al., 2007). Clearly, this line of research suggests the types of goals
exercisers pursue are worthy of as much attention as the reasons
for exercising in terms of understanding the motivational dynamics
impacting initiation and persistence decisions.
How Important Are Basic Psychological Needs Within
Exercise Contexts?
Another unique aspect of the SDT approach to understanding
exercise behaviour concerns the role afforded fulfilling basic psy-
chological needs. According to Deci and Ryan (2002), basic psy-
chological needs represent innate “nutriments” (p. 7) that when
satisfied authentically within social contexts promote integration,
adaptation, and directly impact well-being. In contrast, environ-
ments that stifle opportunities to satisfy basic psychological needs
provoke ill-being (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The basic psychological
needs for competence (effectively mastering challenging tasks
within one’s environment; Deci & Ryan, 2002), autonomy (feeling
a sense of ownership over one’s behaviours such that they stem
from an internal perceived locus of causality; Deci & Ryan, 2002),
and relatedness (feeling a meaningful connexion with others in
one’s social milieu; Deci & Ryan, 2002) have long been advocated
within the SDT framework as fundamental to human development
and well-being.
Much of the early work exploring the importance of basic
psychological needs in exercise settings was conducted using CET
as an organising framework. CET is concerned with the factors
that facilitate (or impede) the development of intrinsic motivation
(Deci & Ryan, 2002). Four propositions were set forth within CET
by Deci and Ryan (1985). The first proposition describes the
effects of perceived autonomy (Proposition I) and competence
(Proposition II) suggesting that satisfying both needs will result in
greater intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Additional prop-
ositions concern the functional significance ascribed to external
(Proposition III) and intrapersonal (Proposition IV) events that
vary in terms of their informational, controlling, or amotivating
nature (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
2
In brief, events interpreted as infor-
mational rather than controlling or amotivating, promote greater
endorsement of intrinsic motivation via the fulfillment of auton-
omy and competence needs (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Initial studies embracing CET in exercise focussed on the ef-
fects of feedback and perceived competence on intrinsic motiva-
tion using physical fitness testing in youth (Whitehead & Corbin,
1991) and young adults (Vallerand & Reid, 1984). Employing
randomised experimental designs, intrinsic motivation was en-
hanced by positive reinforcement and undermined by negative
reinforcement with additional evidence supporting the mediating
effect of perceived competence on the feedback-intrinsic motiva-
tion relationship (Vallerand & Reid, 1984; Whitehead & Corbin,
1991). Subsequent studies by Markland extended this initial work
by illustrating the mediating effects of perceived autonomy on the
perceived competence-intrinsic motivation relationship (Markland
& Hardy, 1997). An additional investigation of female exercisers,
however, indicated that variation in perceived competence only
influenced intrinsic motivation when women did not feel that their
need for autonomy was being satisfied in exercise (Markland,
1999). These observations illustrate the synergistic role of compe-
tence and autonomy needs in terms of facilitating intrinsic moti-
vation toward exercise postulated within CET (Propositions I and
II) and serve as a useful platform for launching further research
examining the conditions that optimise intrinsic motivation for
exercise.
The focus of recent SDT research in exercise has emerged from
Deci and Ryan’s (2002) contentions pertaining to the role afforded
satisfying basic psychological needs proposed within BNT. Early
studies focusing on the satisfaction of basic psychological needs
typically assessed one SDT-based psychological need and pro-
vided mixed evidence regarding the importance of psychological
need satisfaction in exercise (e.g., McCready & Long, 1985). A
second phase of research instigated the development of instrumen-
tation focussed around the assessment of the psychological needs
advocated by Deci and Ryan (2002) or adapting instruments from
2
Proposition II implies an interactive effect between competence and
autonomy perceptions that has been explored and partially supported in
Markland’s (1999) work.
252 WILSON, MACK, AND GRATTAN

other domains to assess all three psychological needs within ex-
ercise (e.g., Wilson et al., 2003). One conclusion emanating from
this second phase concerned the lack of systematic instrument
development research conducted to assess BNT’s constructs spe-
cific to exercise settings. Two instruments have subsequently been
developed to capture variation in perceived competence, auton-
omy, and relatedness experienced when exercising (Vlachopoulos
& Michailidou, 2006; Wilson, Rogers, Rodgers, & Wild, 2006) in
a manner consistent with BNT.
Aside from the focus on instrumentation, research using BNT
has revealed a number of important findings. Cross-sectional stud-
ies of various exercisers imply that psychological need fulfillment
is associated with more self-determined exercise motives (McDon-
ough & Crocker, 2007; Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006; Wil-
son, Mack, Muon, & LeBlanc, 2007) although two studies note
that perceived relatedness is linked with controlling regulations for
exercise (Peddle, Plotnikoff, Wild, Au, & Courneya, 2007; Wilson
et al., 2007). Additional studies have linked fulfillment of psycho-
logical needs through exercise with well-being indices (Edmunds
et al., 2007) despite contributions from other “candidate” psycho-
logical needs (Wilson, Rodgers, Murray, Longley, & Muon, 2006)
and report small effects when predicting exercise participation
with perceived competence accounting for the majority of behav-
ioural variance (Edmunds et al., 2007; Peddle et al., 2007). Lon-
gitudinal studies support the premise that fulfillment of compe-
tence, autonomy, and relatedness needs within exercise is dynamic
(Edmunds et al., 2007; Wilson, Rodgers, Blanchard, & Gessell,
2003), and note that observed changes in psychological need
fulfillment predict well-being in exercisers consistent with SDT
(Edmunds et al., 2007). Few attempts, however, have been made to
disentangle the effects of sustained exercise behaviour on percep-
tions of psychological need satisfaction or capture the importance
of satisfying each psychological need central to BNT via exercise
to hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being (Wilson et al., 2006).
Can Contextual Variables Be Manipulated to Create
Adaptive Environments for Exercise?
One attractive feature of any theory concerns the practical
recommendations conferred for motivating behavioural change
within a given context such as exercise. In this vein, advocates of
SDT have long extolled the virtues of creating “adaptive” envi-
ronments via providing sociocontextual supports that promote the
fulfillment of basic needs, facilitate more self-determined regula-
tion of behaviour, and contribute to overall feelings of eudaimonic
well-being and health (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Edmunds, Ntoumanis,
& Duda, 2008). Three specific dimensions of the social environ-
ment have been forwarded within the SDT framework as catalysts
of behavioural change for practitioners to consider. Autonomy
support is the most studied sociocontextual component of the SDT
framework in exercise settings and refers to authority figures
listening with empathy, providing meaningful rationales for
change without pressuring compliance, offering choice, and ac-
knowledging that behavioural change is demanding and challeng-
ing from the participants perspective (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Struc-
ture and involvement are complimentary sociocontextual
components of the SDT framework that have received substan-
tially less research attention in applications of the theory to exer-
cise. Authority figures that provide unambiguous yet realistic
feedback regarding behaviour-outcome contingencies (i.e., struc-
ture) whilst engaging with individuals authentically in terms of
supporting their well-being (i.e., involvement) are more likely to
foster adaptive motivational resources than forestall the satisfac-
tion of basic psychological needs or encourage controlling forms
of behavioural regulation.
In comparison to other aspects of the SDT framework, the
research focus on manipulating sociocontextual variables within
the framework forwarded by Deci and Ryan (2002) has been
limited. A handful of studies have examined the importance of
perceived autonomy support for exercise in adults with equivocal
results. For example, cross sectional studies have indicated that
exercisers who report more autonomy support from friends (Wil-
son & Rodgers, 2004) or exercise class leaders (Edmunds, Ntou-
manis, & Duda, 2006) display a profile of more self-determined
regulation for exercise participation. Conversely, longitudinal
studies employing multilevel modeling analyses indicated that
perceived autonomy support from exercise advisors within a
physician-based referral scheme (Edmunds et al., 2007) and exer-
cise class leaders (Edmunds et al., 2008) show no meaningful
relationship with the basic needs theorized to be linked with
adaptive sociocontextual supports within SDT (Deci & Ryan,
2002). Given this mixed albeit limited evidence base, it seems that
clarification of the role played by, and sources of, perceived
autonomy support remains an important research initiative to con-
sider within future applications of SDT to exercise.
Complimenting this line of research has been a handful of
studies that have attempted to assess one (Vansteenkiste et al.,
2004) or more (Edmunds et al., 2008) aspects of the socioenvi-
ronmental context housed within SDT using more sophisticated
experimental designs. Extrapolating from Thompson and
Wankel’s (1980) initial work, recent studies have examined the
tenets of SDT by focusing their efforts on intervention effects
stemming from manipulating autonomy supportive versus control-
ling interpersonal styles largely within structured exercise contexts
(Edmunds et al., 2008; Levy & Cardinal, 2004; Vansteenkiste et
al., 2004). Consistent with studies that have examined the predic-
tive effects of autonomy support alone in exercise, the results of
these investigations provided mixed support for SDT-based prop-
ositions. Specifically, Levy and Cardinal (2004) demonstrated that
the use of an SDT-based intervention (i.e., mail-based pamphlet)
compared with an informational approach did not elicit meaningful
differences in exercise behaviour across a 2-month period. In
contrast, Vansteenkiste et al. (2004) provide compelling evidence
supporting the use of autonomy supportive interpersonal styles (as
opposed to controlling styles) when teaching novel exercises in
young students which was linked with greater effort expended,
more self-determined regulation, greater persistence behaviour
across 4-months, and future enrolment in exercise-related clubs.
Only one study by Edmunds et al. (2008) has used an experimental
design to investigate changes in autonomy support,structure, and
involvement alongside other motivational processes and conse-
quences proposed within the SDT framework as a result of varying
instructional style in group based exercise classes. Edmunds et al.
(2008) reported that females exposed to an instructional style
based on SDT principles reported linear increases in structure and
involvement, relatedness and competence need fulfillment, positive
affect, and greater adherence to a 10-week programme of struc-
tured exercise.
253
SPECIAL ISSUE: MOTIVATION AND EXERCISE

Future Considerations for Advancing Self-Determination
Theory Research in Exercise Science
The surge of interest amongst exercise scientists in SDT over
the last decade is not surprising given the importance of physical
activities such as exercise to longevity and well-being in conjunc-
tion with the prevalence of sedentary lifestyles evident in
population-health reports (Gilmour, 2007). Although research em-
bracing SDT in exercise science is limited in scope and quality
compared to applications of the theory in other life domains, the
available data are largely in line with many of Deci and Ryan’s
(2002) assertions. Consequently, SDT offers a foundation for
examining a range of motivational phenomena integral to under-
standing exercise behaviour. Given that applied domains such as
exercise provide fruitful grounds for testing and refining SDT
(Ryan, 1995), a number of areas could benefit from careful atten-
tion in future applications of SDT to unravel the challenges inher-
ent in understanding exercise motivation.
The first area worthy of sustained attention concerns unresolved
conceptual and measurement issues within the exercise science
literature that stem directly from applications of SDT to the study
of motivated behaviour. For example, there is limited evidence
attesting to the merits of “inner resources” (p. 21) proposed by
Deci and Ryan (2002) within COT for understanding exercise
motivation, the utility of OIT’s integrated regulation for sustaining
or changing exercise behaviour, the contributions of each basic
psychological need proposed within BNT to markers of eudai-
monic well-being, and the unique contribution of exercise com-
pared with other life contexts to the functional significance of
external or interpersonal events articulated within CET. Attempts
to advance our understanding in these areas should proceed with
careful attention to measurement issues that can plague theoretical
development (Messick, 1995). Limited evidence is available, for
example, concerning the merits of new instruments designed to
assess fulfillment of competence, autonomy, and relatedness needs
via exercise (Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006; Wilson et al.,
2006). Considering the importance of understanding the role
played by basic psychological needs to the evidence-base concern-
ing SDT, it would seem prudent for exercise scientists to continue
to develop programmes of research that inform the development of
theory through application of sound measurement principles using
a construct validation approach (Messick, 1995).
A second area worthy of further inquiry concerns practical
questions arising from professionals interested in changing or
sustaining exercise participation in diverse settings (e.g., rehabil-
itation, worksite health promotion, etc.). For example, it seems
reasonable for a health professional to ponder: “What is the best
way to motivate initial and sustained exercise participation in a
sedentary client?” Progress toward addressing this question could
benefit from exercise scientists affording greater attention to sam-
pling and design considerations in future studies. Research in other
life domains has moved beyond the convenience sampling tech-
niques commonly found in the exercise science literature toward
utilising more sophisticated longitudinal designs and accompany-
ing data analytic techniques to elucidate temporal changes in
motivational process that could inform such an interesting practi-
cal question. Increased attention to the use of longitudinal designs
(Edmunds et al., 2007; Wilson et al., 2003), intervention-based
research (Levy & Cardinal, 2004), and the application of multi-
level modeling to assess the direction and magnitude of change in
motivational processes across time (Edmunds et al., 2008) have
been forthcoming and represent important first steps to addressing
practical questions of importance to health promoters. Future work
examining the processes of change experienced by initiates as they
incorporate exercise into their daily lifestyle would prove useful in
this area and take us closer to understanding the integral role
played by SDT-based constructs.
A final area ripe for additional inquiry concerns aligning SDT
with other conceptual and theoretical models prominent in the
exercise motivation literature in programmes of research designed
to synthesise the knowledge-base concerning exercise motivation.
Emerging lines of research have integrated SDT with stages of
behavioural change from the Transtheoretical Model (Mullan &
Markland, 1997), beliefs and intentions form the Theory of
Planned Behaviour (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2007), and goal
orientations from Achievement Goal Theory (Wang & Biddle,
2007). Such hybrid approaches hold considerable potential for
moulding our understanding of motivated behaviour in exercise
settings and offer grounds for further theoretical refinement within
the SDT-approach using inductive evidence. Future research
would do well to clearly justify the amalgamation of SDT with
other theoretical frameworks to prevent obfuscating the literature
in this area.
Conclusion
A growing body of research has embraced the perspective
advocated by Deci and Ryan (1985, 2002) within SDT for
examining issues pertaining to motivated behaviour in exercise.
It appears that the available evidence suggests that greater
interest was focussed initially on CET and more recently on
OIT and BNT with less empirical attention afforded the COT
subcomponent of SDT. Ryan (1995) articulated that testing
claims put forth under the rubric of SDT in applied domains
such as exercise represent fertile ground for refining the theory
and hold considerable potential for addressing social problems.
Scholars interested in the promotion of exercise as an important
component of health-enhancing physical activity have em-
braced Ryan’s (1995) dictum with fervour and the mosaic of
evidence evaluating SDT-based claims is largely supportive of
Deci and Ryan’s (2002) contentions. The motivational dynam-
ics of exercise initiation and persistence pose a considerable
public health challenge in many countries including Canada
(Gilmour, 2007). It seems reasonable to suggest at this stage
that SDT represents one viable platform from which a broad
array of initiation and adherence issues within exercise can be
understood and as such the future of SDT as a framework for
investigating exercise motivation appears promising.
Re´sume´
La compre´hension des facteurs qui motivent l’activite´ physique
favorisant la sante´ a beaucoup de me´rite si l’on tient compte du
roˆle que joue ce genre de mode de vie dans la lutte contre la
maladie et la promotion d’une certaine qualite´ de vie. L’objectif de
la pre´sente communication consiste a` fournir un aperc¸u de la
recherche portant sur les questions de participation a` une activite´
d’exercice du point de vue de la the´orie de l’autode´termination
254 WILSON, MACK, AND GRATTAN

(The´orie de l’autode´termination; Deci et Ryan, 2002). Les e´le´-
ments de preuve soutenant l’application de la the´orie de
l’autode´termination a` l’e´ tude des facteurs motivationnels a` l’e´gard
de l’exercice de´coulent de trois questions principales: a) La qualite´
de la motivation qui dirige le comportement face a` l’exercice
a-t-elle de l’importance? b) Dans quelle mesure les besoins psy-
chologiques fondamentaux en contexte d’exercice comptent-ils? c)
Les variables contextuelles peuvent-elles eˆtre manipule´esenvue
de cre´er des environnements adapte´s a` l’exercice? Les donne´es
disponibles appuient bon nombre des propositions invoque´es dans
la the´orie de l’autode´termination de Deci et Ryan (2002). Sont
propose´s d’autres sujets utiles a` la recherche qui porte sur la
motivation a` faire de l’exercice en fonction des preuves a` l’appui
en vue d’aborder les proble`mes non re´solus et de contribuer au
de´veloppement de la the´orie de l’autode´termination.
Mots-cle´s:comportement a` l’e´gard de l’exercice, motivation,
besoins psychologiques fondamentaux, inte´gration organismique
References
Acevedo, E. O., & Ekkekakis, P. (2006). Psychobiology of physical activ-
ity. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Bouchard, C., Blair, S. N., & Haskell, W. L. (2007). Physical activity and
health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006).
The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-
being and performance: Prospective, experimental and implicit ap-
proaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 750 –762.
Colcombe, S., Erickson, K. I., Raz, N., Webb, A. G., Cohen, N. J.,
McAuley, E., et al. (2003). Aerobic fitness reduces brain tissue loss in
aging humans. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, 58A, M176 –
M180.
Daley, A. J., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Self-determination, stage of readiness
to change for exercise, and frequency of physical activity in young
people. European Journal of Sport Sciences, 6, 231–243.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press Publishing
Co.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination
research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). A test of self-
determination theory in exercise domain. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 2240 –2265.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Testing a self-
determination theory-based teaching style intervention in the exercise
domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 375–388.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. D. (2007). Understanding
exercise adherence and psychological well-being from a self-
determination theory perspective among a cohort of obese patients
referred to an exercise on prescription scheme. Psychology of Sport &
Exercise, 8, 722–740.
Fox, K. R. (2002). Self-perceptions and sport behaviour. In T. Horn (Ed.),
Advances in sport psychology (2nd ed., pp. 83–99). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Fox, K. R., Stathi, A., McKenna, J., & Davis, M. G. (2006). Physical
activity and mental well-being in older people participating in the Better
Ageing Project. European Journal of Applied Physiology, 100, 591–
602.
Gilmour, H. (2007). Physically active Canadians. Health Reports, 18,
45– 66.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2007). Intrinsic motivation and
self-determination in exercise and sport. Champaign, IL: Human Kinet-
ics.
Katzmarzyk, P. T. (2006). Physical inactivity and life expectancy in
Canada. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3, 381–389.
Katzmarzyk, P. T., & Janssen, I. (2004). The economic costs associated
with physical inactivity and obesity in Canada: An update. Canadian
Journal of Applied Physiology, 29, 90 –115.
Kraus, H., & Raab, W. (1961). Hypokinetic disease: Diseases caused by
lack of exercise. Springfield, IL: Thomas Publisher.
Landry, J. B., & Solmon, M. A. (2004). African American women’s
self-determination across the stages of change for exercise. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 457– 469.
Levy, S. S., & Cardinal, B. J. (2004). Effects of an self-determination
theory-based mail-mediated intervention on adult’s exercise behavior.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 18, 345–348.
Markland, D. (1999). Self-determination moderates the effects of perceived
competence in intrinsic motivation in an exercise setting. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 21, 351–361.
Markland, D., & Hardy, L. (1997). On the factorial and construct validity
of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory: Conceptual and operational con-
cerns. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 60, 48 –58.
Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (2007). Exercise participation motives: A
self-determination theory perspective. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D.
Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in ex-
ercise and sport (pp. 23–34). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the Behavioural
Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire to include an assessment of amo-
tivation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 191–196.
McCready, M. L., & Long, B. C. (1985). Locus of control, attitudes
towards physical activity, and exercise adherence. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 7, 346 –359.
McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2007). Testing self-determined
motivation as a mediator of the relationship between psychological
needs and affective and behavioural outcomes. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 29, 645– 663.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of
inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific in-
quiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
Mullan, E., & Markland, D. (1997). Variations in self-determination across
the stages of change for exercise in adults. Motivation & Emotion, 21,
349 –362.
Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded conceptu-
alisation of self-determination in the regulation of exercise behaviour:
Development of a measure using confirmatory factor analytic proce-
dures. Personality & Individual Differences, 23, 745–752.
Peddle, C. J., Plotnikoff, R. C., Wild, T. C., Au, H. J., & Courneya, K. S.
(2007). Medical, demographic, and psychosical correlates of exercise in
colorectal cancer survivors: An application of self-determination theory.
Supportive Care in Cancer, 16, 9 –17. Retrieved December 5, 2007,
from http://www.springerlink.com/content/lp066781u9530570/fulltext.
pdf.
Pelletier, L. C., & Sarrazin, P. (2007). Measurement issues in self-
determination theory and sport. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisaran-
tis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and
sport (pp. 143–152). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative
processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397– 428.
Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K. M.
(1997). Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Jour-
nal of Sport Psychology, 28, 335–354.
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). The role of self-
255
SPECIAL ISSUE: MOTIVATION AND EXERCISE

determined motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behav-
iours, cognitions and physical self-evaluations. Journal of Sports Sci-
ences, 24, 393– 404.
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). A Self-Determination
Theory approach to the study of body image concerns, self-presentation
and self-perceptions in a sample of aerobic instructors. Journal of Health
Psychology, 12, 301–315.
Thompson, C. E., & Wankel. L. M. (1980). The effect of perceived activity
choice on frequency of exercise behaviour. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 10, 436 – 443.
Vallerand, R. J. (2007). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation for sport and physical activity. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D.
Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in ex-
ercise and sport (pp. 255–280). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On the casual effects of perceived
competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation
theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 94 –102.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2004). How to
become a persevering exerciser? Providing a clear, future intrinsic goal
in an autonomy supportive way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychol-
ogy, 26, 232–249.
Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2007). Intrinsic versus
extrinsic goal promotion in exercise and sport: Understanding the dif-
ferential impacts on performance and persistence. In M. S. Hagger &
N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in exercise and sport (pp. 167–180). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial
validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in
exercise: The basic psychological needs in exercise scale. Measurement
in Physical Education & Exercise Science, 103, 179 –201.
Wang, C. K. J., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2007). Understanding young people’s
motivation towards exercise: An integration of sport ability beliefs,
achievement goals, and self-determination theory. In M. S. Hagger &
N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in exercise and sport (pp. 193–208). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Whitehead, J. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1991). Youth fitness testing: The effect
of percentile based evaluative feedback on intrinsically-motivated be-
havior. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 4, 443– 446.
Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., Muon, S., & LeBlanc, M. E. (2007). What role
does psychological need satisfaction play in motivating exercise partic-
ipation? In L. A. Chiang (Ed.), Motivation for exercise and physical
activity (pp. 35–52). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.
Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2004). The relationship between
perceived autonomy support, exercise regulations and behavioural in-
tentions in women. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 5, 229 –242.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Blanchard, C. M., & Gessell, J. G. (2003).
The relationships between psychological needs, self-determined moti-
vation, exercise attitudes, and physical fitness. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 2373–2392.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Fraser, S. N., & Murray, T. C. (2004). The
relationship between exercise regulations and motivational conse-
quences. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 75, 81–91.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Loitz, C. C., & Scime, G. (2006). “It’s
Who I Am. Really!” The importance of integrated regulation in exercise
contexts. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 11, 79 –104.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Murray, T. C., Longley, K., & Muon, S.
(2006). Examining the contributions of perceived psychological need
satisfaction to well-being in exercise. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral
Research, 11, 243–264.
Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. T., Rodgers, W. M., & Wild, T. C. (2006). The
Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 28, 231–251.
Received December 11, 2007
Revision received April 21, 2008
Accepted April 22, 2008 䡲
256 WILSON, MACK, AND GRATTAN