Effect of goal setting on motivation and adherence in a six-week exercise program.

The physiological (Blair, Cheng, & Holder, 2001) and psychological (Biddle, Fox, & Boutcher, 2000) benefits of regular physical activity are widely recognized (Nieman, 1998). However, recent research has shown that over 50% of individuals who take part in a fitness program will drop out after the first six months (Berger, Pargman, & Weinberg, 2002; Matsumoto & Tekenaka, 2004). Phillips, Schnider, and Mercer (2004) suggested that primary reasons given by exercisers for dropping out of an exercise program were (a) failure, (b) lack of improvement, and (c) changes in motivation. Goal setting is a common tool within organizational/industrial/sport settings to enhance motivation (Locke & Latham, 1985). The aim of the current study was to utilize a goal-setting intervention to examine the impact upon motivation for, and adherence to, a six-week exercise program. This research was underpinned by Self-Determination Theory (Deci, 1975, Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002).

Self-Determination Theory (SDT, Deci, 1975, Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002) is a sub-theory of Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET; Deci & Ryan, 1985) and predicts that events that enhance self-determination and competence will facilitate intrinsic motivation. SDT forecasts that exercisers seek certain goals through their exercise involvement, and these goals are fuelled by three needs: competence (to interact efficiently with the environment), autonomy (desire to be self-initiating), and relatedness (to feel connected to significant others). The theory holds that opportunities that satisfy exercisers' needs, and consequent goals, will facilitate intrinsic motivation (Markland, 1999).

Goals defined within an SDT framework were originally conceptualized as intrinsic and extrinsic (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996). Intrinsic goals (inward orientation) focus on community contribution, self-development and self-acceptance, affiliation, and physical health. Intrinsic goal pursuit is suggested to satisfy individual's basic needs (Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996; Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). Extrinsic goals (outward orientation) focus on social recognition, image and attractiveness, financial success, and power. Vansteenkiste, Soenens, and Lens (2007) proposed that pursuit of extrinsic goals tend to be contrary to the satisfaction of the three basic needs.

Vansteenkiste et al. (2004a) randomly assigned school students to an intrinsic or extrinsic goal condition to learn a new sport. Results indicated that intrinsic goal framing promoted graded performance and persistence compared to extrinsic goal framing. Other research has demonstrated that extrinsic goal framing is better than not referring to any goal (Eccles & Wignfield, 2002; Feather, 1992). However, Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, and Lens (2004b) suggested that, on the basis of SDT, focusing on extrinsic goals may distract participants' attention from the exercise activity (i.e., disrupt a process focus). In an exercise context, it appears that having an intrinsic goal or an inward orientation (i.e., process focus) may facilitate levels of intrinsic motivation toward physical activity. The current study aimed to test this assumption.

Intrinsic motivation was measured bythe Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989), which is based conceptually on CET (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The IMI is comprised of five subscales: (1) perceived competence, (2) effort/importance, (3) interest/enjoyment, (4) perceived choice, and (5) pressure/tension. Markland and Hardy (1997) argued that perceived competence should not be included in any measure of intrinsic motivation as CET predicts that perceived competence is an antecedent of intrinsic motivation. Along similar lines, Vallerand and Fortier (1998) argued that, as effort is a consequence of having high levels of intrinsic motivation (Duda, Likang, & Seifriz, 1992; Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000; Lens, Simons, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, 2004), effort should also be removed from any measure of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, for the purposes of this study and conceptually aligned with CET/SDT, the authors included interest/enjoyment (positive indicator), perceived choice (positive indicator), and pressure/tension (negative indicator) as variables that signify intrinsic motivation.

In terms of research focused on motivation and exercise-related behavior, Ingledew, Markland and Medley (1998) found that enjoyment was important for progression to regular exercise patterns. Ryan, Frederick, Lepes, Rubio, and Sheldon's (1997) research findings indicated that adherence to an exercise program was associated with enjoyment as opposed to body appearance motives.

Thompson and Wankel (1980) examined the role of perceived choice in a fitness setting, with female participants being assigned to a choice (activity preferences considered in the design of fitness plan) or no-choice (activity preferences not considered in the design of fitness plan) condition. Adherence in the choice group was significantly higher than adherence in the no-choice group over a six-week period. Wilson and Rodgers (2002) examined the relationship between perceived choice (autonomy) and physical self-esteem with female exercisers. The results of Wilson and Rogers showed that autonomously regulated exercise motivations (i.e., intrinsic motivation) discriminated between those with high and low physical self-esteem, whereas controlling exercise regulations (i.e., extrinsic motivation) did not.

Cross-sectional research has indicated that positive relationships exist between intrinsic motivation and exercise behavior/cognitions. Research by Mullan and Markland (1997) showed that individuals who reported that they exercised infrequently had significantly lower scores on intrinsic motivation compared to individuals who indicated that they exercised regularly. Ntoumanis and Thogersen-Ntoumanis' (2006) findings indicated that self-determined motivation predicted more adaptive behavioral, cognitive, and physical self-evaluation exercise patterns than did extrinsic motivation. However, there is limited intervention based research examining the mechanisms (i.e., goal setting) that might influence the motivation-exercise behavior relationship.

Within the goal setting literature, Hardy and Nelson (1988) distinguished three different types of goals. Outcome goals focus on the end point of an event; for example, an exerciser may want to lose eight kilograms in weight. Performance goals specify end products of performance but are usually expressed in terms of personal achievement; for example, the same exerciser may want to exercise aerobically for 30-40 minutes three times per week. Process goals specify the processes in which the individual wants to engage to perform satisfactorily (however that is defined); for example, the same exerciser may want to keep his heart rate above 140 beats per minutes for 20 minutes of each exercise session.

Albright, Thompson, and Hultquist (2005) utilized a goal-setting intervention to examine adherence and performance in 58 sedentary women. Results showed the "specific goal" group (10,000 steps per day) had significantly greater daily step count and significantly greater adherence to achieving their daily step count compared to the "vague goal" group (30 minutes walking most days of the week). However, a major limitation of this research was the lack of a control group. Interestingly, Cohen et al. (1984) found that self-set distal (six-week) goals produced better attendance and better three month maintenance to an exercise program than did instructor-set proximal (weekly) goals. When highlighting self-regulatory skills to maintain exercise behaviors, Biddle (1995) suggested that when the primary objective is adherence to exercise, it may be better to focus on the behavior itself via process goals. Biddle hypothesized that process goals that focus the exerciser's attention to the behavior itself, rather than the outcomes of that behavior, are more likely to stimulate adherence to that behavior. Aligned with Biddle s hypothesis, Field and Steinhardt's (1992) findings indicated that exercisers who focus on the process, as opposed to the outcome, are more likely to engage in long-term adherence to exercise.

The aim of this research was to examine the influence of process goals and outcome goals on the motivation and adherence of individuals engaged in a six-week exercise program. We hypothesized that: (a) exercisers in the process goal group will have higher levels of intrinsic motivation and adherence than exercisers in the outcome goal and control groups, (b) exercisers in the process goal group will have lower levels of pressure/tension than exercisers in the outcome goal group, and (c) exercisers in the outcome goal group will have high levels of intrinsic motivation and pressure/tension than exercisers in the control group.

METHOD

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty recreational exercisers (33 Males and 27 Females) volunteered to participate in the six-week exercise program. Fifteen participants were assigned to the process goal (PG) group (seven males, M age = 40.3 years, SD age =11 years; eight Females, M age = 31.1 years, SD age = 10.7 years), 15 to the outcome goal (OG) group (four males, M age = 38.2 years, SD age = 15.2 years; 11 Females, M age = 35.6 years, SD age = 10.4 years), and 30 to the control (C) group (22 Males, M age = 36.7 years, SD age = 11.2 years; eight Females, M age = 35.1 years, SD age = 12.1 years). All participants had previous exercise experience.

MEASURES

Motivation. The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; McAuley et al., 1989) was utilized to measure motivation. The 30-item measure assesses five motivation variables (six items each): interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance, pressure/tension, and perceived choice. Pressure/tension is used as a negative indicator, and the other four subscales are positive indicators of intrinsic motivation. Participants indicated on a 7-point Likert scale to what degree they found each statement to be true about them (1 = not at all true; 7 = very true). McAuley et al. (1989) reported that all subscales had acceptable internal consistency (.68 to .87). As indicated in the introduction, only interest/ enjoyment, perceived choice, and pressure/tension subscale were utilized.

Adherence. The American College of Sports Medicine (1990) suggested that the minimum aerobic exercise training program needed to bring about significant physiological benefits consists of three to five sessions per week at an intensity of 60-75% V02 max for longer than 20 minutes. To gain 100% adherence to the program, participants would need to attend the fitness center and complete their program at least three times per week (18 times over the six-week program). Adherence was assessed at three and six months after completion of the six-week program. Participant attendance at the fitness club was monitored over the six week intervention period (100% adherence = 18 sessions), at three months (100% adherence = 36 sessions) and at six months (100% adherence = 72 sessions). This was monitored via the fitness club's card swipe system (used to gain access to the club).

PROCEDURES

A notice was posted, informing members of a private health and leisure facility of the opportunity to volunteer for a six-week exercise program as part of a research project. Volunteers contacted the second author to express an interest in the project, were informed of the nature of the study, and signed a consent form. All participants were screened for any medical indications that may prevent them from taking full part in the project. Participants then completed the IMI (McAuley et al., 1989) and were randomly allocated to the PG, OG, or C group. Process goals related to the exercise program they were working on were set with participants in the PG group (e.g., "maintain your heart rate above 140 beats per minute for 30 minutes of your 40 minute session;" "drive with the legs on the rowing ergometer"). The nature of the process goals were decided after a one-on-one discussion between the participant and exercise leader (second author). The participant's process goals were re-evaluated on a weekly basis by the exercise leader. Outcome goal were set with participants in the OG group (e.g., lose four kilograms in six weeks) related to the exercise program they were working on. The nature of the goal was decided after one-on-one discussion between the participant and exercise leader. The participants' achievement of their outcome goals was assessed at the end of week six. Participants in the C group completed the six-week program with no formal goal setting. After six weeks, all participants completed the IMI (McAuley et al., 1989). Participants in both the OG and C group were offered the opportunity to set process goals within their exercise program by the exercise leader post-intervention.

RESULTS

POSITIVE INDICATORS OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Scale reliabilities were above acceptable levels for interest/enjoyment (.78) and perceived choice (.80). A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was conducted to examine changes in intrinsic motivation variables from week one to week six between the three groups. Results are displayed in Table l. RM ANOVA results were significant for both intrinsic motivation variables with effect sizes moderate to large (Weiner et al., 1991).

Bonferroni post-hoc tests revealed that the PG group had significantly higher interest/enjoyment (p < .001) and perceived choice (p < .001) than the OG and C group. The OG group also had significantly higher interest/enjoyment (p < .001), than the C group. The OG group had significantly lower perceived choice (p < .001) than the C group.

NEGATIVE INDICATORS OF INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

The pressure/tension (.72) scale reached an acceptable level of reliability. Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was conducted to examine changes in the negative indicator of intrinsic motivation from week one to week six between the three groups. Results are displayed in Table 2. The RM ANOVA was significant for pressure/tension and the effect size was moderate (Weiner et al., 1991).

A Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed that the PG group had significantly lower pressure/tension (p < .001) than the OG and C group. The OG group had significantly higher pressure/tension (p < .001) than the C group.

ADHERENCE

An ANOVA was employed to examine participants adherence during the six-week intervention (18 sessions = 100%), three months after the intervention (36 sessions = 100%), and six months after the intervention (72 sessions = 100%). Results showed significant differences at week six [F (2, 59) = 15.81, p = .000], three months [F (2, 59) = 9.82, p = .000], and six months [F (2, 59) = 6.77, p = .002]. A Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed that, during the intervention, the process goal group (M = 92.22%) and the outcome goal group (M = 78.52%) had significantly greater adherence than the control group (M = 63.52%; p = .000 and .02 respectively). There were no significant differences between the process goal group and outcome goal groups adherence during the intervention. At three months post-intervention, the process goal group (M = 78.70%) had significantly greater adherence than the outcome goal group (M = 44.63%) and the control group (M = 43.52%; p = .002 and .000 respectively). There were no significant differences between the outcome and control groups adherence at three months. At six months post-intervention, the process goal group (M = 66.57%) had significantly greater adherence than the outcome goal group (M = 41.94%) and the control group (M = 36.11%; p = .04 and .002 respectively). Again, there were no significant differences between the outcome and control groups adherence at six months.

DISCUSSION

The aim of this research was to examine the influence of process and outcome goals on the motivation and adherence of individuals engaged in a six-week exercise program. In general, we predicted that process goals would have a positive influence on intrinsic motivation and adherence for the six-week exercise intervention compared to outcome goals and no goals. This hypothesis was based on suggestions by Biddle (1995), who stated that, when the primary objective is adherence to exercise, it may be better to focus on the behavior itself via process goals.

We hypothesized that exercisers in the process goal group would have higher levels of intrinsic motivation than exercisers in the outcome goal and control groups. For intrinsic motivation, results supported the hypothesis. For both intrinsic motivation variables (interest/enjoyment, perceived choice), the PG group scored significantly higher than both the OG and C groups. In line with Biddle's (1995) suggestion and results of Thompson and Wankel's (1980) research, it appears that focusing on the exercise behavior itself via process goals (e.g., "keep heart rate above 140 beats per minute for 20 minute of a 40 minute workout") elevates exercisers' intrinsic motivation compared to focusing on outcome goals (e.g., "to lose four kilograms in six weeks") or no goals at all.

In line with the hypothesis, exercisers in the process goal group had lower levels of pressure/tension than exercisers in the outcome goal group. Perhaps, focusing on the exercise behavior, as opposed to the outcome of the exercise, reduced the exercisers' perceptions that exercise is a means to an end. Setting process goals for exercisers may enable them to enjoy (as indicated by significantly higher levels of interest/enjoyment within the PG group compared to the OG and C groups) exercising in the present, as opposed to focusing on what exercise may do for them in the future.

We hypothesized that exercisers in the OG group would have higher levels of intrinsic motivation and pressure/tension than exercisers in the C group. Results showed partial support for the hypothesis. The OG group had significantly higher interest/enjoy ment but lower perceived choice than the C group. It appears that outcome goals may enhance exercisers' enjoyment but may reduce their perceptions of choice (autonomy; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). This is interesting because both the exercise leader and exerciser discussed and agreed upon the outcome goal to be achieved at the end of the six-week program (in line with the procedure employed with the PG group). One might expect those in the OG group to perceive that they had control over their goal because they were involved in setting the goal. Despite this, exercisers in the OG group still felt they had little perceived choice compared to those exercisers who had no explicit outcome goal (as part of this research project; see limitations section for further discussion). Perhaps focusing on the end point of the exercise reduced the exercisers' ability to perceive choice over what they are doing in the present.

With regards to pressure/tension, and in line with the hypothesis, the OG group had significantly higher pressure/tension compared to the control group. Focusing on the outcomes of the exercise behavior may have led exercisers in the OG group to feel like their locus of causality for their behavior was external, or outside of their control (low self-determination), resulting in higher levels of perceived pressure/tension (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000).

In line with SDT, it appears that having a process focus or an inward orientation does influence levels of self-determined motivation (i.e., intrinsic). Therefore, setting and focusing on process goals, as opposed to setting and focusing on outcome goals or no goals, facilitates the three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) in an exercise context. As the current study did not examine extrinsic goals, only outcome goals, the authors are limited when examining the role of extrinsic goals within SDT. Future research might investigate process goals that have both intrinsic (i.e., "drive with the legs on the rowing ergometer to increase personal fitness levels") and extrinsic qualities (i.e., "drive with the legs on the rowing ergometer to improve how I look to others") to test the influence of these types of goal on motivation within an SDT framework.

With regards to adherence, it was hypothesized that exercisers in the process goal group would have greater adherence than exercisers in the outcome goal or control group. In support of the hypothesis, results showed that during the intervention, the process goal group and the outcome goal group had significantly greater adherence than the control group. At three months post-intervention, the process goal group had significantly greater adherence than the outcome goal and control group. At six months post-intervention, the process goal group again had significantly greater adherence than the outcome goal and control group, despite not being directly instructed to continue setting process goals. These results clearly indicate that utilizing process goals in an exercise domain not only has a positive influence over motivation but also impacts upon an exerciser's persistence with the exercise program, even three and six months after the intervention. The adherence findings are in line with results found by Ryan et al. (1997), which indicated that adherence to an exercise program was associated with enjoyment and competence motives (i.e., intrinsic motives), as opposed to body appearance motives (i.e., extrinsic motives).

Another interesting finding was that, at three and six months post-intervention, the significant differences found in adherence between the outcome goal and control groups disappeared. This finding indicates that outcome goals, compared to no goals, were beneficial in terms of adherence during the intervention, but this benefit was not maintained once the intervention ceased. There are two possible explanations for this finding. First, exercisers would have been aware that the exercise leader would check if they had achieved their outcome goal at the end of the six-week intervention. This awareness may have acted as a motivator (possibly an extrinsic motivator) to adhere to the program in order to avoid failure and negative perceptions from the exercise leader. After the intervention, this potential for negative perceptions by the exercise leader would have been removed, and this might be reflected by the drop in adherence from those in the outcome goal group. Secondly, once the intervention ended, it may have been difficult for the exerciser to set an outcome goal on their own, so the positive consequences of setting an outcome goal (i.e., significantly higher interest/enjoyment) were not present and this could have had a subsidiary effect with regards to exercise adherence.

One potential limitation within this research was that the authors could not control for participants setting their own personal exercise goals. For example, exercisers in the OG group could have set process goals, and participants in the PG group could have also set outcome goals. Also, participants in the C group could have set process and/or outcome goals, which could potentially confound the results. Future research could include a social validation element to control for this.

A second potential limitation is the confounding role of the exercise leader. Participants assigned to the PG group had contact with the exercise leader (second author) six times throughout the intervention to review and set weekly process goals. This is in contrast to the OG (to set and review outcome goals and complete IMI) and C group (complete IMI), who only had contact with the exercise leader on two occasions. Simply having greater contact time and interaction with an exercise leader within the exercise environment may have increased the exercisers' perceptions of relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002), which may have had an influence over the participants' levels of intrinsic motivation and adherence. Although there is limited research focused on the importance of the exercise leader in promoting motivation and adherence, Smith and Biddle (1995) noted that programs in Europe have been developed to train and empower exercise leaders to promote physical activity via behavior change strategies. Future researchers who investigate the influence of different types of goals on exercise motivation and adherence should account/control for this variable (quantitatively via a social support measure or qualitatively via post-intervention interviews focused on the importance of the exercise leader in influencing motivation/adherence).

Another potentially confounding variable is the exercise history of the participants. As all individuals involved in the study were already members of a private health and leisure facility, it is logical to assume that they were already exercising and all had a certain degree of intrinsic motivation towards exercise. This assumption is supported by the moderate to high levels of pre-intervention interest/enjoyment and perceived choice in the process goal, outcome goal, and control groups. The only way to avoid this type of sampling issue would have been to recruit non-exercisers, which introduces various other confounding variables (i.e., participation motivation, self-efficacy, barriers to exercise).

The applied implications of these findings for those individuals working within the exercise environment are that, when possible, exercisers should be encouraged to utilize process goals to enhance intrinsic motivation and adherence. In addition, out come goals are better than setting no goals at all, but exercise leaders should ensure that exercisers play a key role in setting their own outcome goals. Current results indicate that outcome goals may reduce levels of perceived choice, which may lead to reduced intrinsic motivation towards exercise involvement. Also, exercise leaders should educate exercisers to set their own goals to help maintain the positive motivational and adherence impact of the goal setting intervention when the exercise leader is not able to provide support in the setting and monitoring of goals.

Results showed that exercisers who set process goals had significantly higher intrinsic motivation and adherence to the six-week exercise program than exercisers who set outcome goals or no goals. Exercisers who set outcome goals generally had higher levels of intrinsic motivation than exercisers who set no goals but also perceived less choice and more pressure/tension than the no goal group. Exercise leaders should set process goals to enhance intrinsic motivation and adherence and should only set outcome goals that are discussed and agreed between the exerciser and exercise leader.

REFERENCES

Albright, C., Thompson, D. L., & Hultquist, C. N. (2005). Comparison of walking recommendations in previously inactive women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 37(4), 676-683.

American College of Sports Medicine. (1990). The recommended quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardio respiratory and muscular fitness in healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 22, 265-274.

Berger, B. G., Pargman, D., & Weinberg, R. S. (2002). Exercise and enhanced self-concept and self-esteem. In B. G. Berger (Ed.), Foundations of Exercise Psychology (pp. 53-62). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Biddle, S. J. H. (1995). European Perspectives on Exercise and Sport Psychology (pp 11-20). Leeds, UK: Human Kinetics.

Biddle, S. J. H., Fox, K. R., & Boutcher, S. H. (2000). Physical Activity and Psychological Well-Being. London, UK: Routledge.

Blair, S. N., Cheng, Y., & Holder, S. (2001). Is physical activity or physical fitness more important in defining health benefits? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 33(6), S379-S399.

Cohen, R. E., Dubbert, P. M., Katell, A. D., Lake, M., Martin, J. E., Raczynski, J. R., Sikora, T., Smith, P. O., Thompson, J. K., & Webster, J. S. (1984). Behavioral control of exercise in sedentary adults: Studies 1 through 6. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5(5), 795-811.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-142.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press Rochester.

Duda, J. L., Likang, C., & Seifriz, J. J. (1992). The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(4), 375-391.

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

Feather, N. T. (1992). Values, valences, expectations, and actions. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 109-124.

Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. R. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71, 267-279.

Field, L. K., & Steinhardt, M. A. (1992). The relationship of internally directed behavior to self-reinforcement, self-esteem, and expectancy values for exercise. American Journal of Health Promotion, 7(1), 21-27.

Hardy, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). Self-regulation training in sport and work. Ergonomics, 31, 1573-1583.

Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Medley, A. R. (1998). Exercise motives and stages of change. Journal of Health Psychology, 3(4), 477-489.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlated of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-287.

Lens, W., Simons, J., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). How to become a persevering exerciser? Providing a clear, future intrinsic goal in an autonomy-supportive way. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26(2), 232-249.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1985). The application of goal setting to sport. Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 205-222.

Markland, D. (1999). Self-determination moderates the effect of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation in an exercise setting. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 21(4), 351-361.

Markland, D., & Hardy, L. (1997). On the factorial and construct validity of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory: Conceptual and operational concerns. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 2,361-376.

Matsumoto, H., & Tekenaka, K. (2004). Motivational profiles and stages of exercise behaviour change. International Journal of Sport and Health Sciences, 2, 89-96.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.

Mullan, E., & Markland, D. (1997). Variations in self-determination across the stages of change for exercise in adults. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 349-362.

Nieman, D. C. (1998). The Exercise-Health Connection: How to Reduce the Risk of Disease and Other Illnesses by Making Exercise your Medicine. Leeds, UK: Human Kinetics.

Ntoumanis, N., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2006). The role of self-determined motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions and physical self-evaluations. Journal of Sports Sciences 24(4), 393-404.

Phillips, E. M., Schnider, J. C., & Mercer, G. R. (2004). Motivating elders to initiate and maintain exercise. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85(3), 52-57.

Ryan, R. M., Frederick, C. M., Lepes, D., Rubio, N., & Sheldon, K. M. (1997). Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 28(4), 335-354.

Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The Psychology of Action: Linking Cognition and Motivation to Behaviour (pp. 726). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Smith, R. A., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1995). Psychological factors in the promotion of physical activity. In S. J. H. Biddle (Ed.), European Perspectives on Exercise and Sport Psychology (pp. 85-108). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Thompson, C. E., & Wankel, L. M. (1980). The effects of perceived activity choice upon frequency of exercise behaviour. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 10, 436-443.

Vallerand, R. J., & Fortier, M. S. (1998). Measures of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and psychical activity: A review and critique. In J. Duda (Ed.), Advancement in Sport and Exercise Psychology Measurement (pp. 83-100). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L., (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal-contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19-31.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2004a). How to become a persevering exerciser: The importance of providing a clear future goal in an autonomy-supportive way. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 26, 232-249.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., & Sheldon, K. M. (20046). Motivating learning, performance and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.

Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2007). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal promotion in exercise and sport: Understanding the differential impacts on performance and persistence. In M. S. Hagger and N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic Motivation and Self- Determination in Exercise and Sport (pp. 167-180). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Weiner, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical Principles in Experimental Designs. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2002). The relationship between exercise motives and physical self-esteem in female exercise participants: An application of self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7(1), 30-43.

Kylie Wilson [1] and Darren Brookfield [2]

[1] University of Wales Institute Cardiff, UK

[2] EdgeHill University College, UK

Corresponding author: Dr. Kylie Wilson, Cardiff School of Sport, University of Wales Institute Cardiff (UWIC), Cardiff CF23 6XD, UK. Tel: [phone], Fax: [phone], Email: [e-mail]

Table 1. RM ANOVA Results for Variables that Positively Predict
Intrinsic Motivation

                            Pre                  Post

                       M        SD           M       SD

Interest/Enjoyment

Process Goal Group     6.01     .11          6.11    .12
Outcome Goal Group     5.47     .11          2.44    .12
Control Group          3.73     .08          2.72    .09

Perceived Choice

Process Goal Group     5.25     .10          5.74    .09
Outcome Goal Group     4.00     .10          2.86    .09
Control Group          5.12     .07          3.93    .06

                       Df       f            ES

Interest/Enjoyment

Process Goal Group     2,57     171.88 **    .86
Outcome Goal Group
Control Group

Perceived Choice

Process Goal Group     2,57     46.81 **     .62
Outcome Goal Group
Control Group

** p <.001, ES= Effect Size

Table 2. RM ANOVA Results for Variable that Negatively Predicts
Intrinsic Motivation

                           Pre                Post

                       M       SD          M       SD

Pressure/Tension

Process Goal Group     2.07    .13         1.53    .09
Outcome Goal Group     4.57    .13         6.12    .09
Control Group          3.94    .09         3.97    .06

                       Df      f           ES

Pressure/Tension

Process Goal Group     2,57    34.74 **    .55
Outcome Goal Group
Control Group

** p <.001. ES = Effect Size