Testing a self-determination theory-based teaching style intervention in the exercise domain

Drawing from self-determination theory (SDT), this study examined the effect of an autonomy supportive, well structured and interpersonally involving teaching style on exercise class participants’ psychological need satisfaction, motivational regulations, exercise behaviour, behavioural intention and affect. Female exercise class participants enrolled in a 10-week exercise program were exposed to an SDT-based (i.e. SDTc; n1⁄4 25) or typical (i.e. control group; n1⁄4 31) teaching style. The control condition reported a significant decrease in autonomy support, amotivation and behavioural intention over time. In addition, they reported a significant increase in competence and introjected regulation. Compared to the control condition, the SDTc reported a significantly greater linear increase in structure and interpersonal involvement, relatedness and competence need satisfaction and positive affect. Attendance rates were significantly higher in the SDTc. SDT-based social-contextual characteristics and psychological needs predicted autonomous regulations; all these variables collectively predicted adaptive outcomes. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Although regular physical activity is conducive to physical and psychological health (Biddle & Mutrie, 2001), less than 30% of adults meet current physical activity recommendations (e.g. Department of Health, 2004). To increase the number of people that engage in, and maintain, a physically active lifestyle, the social psychological factors conducive to exercise adoption and adherence need to be delineated. Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985), a contemporary theoretical perspective of human motivation, appears to hold promise for elucidating the socio-contextual and psychological factors influencing participation in physical activity. BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED SATISFACTION AND A MOTIVATIONAL CONTINUUM SDT assumes that all humans possess three basic psychological needs that are fundamental to the nature and quality of engagement in any given domain (Deci & Ryan, 1985), a proposition supported by previous research (e.g. Sheldon, Elliot, Kin, & Kasser, 2001). A need for autonomy reflects a desire to engage in activities of one’s choosing and to be the origin of one’s own behaviour (deCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1985). A need for relatedness involves feeling connected to others, European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 375–388 (2008) Published online 18 September 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.463 *Correspondence to: Jemma Edmunds, Applied Research Centre in Health and Lifestyle Interventions, Coventry University, Coventry, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 13 February 2007 Accepted 18 July 2007 or feeling that one belongs in a given social milieu (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Finally, a need for competence implies that individuals have a desire to interact effectively with the environment, to experience a sense of effectance in producing desired outcomes and preventing undesired events (Deci & Ryan, 1985). SDT also proposes three categories of motivation: amotivation, extrinsic motivation, (which is itself made up of four different types of regulation: external, introjected, identified and integrated) and intrinsic motivation. Each type of motivation varies with regard to the amount of autonomy associated with it, and thus, lies along a continuum ranging from low (amotivation) to high (intrinsic motivation) self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Amotivation represents ‘a state lacking of any intention to engage in a given behaviour’ (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Markland & Tobin, 2004). With external regulation, an individual engages in an activity to obtain external rewards or to avoid punishments (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Individuals guided by introjected regulation engage in the activity because of internal pressure, feelings of guilt or to attain ego enhancement (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Identified regulation reflects participation in an activity because one holds certain outcomes of the behaviour to be personally significant (e.g. improved health). Integrated regulation occurs when identified regulations are fully assimilated into the self and are brought into congruence with one’s other values and needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Intrinsic motivation involves partaking in an activity because it is inherently enjoyable (Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT posits that satisfaction of the basic psychological needs is central to determining the type of regulation guiding behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Satisfaction of the needs of autonomy and competence is proposed as central to promoting intrinsic motivation. If autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation (i.e. integrated and identified regulation) are to guide behaviour, the needs of autonomy and relatedness must be satisfied. However, when the needs are pitted against one another, or are thwarted, more controlling forms of motivational regulation (i.e. introjected and external regulations) or amotivation ensue (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Koestner & Losier, 2002).When the psychological needs are satisfied and more autonomous forms of regulation guide behaviour, adaptive behavioural, cognitive and affective responses are expected (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand, 1997). In contrast, need thwarting and less autonomous forms of regulation are proposed to result in non-optimal outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). FACILITATING PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED SATISFACTION, AUTONOMOUS MOTIVATION AND ADAPTIVE OUTCOMES SDTmay be considered a particularly attractive theory for health and exercise professionals attempting to facilitate health behaviour change, as it specifies three socio-contextual variables (i.e. autonomy support, structure and interpersonal involvement) which are held to correspond to variability in psychological need satisfaction, the motivational regulations undergirding behaviour and ensuing motivational outcomes. Autonomy support refers to the provision of choice and meaningful rationale from those in a position of authority, acknowledgment of the perspective of others and minimization of pressure (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994). For example, an exercise instructor who is behaving in an autonomy supportive manner will see the situation from the exercisers’ perspective and encourage them to make their own decisions. He/she would not try to impose his/her own perspective on them, or attempt to make them change (Williams, Gagne, Ryan, & Deci, 2002). When at least two of the components of autonomy support are present, it is postulated that the regulation of behaviour will be perceived by the exerciser as his/her own, and the most autonomous forms of external regulation will guide his/her behaviour. If only one or none of these factors are present, partial internalization will occur and less autonomous forms of regulation will arise (Deci et al., 1994). Structure describes the extent to which behaviour-outcome contingencies are made understandable, and whether those in a position of authority make their expectations clear and provide feedback (Deci et al., 1994; Deci &Ryan, 1991; Reeve, 2002; Ryan, 1993). Thus, to provide structure, an exercise instructor would set clear goals at the start of the class. To facilitate autonomous regulation, the components of structure should be delivered in an autonomy supportive manner (Deci & Ryan, 1991). For example, in the case of an exercise class, it would be best for the instructor to involve class participants in the goal setting process. Finally, interpersonal involvement refers to the quality of the relationship between those in a position of authority and the individuals they interact with, and represents the formers’ willingness to dedicate psychological resources, such as Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 38, 375–388 (2008) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp 376 Jemma Edmunds et al.