Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
Physical activity context: Preferences of university students
Shauna M. Burkea,*, Albert V. Carrona, Mark A. Eysa,b
a
School of Kinesiology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ont., Canada N6A 3K7
b
School of Human Kinetics, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont., Canada P3E 2C6
Received 19 April 2004; accepted 8 March 2005
Available online 1 June 2005
Abstract
Objective: The primary purpose was to determine the physical activity contexts rated as most and least preferable
by university students for both aerobic activity and weight training. Secondary purposes were to determine
whether gender and/or social physique anxiety (SPA) influence the preferences for these contexts.
Method: University students (nZ403 females and 198 males) identified their most and least preferable contexts for aerobic
activity and weight training from four options: (a) exercising in a structured class, (b) exercising with others outside of a
structured class setting, (c) exercising on one’s own in an exercise setting, and (d) exercising completely alone.
Results: Engaging in physical activity with others outside of a structured class setting was identified as the most
preferred context by a significantly greater number of male and female participants than the other three contexts
(p!.001). Exercising completely alone was identified as the least preferred physical activity context by a
significantly greater number of females than the other three contexts (p!.001). Exercising in structured exercise
classes was rated as the least preferable physical activity context by significantly more males than the other three
contexts (p!.001); thus, gender was found to influence preferences. Finally, SPA was not found to influence the
physical activity context preferences of participants.
Conclusion: The results of the present study offer insight into conditions beneficial to the development of effective
physical activity interventions.
q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Exercise; Group involvement; Adherence
* Corresponding author. Fax: C1 519 661 2008.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.M. Burke).
1469-0292/$ - see front matter q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.03.002
2
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
Physical activity context: preferences of university students
It is widely recognized that participation in regular physical activity offers substantial physiological
(US Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 1990, 1996) and psychological benefits
(see Carron, Hausenblas, & Estabrooks, 2003 for a review). Yet despite the widespread acknowledgment of
the benefits associated with physical activity, the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute (2001)
reported that 57% of adults are not active enough to achieve health benefits. Another frequently cited statistic
purports that approximately 50% of individuals who adopt an exercise program will drop out within the first
6 months (Dishman, 1988). Thus, a primary global health goal is to increase the percentage of individuals
that engage in regular physical activity (e.g. Biddle, 1995; Manley, 1996; USDHHS, 1990).
Physical activity contexts
In order to enhance adherence and/or compliance to physical activity programs, researchers have
sought to identify factors associated with physical activity behavior (see Sallis & Owen, 1999 for an
overview). One important factor that has been examined is the context in which physical activity takes
place. In this regard, Iverson, Fielding, Crow, and Christenson (1985) pointed out that the most common
contexts for physical activity are in a group or alone. They also noted that the percentage of individuals
that exercise alone is large in comparison to the percentage of individuals that exercise in formal
exercise programs. The question of which context is superior (i.e. exercising alone versus in a group or in
the company of others outside of a structured class) has also been a focus of research papers and metaanalyses (e.g. Carron, Hausenblas, & Mack, 1996; King, Haskell, Taylor, Kraemer, & DeBusk, 1991).
On the one hand, both group dynamics theory and empirical evidence support a conclusion that a context
that includes the presence of others is superior. Insofar as the former is concerned, Baumeister and Leary
(1995) have proposed that at a fundamental level, groups provide a forum for satisfying a fundamental
drive—the need to belong. According to Baumeister and Leary, satisfying the need to belong involves two
criteria: First, there is a need for frequent affectively pleasant interactions with a few other people, and
second, these interactions must take place in the context of a temporarily stable and enduring framework of
affective concern for each other’s welfare (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497).
In support of their theory, Baumeister and Leary provided evidence to show that belongingness (a) is
not situation specific; it is evident in all human activities, (b) produces adverse effects when it is not
satisfied, (c) is a strong impetus for behavioral initiation and maintenance, (d) is universal in humankind,
and (e) is not a derivative of some other need such as safety.
Insofar as empirical evidence is concerned, Martin et al. (1984) reported that 62.9% of a sample of
sedentary adults reported that when they had previously attempted (without success) to exercise, they
exercised alone. The majority (i.e. 83.4%) indicated that they would have preferred to exercise with
someone else. Also, Franklin (1988) identified ‘exercising alone’ as a specific program factor found to be
associated with nonadherence to physical activity programs.
Carron et al. (1996) provided further empirical support for the benefits of exercising with others in a
meta-analysis (containing 87 studies and 49,948 participants) in which they quantified the effect of
exercise context on adherence behavior. They reported that exercising with others present (versus
exercising alone) had a small to moderate positive effect on adherence behavior (effect sizeZ.32) and
that the effect increased to moderate to large (effect sizeZ.62) when the individuals exercised in task
cohesive groups. In another meta-analysis published the same year, Dishman and Buckworth (1996)
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
3
synthesized the results from 127 studies containing 131,156 participants to examine the efficacy of
physical activity interventions. Results provided additional evidence for the conclusion that exercising
in the presence of others is associated with superior exercise adherence. Specifically, it was found that
interventions delivered to groups (i.e. in a group or class-based setting) reported much larger effects
(rZ.75) in comparison to interventions delivered to individuals (i.e. one-on-one; rZ.16), to the family
(rZ.05), and to individuals within a group (i.e. individual attention plus group activities; rZ.04).
On the other hand, despite what seems to be compelling evidence that physical activity adherence is
superior in a group context, King and her colleagues (King et al., 1991; King, Taylor, Haskell, & DeBusk,
1990) have repeatedly argued that programs designed to stimulate and sustain physical activity in a group or
class-based context may be problematic because ‘most Americans prefer to engage in physical activity on
their own, outside a formal group structure’ (King et al., 1991, p. 1536). One study cited in support of this
assertion is the Iverson et al. (1985) work discussed above. However, Iverson et al. reported on physical
activity practices not preferences. Other results cited in support of the above statement have been the King
et al. (1990) analyses of workplace physical activity. When employees in a large corporation were asked to
indicate how likely they were to engage in physical activity in different contexts (i.e. on one’s own, with
others, at home, at the workplace), the dominant choice was physical activity on one’s own rather than in a
group or class. Given that ‘likelihood’ was the factor queried by King et al., it is uncertain whether the results
reflected situational exigencies or individual preferences.
Individual preferences
Understanding individual preferences is important; physical activity preferences are linked to
both adherence behaviors and various psychological responses related to physical activity. For
example, Thompson and Wankel (1980) examined the effect of perceived activity choice on the
exercise attendance of 36 new female fitness club members. Participants assigned to an exercise
condition based on their preferences for exercise type (i.e. the ‘choice’ condition) had better
attendance over a 6-week period than participants who were told that they were engaging in a
standardized exercise program (i.e. the ‘no choice’ condition). Furthermore, at the end of the
exercise session, participants in the ‘choice’ condition reported a greater intention to continue
exercising in comparison to participants in the control group. More recently, Daley and Maynard
(2003) found that when physically active adults were given a choice of aerobic exercise modes
(i.e. cycle ergometry, treadmill running, gradient walking, rowing ergometry, stair climbing, or ski
stimulator), they reported lower negative affect scores from pre- to post-exercise compared to
participants who were given no choice (i.e. cycle ergometry only). Also related to physical activity
type, Parfitt and Gledhill (2004) found that low-active adults in a ‘high-preference’ condition
(i.e. those who exercised in their first choice for aerobic activity) reported lower perceived exertion
and greater positive affect than participants in the ‘low-preference’ condition (i.e. those who
exercised in their third choice for aerobic activity).
Alternatively, Dunn et al. (1999) found that after 24 months, previously sedentary adults in both a
‘lifestyle intervention’ (i.e. those who engaged in physical activity in a manner accommodated to their
own lifestyle) and a ‘structured intervention’ (i.e. those who engaged in physical activity in a traditional,
structured program) showed significant increases in physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness. It
should be noted, however, that participants in both intervention groups were given a choice as to what
type of aerobic activities were performed.
4
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
Preferences for physical activity context
When the preferences for exercise context have been examined explicitly, there has been some
support for the view that individuals prefer exercising individually or alone (versus in a group or a
class-based setting). For example, Wilcox, King, Brassington, and Ahn (1999) found support for
exercising alone versus exercising in a class-based setting in both middle aged (69% versus 31%,
respectively) and older adults (67% versus 33%, respectively). Interestingly, there has also been support
for the view that individuals may not have a clear preference for either context. When older adult
exercisers were asked by Mills, Stewart, Sepsis, and King (1997), what is more appealing to you,
exercising alone or in an organized group/class with a leader, 34% found exercising alone more
appealing while 28% preferred the group setting and 39% endorsed both equally.
However, these prior studies examining exercise preferences (Mills et al., 1997; Wilcox et al., 1999)
were somewhat limited with regard to their generalizability in three ways. First, this research has
focused exclusively on middle aged and older adults. While these are important populations to examine,
it has also been found that 50% of North American university students are insufficiently active (Irwin,
2004). Second, prior studies have typically examined preferences for physical activity in general, with
an emphasis on aerobic activities. Participation in weight training activities1 represents another vital
area of the physical activity domain that has received little (if any) attention with regard to exercise
preferences. Finally, prior research has typically examined preferences for only two physical activity
contexts—on one’s own or in structured classes. It is also possible, however, for both aerobic activities
and weight training to be conducted in other group settings (e.g. with friends) outside of a structured
class environment. Further, exercising completely alone (e.g. jogging alone or weight training alone in
one’s basement) represents a different psychological context than exercising alone but in the company of
others (i.e. jogging on a treadmill at a fitness club or weight training at a fitness club).
Therefore, the primary purpose of the present study was to determine the physical activity contexts
rated as most and least preferable by university students for both aerobic activity and weight training.
Four context options were presented: (a) exercising in a structured class, (b) exercising with others
outside of a structured class setting, (c) exercising on one’s own in an exercise setting, and (d) exercising
completely alone.
It has been suggested that physical activity interventions are most beneficial when they are tailored to
individual preferences and that a better understanding of these preferences could lead to increased
adherence to exercise programs (Ruland & Moore, 2001; Wilcox et al., 1999). Thus, it is beneficial to
gain an understanding of some of the personal factors that might influence these individual preferences.
One personal factor that is examined in the present study is gender. Anecdotal reports of physical
activity behavior provide some support for a suggestion that males and females have different
preferences for physical activity contexts. That is, structured aerobics classes are attended primarily by
females (Crawford & Eklund, 1994) whereas males are typically in greater numbers in weight rooms.
A second personal factor that might influence individual preferences is social physique anxiety (SPA),
a form of self-presentational anxiety that is experienced in response to the perceived evaluation of one’s
physique (Hart, Leary, & Rejeski, 1989). The exercise environment may be viewed as threatening for
1
The term ‘weight training’ was used in the present study to represent all physical activities carried out specifically to
increase muscular strength and may also be called resistance training or strength training.
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
5
a variety of reasons (e.g. the presence of others, mirrors, revealing attire, etc; see Focht & Hausenblas,
2004) and it has been suggested that an individual’s self-presentational concerns may affect their
selection of physical activities as well as the contexts in which they engage in them (Leary, 1992). In
fact, Leary (1992) has suggested that self-presentational concerns may prevent an individual from
exercising in the presence of others or from exercising at all. With regard to SPA in particular, research
has shown that females with high SPA (a) tend to exercise alone rather than in a group context (Spink,
1992), (b) have more favorable attitudes toward group exercise settings that do not emphasize the
physique (i.e. where less revealing clothing is worn; Crawford & Eklund, 1994), and (c) experience
increased state anxiety during exercise in public settings (Focht & Hausenblas, 2003, 2004).
Therefore, the secondary purposes of the study were to determine whether gender and/or social
physique anxiety influence the preferences of university students for specific physical activity contexts.
There was no conceptual basis for developing a comprehensive set of a priori hypotheses (i.e. most
preferred and least preferred context by gender and/or social physique anxiety). Previous research,
however, did contribute to some reasonable expectations. One expectation was that university students
would most prefer to engage in physical activity with others outside of a structured exercise setting.
Rationale for this hypothesis came from the fact that human beings are motivated by a need to be with
others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), but dislike exercise in structured settings (e.g. Iverson et al., 1985;
King et al., 1990; Wilcox et al., 1999). It was also expected that university students would least prefer to
engage in physical activity completely alone.
As indicated above, aerobic physical activity classes are attended primarily by females (Crawford &
Eklund, 1994). Therefore, it was also expected that females would prefer exercising in structured settings
(for both aerobic activity and weight training), more so than males. Finally, based on the discussion above
relating to SPA (e.g. Crawford & Eklund, 1994; Focht & Hausenblas, 2003, 2004; Spink, 1992), we expected
that females high in SPA would prefer to exercise alone rather than in group- or class-based settings.
Method
Participants and procedure
Potential participants were 638 students enrolled in an undergraduate Kinesiology course
(Introduction to Sport Psychology) at a major Canadian university. Students completed a questionnaire
as part of a laboratory experience for course credit. The laboratory consisted of a 20-page paper and
pencil questionnaire, a portion of which required participants to respond to questions based on their
preferences for various physical activity contexts. Participants were given 1 week to complete and
submit the questionnaires, after which they were given course marks for completion of the assignment
(independent of the researchers involved in the study). Based on protocol requested by our University
Ethics Committee, students were asked to sign a consent form providing their permission to use the data
for research purposes once all of the grades were entered (approximately 3 weeks after the
questionnaires were submitted). Signed consent forms were placed in a sealed drop-box (in the absence
of the course instructor and the investigators) and were not scrutinized until after the final grades for the
course had been submitted.
On the consent forms, the students were informed that their agreement (to permit the investigators to
use their responses) was voluntary, that all personal responses would be kept confidential and that only
6
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
group responses would be reported, and that only the responses of students who signed the consent form
would be included in the study. Both the protocol and questionnaire were submitted to and approved by
the Office of Research Ethics within the university.
Of the 638 students enrolled in the course, nine did not hand in the questionnaires, and 28
subsequently did not sign a consent form. Thus, the responses of 601 students (198 males, mean
ageZ19.74 years, SDZ1.35 and 403 females, mean ageZ19.36 years, SDZ1.19) were analyzed.
Measures
Physical activity context preferences
The questionnaire was designed to examine the most and least preferred contexts for both aerobic
activity and weight training. To determine the most preferred context for aerobic activity, the following
instructions were provided: Examine the situations presented below. In which of these situations would
you MOST prefer to participate in an aerobic activity (e.g. walking, jogging, biking, aerobics, etc.)?
Then, the following four options were provided:
(a) in a structured aerobics class (e.g. an aerobics class at a fitness center)
(b) with other people outside of a structured aerobics class (e.g. walking/jogging with others outside or
at a fitness center)
(c) on your own in an exercise setting (e.g. walking/jogging on a treadmill at a fitness center)
(d) completely alone (e.g. walking/jogging alone).
The identical protocol was followed to determine the most preferred context for weight training as
well as the least preferred contexts for both aerobic activity and weight training. Participants were asked
to select only one of the four options presented above for each of the following: (a) their most preferred
context for aerobic activity, (b) their least preferred context for aerobic activity, (c) their most preferred
context for weight training, and (d) their least preferred context for weight training.
Social physique anxiety
The 9-item revised version (Martin, Rejeski, Leary, McAuley, & Bane, 1997) of the Social Physique
Anxiety Scale (SPAS; Hart et al., 1989) was used to measure the anxiety experienced in response to
others’ evaluations of one’s physique. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which nine SPAS
statements (e.g. I wish I wasn’t so uptight about my physique/figure) were characteristic or true of them.
Responses were provided on a 5-point Likert scale with anchors of 1 (not at all) and 5 (extremely). Total
scores ranged from a possible 9–45 with higher scores reflecting greater social physique anxiety.
Analyses of the responses indicated an acceptable level of internal consistency for both the female
(aZ.885) and male samples (aZ.867).
Results
Initially, chi-square analyses were carried out to determine if males and females differed significantly
in the physical activity contexts considered most and least preferable for aerobic activity and for weight
training. That is, four 2 (i.e. females, males) X 4 (i.e. structured classes, with others outside structured
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
7
Table 1
Female participants’ (nZ403) context preferences for aerobic activity and weight training
Type of physical
activity
Context
Percent indicating
MOST preferred
Percent indicating
LEAST preferred
Aerobic activity
Structured class
With others outside of a structured class
On your own in an exercise setting
Completely alone
Structured class
With others outside of a structured class
On your own in an exercise setting
Completely alone
26.1
39.8
24.6
9.5
28.7
36.7
27.2
7.4
27.9
13.3
15.3
43.5
28.0
8.1
13.5
50.4
Weight training
classes, alone in an exercise setting, completely alone) chi-square analyses were computed. Results
showed that males and females differed significantly in the rankings of their most preferred context for
aerobic activity (c2(3,NZ596)Z56.59, p!.001), their least preferred context for aerobic activity
(c2(3,NZ579)Z134.46, p!.001), their most preferred context for weight training (c2(3,NZ541)Z
72.66, p!.001), and their least preferred context for weight training (c2(3,NZ533)Z101.19, p!.001).2
In short, gender was found to influence preferences for physical activity contexts. Consequently, all
subsequent analyses were carried out independently for the male and female samples.
Female preferences for physical activity contexts
Aerobic activity
A summary of female preferences for the four different contexts for engaging in aerobic activities is
provided in Table 1. A chi-square analysis revealed a significant difference among the most preferred
contexts for aerobic activity (c2(3,NZ399)Z73.63, p!.001).3 Post hoc chi-square analyses showed
that exercising with others outside of a structured class setting (39.8%) was identified as the most
preferred context by a significantly greater number of females than any of the other three contexts
(p!.001).
The analysis pertaining to the least preferred aerobic activity contexts for females also produced a
significant chi square (c2(3,NZ391)Z90.69, p!.001). The post hoc analyses showed that exercising
completely alone for aerobic activity (43.5%) was identified as the least preferred context by a
significantly greater number of females than the other three contexts (p!.001).
Weight training
An overview of the preference selections for females for weight training is provided in Table 1.
A chi-square analysis showed that a significant difference was present in the contexts identified as most
2
The different sample size in each analysis reflects the fact that some participants did not respond to all questions and for
some participants, the type of physical activity (i.e. aerobic activity and/or weight training) was not applicable.
3
A large number of chi-square analyses were undertaken. Therefore, in an attempt to reduce the possibility of Type I error, a
Bonferroni correction factor was used. That is, each individual analysis was undertaken using a probability level of p!.001
thereby producing an overall probability level of p!.05.
8
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
preferable (c2(3,NZ349)Z64.58, p!.001). Post hoc analyses revealed that for weight training,
exercising in a structured class (28.7%), with others outside of a structured class (36.7%), and alone in an
exercise setting (27.2%) were selected by significantly more females (p!.001) than exercising
completely alone (7.4%).
A significant difference was also present in the analysis of the context identified as least preferable for
weight training (c2(3,NZ347)Z148.99, p!.001). Post hoc analyses showed that being completely
alone (50.4%) was identified as the least preferred context by significantly more females than the other
three contexts (p!.001).
Male preferences for physical activity contexts
Aerobic physical activity
A summary of male preferences for different contexts for engaging in aerobic activities is provided in
Table 2. A significant difference was present in contexts identified as most preferred for aerobic activity
(c2(3,NZ197)Z110.59, p!.001). Post hoc analyses showed that exercising with others outside of a
structured class setting (54.8%) was identified as the most preferred context by a significantly greater
number of males than the other three contexts (p!.001).
A significant difference also was present in the analysis of the context identified as least preferable for
aerobic activity (c2(3,NZ188)Z296.64, p!.001). Follow-up post hoc analyses showed that aerobic
activity in structured exercise classes (78.7%) was selected as the least preferable context by
significantly more males than the other three contexts (p!.001).
Weight training
Table 2 provides an overview of the preference selections for males for weight training. A chi-square
analysis revealed a significant difference among the contexts most preferred for weight training
(c2(3,NZ192)Z207.29, p!.001). Post hoc analyses showed that weight training with others outside of
a structured class was selected as most preferable (68.2%) by significantly more males than each of the
other three contexts (p!.001).
Finally, a significant difference also was present in the analysis of the context identified as least
preferable for weight training (c2(3,NZ186)Z245.87, p!.001). Subsequent post hoc analyses showed
Table 2
Male participants’ (nZ198) context preferences for aerobic activity and weight training
Type of physical
activity
Context
Percent indicating
MOST preferred
Percent indicating
LEAST preferred
Aerobic activity
Structured class
With others outside of a structured class
On your own in an exercise setting
Completely alone
Structured class
With others outside of a structured class
On your own in an exercise setting
Completely alone
3.0
54.8
21.8
20.4
2.1
68.2
21.9
7.8
78.7
1.6
4.8
14.9
73.1
2.2
3.8
20.9
Weight training
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
9
that weight training in structured exercise classes (73.1%) was selected as least preferable by
significantly more males than the other three contexts (p!.001).
Social physique anxiety and preferences for physical activity context
Consistent with protocol typically used in research pertaining to SPA (e.g. Focht & Hausenblas,
2001; Spink, 1992), male and female participants were categorized into extreme groups on the
basis of their scores on the SPAS. Participants within the top 20% of the distribution of SPAS
scores for females (i.e. scores of 32 or above out of a possible 45) were categorized as having high
SPA (nZ85), whereas those within the bottom 20% (i.e. scores of 18 or lower) were categorized as
having low SPA (nZ72). Analyses showed that the extreme groups of females (i.e. high SPA
versus low SPA) differed significantly in SPAS scores (t(155)Z47.67, p!.001). Because very few
male participants could be categorized as having high SPA (i.e. only 5.7% of the male sample had
scores above 32 on the SPAS), the male sample was excluded from all subsequent analyses
regarding social physique anxiety.
Table 3 provides an overview of the context preferences of female participants in high and low SPA
groups for aerobic activity and weight training. In order to examine whether the high and low SPA
groups differed in terms of their preferred contexts for physical activity, four chi-square tests were
conducted—two for aerobic activity (i.e. females’ most and least preferred contexts) and two for weight
training (i.e. females’ most and least preferred contexts). Results revealed no significant differences
(pO.05) in the context preferences of female participants in high versus low SPA groups for either
activity type.
Table 3
Social physique anxiety (SPA) and preferences for aerobic activity and weight training for female participants (nZ157)
Type of physical
activity
Context
SPA
group
Percent indicating
MOST preferred
Percent indicating
LEAST preferred
Aerobic activity
Structured class
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
Low
22.6
28.2
40.5
36.6
29.8
23.9
7.1
11.3
31.2
28.1
31.2
39.1
26.0
31.3
11.6
1.5
20.5
29.0
16.9
11.6
9.6
20.3
53.0
39.1
23.4
32.3
14.3
3.2
6.5
12.9
55.8
51.6
With others outside of a structured class
On your own in an exercise setting
Completely alone
Weight training
Structured class
With others outside of a structured class
On your own in an exercise setting
Completely alone
10
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
Discussion
The primary purpose of the present study was to determine the physical activity contexts rated as most
and least preferable by university students for both aerobic activity and weight training. Four context
options were presented: (a) exercising in a structured class, (b) exercising with others outside of a
structured class setting, (c) exercising on one’s own in an exercise setting, and (d) exercising completely
alone. Three findings related to the primary purpose should be highlighted.
First, for both females and males, the results pertaining to the most preferred context for aerobic
activity and weight training were consistent; that is, exercising with others outside of a structured class
was endorsed by the largest number of participants. This finding is consistent with our expectation
(outlined above)—an expectation that was based on previous research that has suggested that individuals
tend to dislike physical activity in structured or formal settings (e.g. Iverson et al., 1985; King et al.,
1990; Wilcox et al., 1999), and that human beings possess a fundamental need to belong (Baumeister &
Leary, 1995). As we also anticipated, the present results relating to the most preferable physical activity
context are not consistent with past research that showed individuals prefer to engage in physical activity
alone (e.g. Wilcox et al., 1999).
A second, somewhat related result that should be highlighted is that for females, the least preferred
context for both aerobic activity and weight training was being alone. One possible explanation for the
incongruity between our results (i.e. showing a preference for exercising with others) and previous
research (i.e. showing a preference for exercising alone; e.g. Wilcox et al., 1999) is that the latter
examined preferences as a dichotomy; that is, participants were asked whether they preferred to exercise
alone or in a structured/class-based setting. It seems that a large percentage of people dislike structured
exercise classes (e.g. Iverson et al., 1985; King et al., 1990; Wilcox et al., 1999). Consequently, when the
option of a structured setting is presented with exercising alone, exercising alone is selected. Rather than
simply offering a dichotomy of physical activity contexts, our protocol incorporated a list of realistic and
common physical activity contexts (i.e. in a structured setting, with others outside of a structured setting,
on one’s own in an exercise setting, and completely alone). The result, we believe, is greater insight into
understanding preferences for physical activity context.
The third finding that bears discussion is that males showed a consistent tendency in their least
preferred context for physical activity—one that differed from the least preferred context identified by
the female participants. For males, being in a structured class setting was selected as the least preferable
context for both aerobic activity and weight training. Again, this finding is consistent with previous
research that has shown that individuals dislike structured exercise settings (e.g. Iverson et al., 1985;
King et al., 1990; Wilcox et al., 1999), and with our expectation that males would prefer structured
physical activity settings to a lesser extent than females. However, this finding is inconsistent with our
expectation that being completely alone would be the least preferable physical activity context.
Interestingly, the results, while contributing to and supporting group dynamics theory, are also
consistent with the tenets of self-determination theory (Deci, 1992; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991; Ryan,
1993). A fundamental tenet in self-determination theory is that an individual’s goals and motives for an
activity are interpreted in light of the degree to which three psychological needs are satisfied. These three
psychological needs are autonomy (i.e. the need to be self-initiating in the regulation of personal
behavior), relatedness (i.e. the need to feel connected to other people), and competence (i.e. the need to
interact effectively with the environment). As was mentioned previously, our results showed that
regardless of the type of activity (i.e. aerobic activity or weight training), the majority of university
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
11
students preferred to exercise with others, outside of a structured setting. Thus, it could be argued that at
least two out of the three psychological needs identified in self-determination theory are satisfied in this
context. That is, engaging in physical activity with others satisfies the psychological need for
relatedness. Further, engaging in physical activity with others but outside a structured class setting
provides the individual with more personal control and, therefore, satisfies the psychological need for
autonomy. Additional research is needed in order to effectively examine the issue of physical activity
context preferences within this framework.
The secondary purposes of the present study were to determine whether gender and/or SPA influence
the preferences of university students for specific physical activity contexts. With regard to this
secondary purpose, two important sets of results bear discussion.
The first is that gender was found to influence university students’ preferences for physical activity
contexts. As expected, both males and females chose exercising with others outside of a structured
setting as the most preferred context for aerobic activity and weight training. However, as discussed
above, the least preferred context for females (for aerobic activity and weight training) was exercising
completely alone, whereas the least preferred context for males (for aerobic activity and weight training)
was exercising in a structured setting. Perhaps these results should not be surprising—after all, females
tend to outnumber males in most structured exercise classes. The possible reasons for why this is the case
is a worthwhile topic for future investigation, although self-presentational concerns are a likely factor.
Interestingly, much of the research related to preferences for physical activity context has failed to
examine gender differences, a serious limitation considering that the present results show that gender
plays a key role in the physical activity context preferences of university students. Our results have
implications for practitioners and researchers interested in developing physical activity interventions for
male and/or female participants.
Second—and contrary to our expectations—SPA was not found to influence the physical activity
context preferences of female participants. As noted above, our expectation was based largely on research
showing that females with high SPA tend to exercise privately rather than publicly (Spink, 1992), have
more positive attitudes toward group exercise settings that de-emphasize the physique (Crawford &
Eklund, 1994), and experience increased state anxiety during exercise in public settings (Focht &
Hausenblas, 2003, 2004). However, the present study examined physical activity preferences rather than
physical activity practices. Therefore, it may be that SPA does not influence preferences for physical
activity context in the same way that it influences physical activity behavior, attitudes, and anxiety.
It should be highlighted that when females and males are considered independently, preferences for
physical activity context do not seem to differ across activity type. That is, the most and least preferred
contexts for females and the most and least preferred contexts for males were the same for both aerobic
activity and weight training. The fact that physical activity context preferences remained stable
regardless of the activity type has important practical implications. Previous research has already shown
that assigning participants to exercise conditions based on their preferences for exercise type can
positively impact attendance and intentions to exercise (Thompson & Wankel, 1980), affect toward
exercise (Daley & Maynard, 2003; Parfitt & Gledhill, 2004), and perceived exertion (Parfitt & Gledhill,
2004). However, because preferences for physical activity context do not appear to differ across activity
type, it may be more important—and efficient—for researchers to gain an understanding of preferences
for context rather than for activity type when developing physical activity interventions.
The present study is not without limitations, one of which relates to the fact that the physical activity
preferences of inactive individuals were not considered because all participants were Kinesiology
12
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
students who, by virtue of their program and interests, are physically active.4 In addition, because
physical activity tends to decrease with age (USDHHS, 1996), the students in the present sample were
likely more active than the middle-aged and older adults employed in previous studies relating to
physical activity preferences (e.g. Mills et al., 1997; Wilcox et al., 1999). Therefore, future research is
warranted to examine the physical activity context preferences of sedentary individuals as well as active
individuals, and of middle-aged and older adults, using the four context options employed in the present
study. Perhaps the most important question that remains unanswered is why participants prefer (or do not
prefer) various contexts for physical activity. A qualitative study that addresses this issue is also
warranted. Finally, another possible avenue for future research would be to include a measure of
physical activity to assess prospectively whether an individual’s preference for physical activity context
influences their subsequent physical activity behavior.
The above limitations notwithstanding, the results of the present study offer useful and practical
information, because a better understanding of physical activity context preferences has important
implications in terms of the development of effective physical activity interventions. For female
university students, the presence of others appears to be especially important, whereas for male
university students, the avoidance of structured classes appears to be most important. Therefore, it seems
as though the ‘ideal’ physical activity intervention for both male and female students should include the
presence of other exercisers in a setting that does not involve structured classes. Although it is likely to
be challenging, the development of such interventions may lead to the ultimate goal of increased
adherence to exercise programs.
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Biddle, S. (1995). Exercise motivation across the lifespan. In S. J. H. Biddle (Ed.), European perspectives on exercise and sport
psychology (pp. 3–25). Leeds, UK: Human Kinetics, 3–25.
Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute (2001). Physical activity monitor, Ottawa, ON.
Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2003). The psychology of physical activity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Mack, D. E. (1996). Social influence and exercise: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 18, 1–16.
Crawford, S., & Eklund, R. C. (1994). Social physique anxiety, reasons for exercise, and attitudes toward exercise settings.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 70–82.
Daley, A. J., & Maynard, I. W. (2003). Preferred exercise mode and affective responses in physically active adults. Psychology
of Sport and Exercise, 4, 347–356.
Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychological Science, 3, 167–171.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. A. Dienstbier, Nebraska
symposium on motivation. Perspectives on motivation (Vol. 38) (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 237–288.
Dishman, R. K. (1988). Exercise adherence research: Future directions. American Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 52–56.
Dishman, R. K., & Buckworth, J. (1996). Increasing physical activity: A quantitative synthesis. Medicine and Science in Sports
and Exercise, 28, 706–719.
Dunn, A. L., Marcus, B. H., Kampert, J. B., Garcia, M. E., Kohl, H. W., & Blair, S. N. (1999). Comparison of lifestyle and
structured interventions to increase physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness: A randomized trial. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 281, 327–334.
4
Kinesiology requirements at the participating university include several sport and exercise-related activities.
S.M. Burke et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7 (2006) 1–13
13
Focht, B. C., & Hausenblas, H. A. (2001). Influence of quiet rest and acute aerobic exercise performed in a naturalistic
environment on selected psychological responses. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 23, 108–121.
Focht, B. C., & Hausenblas, H. A. (2003). State anxiety responses to acute exercise in women with high social physique anxiety:
influence of perceived evaluative threat and self-selected vs. prescribed intensity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
25, 123–144.
Focht, B. C., & Hausenblas, H. A. (2004). Perceived evaluative threat and state anxiety during exercise in women with social
physique anxiety. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 361–368.
Franklin, B. A. (1988). Program factors that influence exercise adherence: Practical adherence skills for the clinical staff. In R. K.
Dishman (Ed.), Exercise adherence: Its impact on public health (pp. 237–258). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 237–258.
Hart, E. A., Leary, M. R., & Rejeski, W. J. (1989). The measurement of social physique anxiety. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 11, 94–104.
Irwin, J. D. (2004). Prevalence of university students’ sufficient physical activity: A systematic review. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 98, 927–943.
Iverson, D. C., Fielding, J. E., Crow, R. S., & Christenson, G. M. (1985). The promotion of physical activity in the United States
population: The status of programs in medical, worksite, community, and school settings. Public Health Reports, 100,
212–224.
King, A. C., Haskell, W. L., Taylor, C. B., Kraemer, H. C., & DeBusk, R. F. (1991). Group- vs. home-based exercise training in
healthy older men and women. Journal of the American Medical Association, 266, 1535–1542.
King, A. C., Taylor, C. B., Haskell, W. L., & DeBusk, R. F. (1990). Identifying strategies for increasing employee physical
activity levels: Findings from the Stanford/Lockheed exercise survey. Health Education Quarterly, 17, 269–285.
Leary, M. R. (1992). Self-presentational processes in exercise and sport. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14,
339–351.
Manley, A. F. (1996). Preface. In: US Department of Health and Human Services, Physical activity and health: A report of the
Surgeon General executive summary. Pittsburgh: Author.
Martin, J. E., Dubbert, P. M., Katell, A. D., Thompson, J. K., Raczynkski, J. R., Lake, M., et al. (1984). Behavioral control of
exercise in sedentary adults: Studies 1 through 6. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 795–811.
Martin, K. A., Rejeski, W. J., Leary, M. R., McAuley, E., & Bane, S. (1997). Is the social physique anxiety scale really
multidimensional? Conceptual and statistical arguments for a unidimensional model. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 19, 359–367.
Mills, K. M., Stewart, A. L., Sepsis, P. G., & King, A. C. (1997). Consideration of older adults’ preferences for format of
physical activity. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 5, 50–58.
Parfitt, G., & Gledhill, C. (2004). The effect of choice of exercise mode on psychological responses. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 5, 111–117.
Ruland, C. M., & Moore, S. M. (2001). Eliciting exercise preferences in cardiac rehabilitation: Initial evaluation of a new
strategy. Patient Education and Counseling, 44, 283–291.
Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and the self in psychological development. In
J. E. Jacobs, Nebraska symposium on motivation. Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40) (pp. 1–56). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1–56.
Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (1999). Physical activity and behavioral medicine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spink, K. S. (1992). Relation of anxiety about social physique to location of participation in physical activity. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 74, 1075–1078.
Thompson, C. E., & Wankel, L. M. (1980). The effects of perceived activity choice upon frequency of exercise behavior.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, 436–443.
US Department of Health and Human Services (1996). Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon. Atlanta, GA:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center of Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
US Department of Health and Human Services (2000). Healthy People 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention
objectives. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Wilcox, S., King, A. C., Brassington, G. S., & Ahn, D. K. (1999). Physical activity preferences of middle-aged and older adults:
A community analysis. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 7, 386–399.