UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Locus of control and adherence to exercise programs McCready, Marina Loi 1984

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1984_A7_5 M33.pdf [ 4.14MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077285.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077285-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077285-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077285-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077285-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077285-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077285-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077285-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077285.ris

Full Text

LOCUS OF CONTROL AND ADHERENCE TO EXERCISE PROGRAMS by MARINA LOI MCCREADY B.A., University Of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1976 B.P.E., University Of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Physical Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1984 © Marina Loi McCready, 1984 In presenting this thesis in p a r t i a l fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Physical Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: 5 A p r i l 1984 i i Abstract Many exercise adherence studies have attempted to identif y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s associated with dropout behavior, however few of these have been grounded in theory. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationship between exercise program adherence and the so c i a l psychological construct, locus of c o n t r o l . As a multidimensional concept, locus of control may be described as a person's generalized expectancy to perceive reinforcements as being: dependent upon their own behavior or ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s (internal c o n t r o l ) ; under the control of powerful other people (powerful others control); or the result of forces beyond their control (chance c o n t r o l ) . Social learning theory, out of which locus of control developed, emphasizes the importance of measuring reinforcement value along with locus of control when predicting behavior. Consistent with t h i s concept, exercise adherence was expected to be greatest among those who highly value one or more exercise reinforcements (e.g., release of tension) and have an internal locus of control ( i . e . , a high expectancy that their behavior w i l l result in the reinforcement). In contrast, adherence was expected to.be negatively related to the combined ef f e c t s of reinforcement value and external locus of control (powerful others or chance). A number of demographic, behavioral, and si t u a t i o n a l factors were also examined in r e l a t i o n to exercise adherence. The subjects were 61 females (48 registered and 13 drop-in) aged 15-57, (M=28) who had vo l u n t a r i l y elected to par t i c i p a t e in 8-12 week a e r o b i c f i t n e s s programs. The primary instruments employed i n t h i s study were: the I n t e r n a l , Powerful Others, and Chance S c a l e s ; the E x e r c i s e O b j e c t i v e s Locus of C o n t r o l S c a l e s , developed by the i n v e s t i g a t o r ; and the Revised C h i l d r e n ' s A t t i t u d e s Toward P h y s i c a l A c t i v i t y i n v e n t o r y . Adherence data were determined from c l a s s attendance sheets. F i n d i n g s suggest that locus of c o n t r o l measures combined with values h e l d toward p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y are not very s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to e x e r c i s e program adherence. R e s u l t s of stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses r e v e a l e d that two a t t i t u d e s were the best p r e d i c t o r s of e x e r c i s e adherence. In g e n e r a l , those s u b j e c t s who, at the outset of the program, had a l e s s p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward p a r t i c i p a t i n g in p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y f o r c o n t i n u i n g s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s and a more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e toward • p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n order to reduce s t r e s s and t e n s i o n — t e n d e d to have a higher percent attendance. F i n d i n g s a l s o i n d i c a t e d that there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x e r c i s e adherence and any of the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : age, percent l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t y , smoking, employment s t a t u s , n o n l e i s u r e e x e r t i o n , spouse support, f a m i l y support, e n r o l l i n g with or without a f r i e n d , previous number of program enrollments or completions, s p o r t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , p r e v i o u s i n d i v i d u a l e x e r c i s e h a b i t s , s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , e x e r c i s e g o a l s , expected success and success in goal attainment. I m p l i c a t i o n s of these r e s u l t s and suggestions f o r f u t u r e adherence s t u d i e s were d i s c u s s e d . i v Table of Contents ABSTRACT • i i LIST OF TABLES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i INTRODUCTION 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6 Locus Of Control 6 Theoretical Background 6 Exercise Adherence 8 Part i c i p a t i o n In Physical A c t i v i t y '. 10 Behaviors Related To Exercise Adherence 13 Change In Locus Of Control Over Time 17 Additional Exercise Adherence Research 19 Psychological Factors 20 Behavior And Demographics 23 Situational Factors 25 Exercise Adherence Rates And Measurement 26 METHOD 28 Subjects And Setting 28 Measures 28 Procedure 29 Data Analysis 31 RESULTS 35 Questionnaire Return 35 Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s 35 MANOVA Analyses 36 V Stepwise Multiple Regression 37 Chi Square Analysis 39 DISCUSSION 40 REFERENCES 46 APPENDIX A 65 Development Of The Exercise Objectives Locus Of Control Scales 65 APPENDIX B 68 Description Of Measures 68 Internal, Powerful Others, And Chance Scales 68 Revised Children's Attitude Toward Physical A c t i v i t y Inventory 69 M-C 1(10) Scale 71 Causal Dimension Scale 71 Exercise Objectives Locus Of Control Scales 72 Appendix C 73 Questionnaires 73 I n i t i a l Informed Consent 74 Background Questions 75 CATPA Instructions 76 Exercise Goals And Goal Attainment 77 EOLOC Scales . . .78 Followup Informed Consent 79 Followup Questions 80 v i L i s t of Tables I. Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s of Attendance Data 56 II. Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables 58 III. Stepwise Multiple Regression Results (Predictors: IPC and CATPA) 59 IV. Stepwise Multiple Regression Results (Predictors: IPC, CATPA, and Interactive Variables)....60 V. Correlations of Dependent Variables and Other Selected Factors 61 VI. Frequency Distributions of Selected Questionnaire Data 62 v i i Acknowledgements I wish to express my most sincere appreciation to the members of my committee: Dr. Bonita Long, the chairperson, for her outstanding support and leadership in a l l aspects of t h i s thesis and for her a v a i l a b i l i t y in the face of deadlines; Dr. Robert Schutz, for his guidance in a l l matters s t a t i s t i c a l and for freely devoting so much of his time to this study; Dr. Sharon whittaker-Bleuler and Dr. Michael Passer for their time and many helpful comments as well as their f l e x i b i l i t y when time was at a premium. I would l i k e to acknowledge the contribution made by the subjects who participated in t h i s study and the staff of the fitness organization from whence the subjects were derived. Their p a r t i c i p a t i o n was and i s greatly appreciated. I would also l i k e to thank my dearest friend Penelope Long for the time and energy she devoted to helping me prepare questionnaires and for her continuous support. A special thankyou goes to my mother for her patience and support in a l l that I do. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n Concern over high r a t e s of a t t r i t i o n i n a d u l t e x e r c i s e programs has given r i s e to numerous adherence s t u d i e s , many of which have attempted to i d e n t i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d with dropout behavior. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , most of these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have been guided more by p h i l o s o p h i c a l s p e c u l a t i o n than by t h e o r y . The use of c o n c e p t u a l l y r e l e v a n t s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s i n the study of e x e r c i s e adherence may provide a more b a s i c and complete understanding of the behavior, which in turn c o u l d serve as the b a s i s f o r more e f f e c t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s to f a c i l i t a t e adherence. The purpose of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was to examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x e r c i s e program adherence and the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t , locus of c o n t r o l . Locus of c o n t r o l was o r i g i n a l l y conceived ( R o t t e r , 1966) as a person's g e n e r a l i z e d expectancy to p e r c e i v e reinforcements as being e i t h e r dependent upon one's own behavior ( i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l ) , or contingent upon f o r c e s beyond one's c o n t r o l ( e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l ) . More r e c e n t l y , the work of Levenson (1974, 1981) has i n d i c a t e d that l o c u s of c o n t r o l may be more a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e d as a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l concept, wherein people p e r c e i v e that reinforcements a r e : dependent upon t h e i r own behavior or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ( i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l ) ; under the c o n t r o l of powerful other people (powerful o t h e r s c o n t r o l ) ; or the r e s u l t of f o r c e s beyond t h e i r c o n t r o l (chance c o n t r o l ) . In order to p r e d i c t behavior, locus of c o n t r o l may be measured e i t h e r as a g e n e r a l i z e d reinforcement expectancy, or as a s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c expectancy. The r e l a t i v e importance of 2 these expectancies i s dependent upon the amount of experience a person has in a pa r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n . Generalized expectancies are more important in situations that are novel, while s p e c i f i c expectancies are more important in familiar situations (Rotter, 1975) . The locus of control construct developed out of s o c i a l learning theory (Rotter, 1954; Rotter, Chance, & Phares, 1972). This theory postulates that the potential for a behavior to occur i s a function of both the expectancy that the behavior w i l l lead to a reinforcement and the value of that reinforcement (Rotter, 1975). Consistent with t h i s concept, exercise adherence i s expected to be greatest among those who highly value one or more exercise reinforcements (e.g., release of tension or fitness) and have an internal locus of control ( i . e . , a high expectancy that their behavior w i l l result in the reinforcements). I n i t i a l support for the e f f i c a c y of this t h e o r e t i c a l model has been obtained in an exercise adherence study (Dishman & Gettman, 1980) which used the Health Locus of Control (HLC) Scale (Wallston, Wallston, Kaplan, & Maides, 1976), along with a measure of health and fitness value (Kenyon, 1968a). Results showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between adherers and dropouts based solely on HLC scores. However, when median s p l i t s of the HLC scores were combined with median s p l i t s of health and fitness value scores, i t was found that subjects with an internal locus of control and high health and fitness value scores were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more l i k e l y to adhere than subjects 3 with an external locus of control and low health and fitness value scores. Use of a health s p e c i f i c locus of control scale in the previously mentioned study was based on the assumption that health is the primary reinforcement of exercise. Although t h i s assumption may be true, some individuals may perceive that other exercise reinforcements are just as important or even more important than health (e.g., looking better, feeling better, e t c . ) . As a result, i t may be possible to achieve a stronger relationship between locus of control and adherence using a locus of control instrument which takes into account the multiple reinforcements associated with exercise. Such an instrument could be either: a generalized locus of control measure, in which case the numerous reinforcements of exercise would not matter; or a s p e c i f i c exercise reinforcement locus of control measure, in which case the reinforcements of exercise would be the focus of the inventory. Although no mention has been made of generalized locus of control measures in studies of exercise program adherence, results of related studies demonstrate the potential usefulness of such measures. Si g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e relationships have been found between internal locus of control and adherence to women's in t e r c o l l e g i a t e sports (Moore, 1980), and to p a r t i c i p a t i o n in physical a c t i v i t y (Bonds, 1980; Sontroem & Walker, 1973). L i t t l e evidence exists regarding the use of exercise s p e c i f i c locus of control measures in connection with exercise adherence. However, one such inventory, the Exercise Locus of 4 Control Scale (EXLOC), was developed (Noland, 1981) and used to examine the exercise behavior of women (N=215) in two age groups (25-45 yrs, 46-65 y r s ) . The findings for the older group showed a s i g n i f i c a n t positive relationship between i n t e r n a l i t y and exercise behavior, and a negative relationship between exercise behavior and the Chance and Powerful Others scales. While the t i t l e of t h i s exercise s p e c i f i c inventory and the findings of Noland's study suggest that the EXLOC may be appropriate for examining locus of control in an exercise adherence study, closer inspection of the instrument reveals that the scales are aimed at people's perceptions of what controls their exercise behavior, rather than their perceptions of what controls their reinforcements. In other words, the EXLOC does not conform to the basic assumption that locus of control i s a reinforcement expectancy variable. Consequently, i t was deemed necessary to develop and test a more t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound exercise s p e c i f i c inventory. The main objective of t h i s study was to examine the relationships between exercise program adherence and the combined e f f e c t s of values held toward physical a c t i v i t y and locus of control--using a generalized measure (Levenson's Internal, Powerful Others, & Chance [IPC] Scales), and a s p e c i f i c exercise reinforcement locus of control measure (Exercise Objectives Locus of Control [EOLOC] Scales, which was developed by the author). It was hypothesized that adherence would be p o s i t i v e l y related to the combined ef f e c t s of locus of control and values held toward physical a c t i v i t y , when locus of 5 c o n t r o l was measured by the I n t e r n a l s c a l e s of the IPC and EOLOC i n v e n t o r i e s . In a d d i t i o n , i t was expected that adherence would be n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the combined e f f e c t s of locus of c o n t r o l and values h e l d toward p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y , when locu s of c o n t r o l was measured by the Powerful Others and Chance s c a l e s of the IPC and EOLOC i n v e n t o r i e s . Supplementary o b j e c t i v e s of the study i n c l u d e d : t e s t i n g the psychometric p r o p e r t i e s and p o t e n t i a l e f f i c a c y of the newly developed EOLOC S c a l e s ; and assessment of a v a r i e t y of f a c t o r s which have been found to be r e l a t e d to adherence i n other s t u d i e s (e.g., s o c i a l support, goal attainment, previous b e h a v i o r ) . The e x e r c i s e behavior of dropouts and adherers subsequent to t h e i r q u i t t i n g or completion of the program, and dropout's a t t r i b u t i o n s of t h e i r reasons for q u i t t i n g were a l s o examined. 6 Review of Literature Locus of Control Theoretical Background Locus of control is an expectancy variable derived from s o c i a l learning theory (Rotter, 1954, 1966; Rotter et a l . , 1972); a personality theory that integrates the stimulus-response theories and cognitive theories of s o c i a l psychology. In s o c i a l learning theory, "the general formula for behavior is that the potential for a behavior to occur in any s p e c i f i c psychological situation i s a function of the expectancy that behavior w i l l lead to a p a r t i c u l a r reinforcement in that situation and the value of that reinforcement" (Rotter, 1975, p. 57) . Underlying the so c i a l learning model of behavior are several important assumptions (Rotter, 1966, 1975). Most basic of these is the idea that a reinforcement serves to increase one's expectancy that a certain event or behavior w i l l result in that same reinforcement in the future. Second, a reinforcement that is perceived as being related to one's own behavior w i l l increase expectancy more than a reinforcement that is seen as being related to external forces. As a res u l t , individual's develop d i f f e r e n t b e l i e f s about control of reinforcements based on their own experiences. Third, when a person perceives situations as similar, his or her expectancies about reinforcement w i l l generalize somewhat across situations. F i n a l l y , i t i s postulated that people have situ a t i o n s p e c i f i c expectancies which act in conjunction with generalized 7 expectancies to determine behavior. The locus of control construct was o r i g i n a l l y seen as a generalized expectancy regarding the degree to which people believe that their reinforcements are dependent on their own behavior or upon forces external to them. This conceptualization prompted the development of Rotter's (1966) Internal-External (I~E) control scale, which has highly influenced research on the locus of control construct and the development of subsequent scales (Strickland, 1977). More recently, a multidimensional generalized instrument has been developed. The Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance (IPC) Scales (Levenson, 1974) d i f f e r from the I-E scale in that the external orientation has been s p l i t into two dimensions, powerful others and chance. This s p l i t was based on the idea that those who believe their reinforcements to be controlled by powerful people behave d i f f e r e n t l y than those believing the world i s unpredictable and unordered. In the former case, there is at least potential for control (Levenson, 1981). Locus of control can also be seen as a situation s p e c i f i c expectancy. The Health Locus of Control Scale (Wallston et a l . , 1976) and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales (Wallston, Wallston, & d e V e l l i s , 1978), for example, were developed to measure b e l i e f s in control of health reinforcement. While s p e c i f i c to health, these scales are s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y generalized expectancy measures, cutting across a variety of behaviors and health related settings. A number of more s p e c i f i c expectancy measures have also been developed. Examples 8 of these include the Weight Locus of Control Scale (Saltzer, 1978) and the Exercise Locus of Control Scale (Noland, 1981), which purport to measure b e l i e f s in weight control and exercise reinforcements respectively. The usefulness of generalized and s p e c i f i c expectancy measures varies in importance depending on the l e v e l of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y required. A generalized measure allows prediction in a wide range of situations, but at a low l e v e l . In situations where p r e d i c t a b i l i t y is of prime importance, s p e c i f i c measures of expectancy may be more b e n e f i c i a l (Phares, 1976; Rotter, 1975). Since increased p r e d i c t a b i l i t y in the area of exercise behavior may provide important c l i n i c a l advantages for improving adherence, the need exists for an exercise s p e c i f i c locus of control measure. As mentioned previously, measures of locus of control expectancies combined with reinforcement value measures should, according to s o c i a l learning theory, contribute to the prediction of a behavior. This notion has been examined in re l a t i o n to exercise adherence and exercise p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Exercise Adherence The studies which have attempted to predict exercise adherence using a locus of control measure have been largely unsuccessful. However, these studies have had problems of a t h e o r e t i c a l , methodological or s t a t i s t i c a l nature. Dishman, Ikes and Morgan (1980) conducted a 20-week exercise adherence study involving 66 adult males. A number of psychological variables, including health locus of control were examined, 9 however, only self-motivation was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to adherence. The f a i l u r e of health locus of control to discriminate between adherers and dropouts may have been due to several factors. F i r s t , the subjects were not a homogeneous population in terms of health; 45 were apparently healthy, while 21 were suffering from coronary heart disease. As a result the health locus of control orientation of these two groups may have been d i f f e r e n t . Second, use of a health s p e c i f i c locus of control measure presupposes that everyone views physical a c t i v i t y as a health behavior, whereas some may feel that the primary reinforcement of exercise l i e s in other realms, such as soc i a l experience or catharsis. As a result, the HLC Scale can only be expected to predict exercise behavior when health i s the primary value associated with the a c t i v i t y . Third, a measure of reinforcement value was not included with locus of control when the data were analyzed; a step which i s postulated as essential when attempting to predict behavior using t h i s concept (Rotter, 1975). Some, support for the v a l i d i t y of these l a t t e r two c r i t i c i s m s was supplied when Dishman and Gettman (1980) reanalyzed this data by combining median s p l i t s for the HLC Scale with median s p l i t s of health and fitness value scores. Results showed that subjects with an external locus of control and low health and fitness value scores were less l i k e l y to adhere, 52.4% (11 out of 21), than subjects with an internal locus of control and high health value scores, 81.8% (18 out of 22). O'Connell and Price (1982) used the Multidimensional Health 10 Locus of Control Scales in an attempt to ident i f y differences between participants, dropouts, and nonparticipants in a 10-week corporate f i t n e s s program. Although, i t was reported that the one-way analysis of variance was s i g n i f i c a n t for scores on the Internal Scale, in fact significance was not obtained at the p_ <.05 l e v e l . Possible reasons for t h i s result include: the use of a health s p e c i f i c expectancy measure, lack of a measure of reinforcement value, and absence of an analysis by sex—even though there were 102 females and only 19 males. Two studies which have assessed the relationship between locus of control and adherence to sports have achieved equivocal r e s u l t s . In a study assessing the differences in locus of control orientation between college women athletes in team sports versus individual sports, Moore (1980) made a c o r o l l a r y discovery. Using the IPC Scales i t was found that athletes who continued to play their sport through the competitive season scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher on the Internal scale than those who dropped out. In contrast, Sonstroem and Kampper (1980) found no s i g n i f i c a n t r elationship between scores on B i a l e r ' s (1961) locus of control scale (a scale designed for children) and adherence to f l a g - f o o t b a l l or cross-country running among grade seven and eight boys. However, in a follow-up interview many dropouts reported that they had volunteered i n i t i a l l y as a result of peer pressure and had subsequently quit because of their involvement in other a t h l e t i c events or school a c t i v i t i e s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Physical A c t i v i t y The relationship between locus of control and reported 11 physical a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n has been studied by a number of investigators. Results have generally shown a positive relationship between these two factors. In the Sonstroem and Walker (1973) study, Rotter's I-E scale and Kenyon's (1968b) Attitude Toward Physical A c t i v i t y (ATPA) inventory were examined in relation to cardiorespiratory fitness and reported voluntary exercise. The sample of 102 males was divided into four groups by combining median s p l i t s of the I-E scores with median s p l i t s of the ATPA scores. It was found that internal subjects with more favorable attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y reported greater amounts of voluntary physical exercise and obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y better . fitness scores than the rest of the sample. Bonds (1980) examined the relationship between the I-E scale and several aspects of behavior in a sample of 69 women and 31 men, aged 65-86. Internal locus of control was found to be p o s i t i v e l y related to the number of reported hours of recreational exercise engaged in per week. Noland (1981) studied the relationship between pa r t i c i p a t i o n in regular, vigorous exercise and several factors, including: exercise locus of control; attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y ; values held toward health, physical appearance, and physical f i t n e s s ; and perceived barriers to exercise. The sample which comprised 215 women from a number of women's clubs, was divided into 2 age groups. In the 46 to 65 year old age group, findings revealed positive relationships between reported exercise behavior and i n t e r n a l i t y on the EXLOC Scales, attitude 1 2 toward physical a c t i v i t y , and physical f i t n e s s value. Negative relationships were discovered between exercise behavior and the Chance and Powerful Others scales of the EXLOC. In the 25 to 45-year age group, exercise behavior was found to be p o s i t i v e l y related to attitude toward physical a c t i v i t y , health value, and physical fitness value. A negative relationship was reported between exercise behavior and perceived barriers to exercise. In a recent study of 70 women (aged 24-65), Laffrey and Isenberg (1983) examined the relationship between internal health locus of control (using the Internal Scale of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales) health value, perceived importance of exercise, and reported amount of par t i c i p a t i o n in leisure-time physical a c t i v i t y . Results of the study revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t positive relationship between amount of physical a c t i v i t y during le i s u r e and perceived importance of physical a c t i v i t y . However, the relationships between amount of leisure-time physical a c t i v i t y and Internal Health Locus of Control or health value were not s i g n i f i c a n t at the p_<.05 l e v e l . When the combined effects of internal locus of control, health value, and perceived importance of physical a c t i v i t y were examined using a stepwise multiple regression procedure, p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of the variance in amount of physical a c t i v i t y during l e i s u r e was explained by perceived importance of exercise. The f a i l u r e of health locus of control and health value to predict exercise p a r t i c i p a t i o n in thi s case, may be attributable to the use of healt h - s p e c i f i c measures. That i s , the women in the sample may not have perceived le i s u r e exercise 1 3 as being primarily a health promoting modality. Several researchers have examined the relationship between generalized locus of control and actual p a r t i c i p a t i o n in competitive sports. Results have consistently demonstrated no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in generalized locus of control orientations between athletes and nonathletes (Di & Raymond, 1973; G i l l i l a n d , 1974; Kildea, 1980; Lynn, Phelan, & Kiker, 1969; McKelvie & Huband, 1980). An exceptional finding was reported by Morris, Vaccaro, and Clarke (1979) in a study of 20 competitive swimmers, aged 7 to 17. Results showed that these swimmers were more internal, as measured by the Children's Locus of Control Scale, than published norms for their nonathletic peers. Possible explanations for this contrasting discovery include: the use of norms rather than a control group, the large age range of the sample—comprising both children and adolescents, and the use of a children's scale. The previously mentioned studies a l l used high school and college samples together with generalized adult locus of control measures. In general, results to date indicate that among adults a positive relationship exists between internal locus of control and self-reported p a r t i c i p a t i o n in physical a c t i v i t y ; whereas among high school and college students there i s no relationship between locus of control and sports p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Further research i s required in order to gain a better understanding of these seemingly contradictory findings. Behaviors Related to Exercise Adherence In order to gain a broader understanding of the 1 4 relationship between locus of control and exercise adherence, i t is useful to examine the results of studies which have used locus of control measures to assess such related behaviors as compliance to medical regimens or weight reduction programs. Medical Compliance. A number of investigators have focused on the relat i o n s h i p between health locus of control b e l i e f s and compliance to medical regimens (e.g., diet control, medication taking, appointment keeping). Although a few studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between i n t e r n a l i t y and desired behaviors, more investigators have shown medical compliance to be related to external b e l i e f s (Wallston & Wallston, 1981). This relationship between compliance and externality would make sense i f the external construct being measured was powerful others, but most studies have used the unidimensional Health Locus of Control scale which includes only one powerful others item. Thus, i t seems that the relationship between medical compliance and locus of control requires further study. Weight Reduction. Studies by Balch and Ross (1975) and Wallston et a l . , 1976) have found a relat i o n s h i p between locus of control orientation and success in d i f f e r e n t types of weight reduction programs. This indicates that s e l f - c o n t r o l and group weight reduction programs may be more e f f e c t i v e for internal and external subjects respectively. The results of three studies have shown no relationship between locus of control orientation and successful weight loss (Monahan, 1972; Tobias & MacDonald, 1977; Wallston, et a l . , 15 1976). One possible explanation for these results i s the lack of s p e c i f i c i t y of the expectancy measures used. A l l three studies used Rotter's generalized I-E scale, while Wallston et a l . also used the HLC scale. This s p e c i f i c i t y argument is weakened somewhat by the fact that Tobias and MacDonald also u t i l i z e d a weight s p e c i f i c locus of control scale. Recently however, Saltzer (1978) developed a weight-loss s p e c i f i c scale which has been successful at predicting weight reduction. Saltzer (1982) administered the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales and the Weight Locus of Control (WLOC) Scale along with a health and physical appearance value survey, to 115 female subjects v o l u n t a r i l y beginning a medical weight reduction program. Subjects were categorized as those who remained at least 6 weeks—attending regularly for 39 days or more (completers), and those who dropped out in less than 6 weeks (noncompleters). Median s p l i t s were used to divide subjects into internals and externals on the various locus of control scales and to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between those with high or low values on health and physical appearance. The analysis revealed that subjects categorized as internal on the WLOC scale were more l i k e l y to be completers than were WLOC externals. No relationship was found between the MHLC scales and program completion. It was also found that WLOC internals who placed a high value on health or physical appearance were more successful in achieving their weight loss goals than were WLOC externals. Furthermore, the highest c o r r e l a t i o n between the intention to lose weight and actually losing weight was obtained by WLOC 1 6 internals who placed a high value on physical appearance rather than health. Saltzer interpreted t h i s l a t t e r finding as an indication that for some people health may not be the most i n f l u e n t i a l weight loss reinforcement. This idea may also explain the f a i l u r e of the health s p e c i f i c MHLC and HLC scales to predict adherence or weight lo s s . Smoking Reduction. Numerous studies have assessed the relati o n s h i p between smoking and generalized locus of contro l . In general, these investigations have shown that nonsmokers and individuals who were able to stop smoking were more internal than smokers (Strickland, 1978). Several studies have used health locus of control measures to predict success in reducing smoking in behaviorally-oriented smoking cessation programs. Kaplan and Cowles (1978) found that HLC internals with high health values were more successful than other subjects in reducing smoking over a 15-week treatment period and in maintaining t h i s behavior change over a 3 to 5.5 month followup period. S i m i l a r l y , Wildman, Rosenbaum, Framer, and Johnson (cited in Wallston & Wallston, 1981) showed that HLC internals smoked s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than HLC externals at the end of a 7-week program and throughout a 21-month followup period. In a study using the MHLC scales, Shipley (cited in Wallston & Wallston, 1981) found smoking abstinence six months after treatment to be related to high scores on the Internal scale and low scores on the Chance scale. Preventive Health Behaviors. The results of a number of studies have demonstrated positive relationships between 1 7 general ized in terna l locus of cont ro l and preventive health behaviors such as going to the dent is t for check ups, obtaining immunization, wearing seat b e l t s , and p rac t i c ing b i r t h cont ro l (S t r i ck land , 1977, 1978). In cont ras t , several studies using health locus of contro l measures have f a i l e d to substantiate the expected re la t ionsh ip between i n t e r n a l i t y and health maintenance or preventive behaviors (Wallston & Wal lston, 1981). The resu l ts of some of these studies may have been more p red ic t i ve i f the invest igators had included measures of health value in the i r analyses. Change in Locus of Control Or ientat ion Over Time A number of studies have examined changes in locus of contro l o r ientat ion as a resul t of phys ica l a c t i v i t y . This i s an important factor to take into account when examining the t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y of a locus of contro l measure—using scores obtained pr ior to and fol lowing a program of phys ica l act i v i ty . Changes in locus of cont ro l o r ientat ion in an in terna l d i r e c t i o n have been reported in two 12-week exercise s tud ies . J e f f e r s (1977) found that the I-E scores of 100 un ivers i ty students (50 male and 50 female) were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower (more internal ) fol lowing p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a 12-week phys ica l condi t ion ing c l a s s . Among the male p a r t i c i p a n t s , changes in I-E score were a lso s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the changes in the contro l group (n=50). In a rather complex behavioral intervent ion study with a very small sample comprising 6 p o s t - i n f a r c t male subjects (3 Type A p e r s o n a l i t i e s and 3 Type B 18 pe r s o n a l i t i e s ) , i t was found that the Health Locus of Control scores of the Type B's became s i g n i f i c a n t l y more internal following a 12-week cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program (Wellwood, Kennedy, & Sharratt, 1982). Several studies have f a i l e d to show a change in locus of control orientation following a period of exercise p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Howley (1982) found no change in health locus of control scores among 31 disabled and able-bodied subjects following a 3-week training program. Generalized locus of control, as measured by the Adult Nowicki-Strickland Internal-External Control Scale, remained unchanged by exercise in both a 6-week study of 45 coronary heart patients (Cunningham, 1980), and in a 10-week study of 54 unfit students in jogging and v o l l e y b a l l classes (Blackinton, 1981). Si m i l a r l y , the results of a study by Wieman (1980) f a i l e d to support the hypothesis that subjects (N=63) in a jogging class would experience a change in locus of control in an internal di rect ion. The findings of these studies have been inconsistent, a result which may be attributable to the use of generalized locus of control measures, as well as diverse time periods, samples and sample si z e s . Further research i s necessary before any conclusions can be drawn on whether or not locus of control orientation changes as a result of physical a c t i v i t y . Such research might benefit from using an exercise s p e c i f i c expectancy measure, which would t h e o r e t i c a l l y (Rotter, 1975) be more sensitive to change in an exercise setting than would a 1 9 generalized instrument. The relationship between locus of control orientation and chronological age has been studied by a number of investigators. In a study using Rotter's I-E scale, Lao (cited in Levenson, 1981) found that personal e f f i c a c y increased from youth to adulthood and did not decrease s i g n i f i c a n t l y in middle or old age. These findings were extended by Ryckman and Malikioski (1975) in a study using Levenson's IPC scales. The sample consisted of 100 college students (aged 17-20) and 383 adults (aged 21-79). The results showed that the college students were less internal than the adults, although this difference was not s i g n i f i c a n t for the oldest age group (70-79). Adults in their f i f t i e s had the highest belief in control of powerful others, while the septuagenerians were least l i k e l y to believe that other people were in control of their l i v e s . Subjects in the 30 and 40 year age groups scored lower on the Chance scale than people who were either older or younger. This indicates perhaps that the 30 and 40 year olds f e l t their l i v e s were more predictable and stable than the other age groups did. Since there appears to be some relationship between age and locus of control orientation, t h i s i s a variable that should be taken into account when dealing with a sample of varying ages. Additional Exercise Adherence Research Much of the research concerned with exercise program adherence has sought to i d e n t i f y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s i t u a t i o n a l factors which distinguish dropouts from adherers. A review of the variables most pertinent to t h i s study i s provided in the 20 following discussion. Psychological Factors Attitude. Attitudes toward exercise have been measured in a number of adherence studies using a variety of standardized and subjective questionnaires. In general, the standardized measures of attitude have shown l i t t l e or no relationship with adherence, while s e l f - r a t i n g s of attitudes have demonstrated a positive relationship with adherence. Sonstroem (1978) developed the Physical Estimation and Attraction Scales to assess one's a t t r a c t i o n to physical a c t i v i t y and one's estimation of achieving personal success in the a c t i v i t y . These scales have been unsuccessful in predicting adherence among 66 adult male exercisers (Dishman & Gettman, 1980) or among 181 grade seven and eight male athletes (Sonstroem & Kampper, 1980). In a study involving 639 subjects from a cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program, Andrew et a l . (1981) found that the dropout rate was greater among those who were not enthusiastic about the program and/or did not have a strong b e l i e f in the value of exercise for their health. Ho et a l . (1981) reported that adherence was s i g n i f i c a n t l y predicted by positive ratings of elementary school physical education experiences, in a group of 48 males. Based on a conceptual model characterizing physical a c t i v i t y as having a number of dimensions, Kenyon (1968a, 1968b, 1968c) developed an inventory to assess attitudes toward 21 physical a c t i v i t y as: a s o c i a l experience (providing a medium for s o c i a l i nteractions), health and f i t n e s s (contributing to one's health and f i t n e s s ) , the pursuit of vertigo (providing an element of risk or t h r i l l ) , aesthetic experience (providing a medium for experiencing beauty in movement), catharsis (providing a release of tension), an ascetic experience (demanding long and hard training and delayed g r a t i f i c a t i o n ) , and as chance (possessing an element of luck). Among men, Kenyon's ATPA inventory does not appear to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between exercise adherers and dropouts (Dishman & Gettman, 1980; Massie & Shephard, 1971; Shephard & Cox, 1980). However, among 191 women, Shephard and Cox found that dropouts placed s i g n i f i c a n t l y less value on catharsis and higher value on exercise as a game of chance, than did high adherers. There has also been some indication that subdomains of ATPA may predict adherence when combined with a measure of locus of control (Dishman & Gettman, 1980) . This finding w i l l be examined further in t h i s study. Motivation. Motivation appears to be an important factor in adherence. Low motivation is commonly c i t e d by dropouts as one of their main reasons for discontinuing p a r t i c i p a t i o n in exercise programs (Bruce, Frederick, Bruce, & Fisher, 1976; Faulkner & Stewart, 1978; Oldridge, Wicks, Hanley, Sutton, & Jones, 1978; Stovel, Bailey, & Cumming, 1970). Self-motivation as measured by the Self-Motivation Inventory (Dishman & Ikes, 1981) has proven successful in distinguishing between dropouts and adherers in a group of 64 female i n t e r c o l l e g i a t e rowers (Dishman et a l . , 1980) and among 66 men in 20-week medically 22 prescribed exercise programs (Dishman & Gettman, 1980). This finding has been supported by the results of two studies which have used alternate motivation measurement instruments. Massie and Shephard (1971) reported that dropouts from a 28-week course of regular exercise (n=52) scored s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower on the Shephard Motivation Quiz than did adherers. Snyder, Franklin, Foss, and Rubenfire (1982) in a study, involving 160 subjects, found poor compliance in cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs to be associated with a low motivation index. Since internal locus of control has been found to be related to a number of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s often associated with motivation, such as goal-directed behavior, achievement behavior, taking f u l l advantage of situations, and delaying g r a t i f i c a t i o n (Strickland, 1977), i t was deemed redundant to measure or control for motivation in t h i s study. Goal attainment. Another seemingly important adherence factor i s the setting and attainment of exercise objectives. Following a survey of 254 dropouts from a company exercise program, Danielson and Wanzel (1977) reported that those participants who did not attain their exercise goals, dropped out at a s i g n i f i c a n t l y faster rate than those who did. Related to t h i s , Ho et a l . (1981) found that exercise adherence among 81 males was p o s i t i v e l y correlated with setting long-term goals, and negatively correlated with the l i k e l i h o o d of q u i t t i n g with unmet expectations. Consequently, i t appears that goal attainment i s an important variable to measure or control in studying adherence. 23 Personality. In general, studies have been unable to establish a systematic relationship between personality c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and exercise adherence. Contrasting results have been found with respect to s o c i a l introversion-extroversion, anxiety, and self-image (Blumenthal, Williams, Wallace, Williams J r , & Needles, 1982; Ho et a l . , 1981; Massie & Shephard, 1971; Shephard & Cox, 1980). Several studies have examined the effect of Type A versus Type B personality on exercise adherence. Oldridge et a l . (1978) reported that dropouts from a four-year cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program (N=163) tended to have a Type A personality pattern, characterized by ambition, aggression, competitiveness, and a chronic sense of time urgency. However, th i s result has not been supported by the findings of several other studies (Shephard & Cox, 1980; Snyder et a l . , 1982; Wellwood, Kennedy, & Sharratt, 1982). The discrepant, findings characterizing the l i t e r a t u r e dealing with the relationship between exercise adherence and personality variables may be a result of several factors, including the use of a variety of standardized instruments, subjective measures, and d i f f e r i n g samples (e.g., healthy versus cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n patients). A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i t may be that personality t r a i t s are not useful predictors of adherence behavior. Regardless, the inconsistency of t h i s approach precludes the necessity of measuring or c o n t r o l l i n g for such factors in t h i s study. Behavior and Demographics Smoking appears to be related to exercise adherence. It 24 has been found to predict fitness program dropouts among both healthy exercisers (Massie & Shephard, 1971) and cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n participants (Oldridge, 1979; Oldridge & Jones, 1981; Oldridge & Spencer, 1983; Oldridge et a l . , 1978). The relationship between socioeconomic status and adherence has been examined by a number of researchers, however, the results have been inconsistent. Snyder et a l . (1982) found that compliance to a cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program was unaffected by blue or white c o l l a r status; whereas other studies (Oldridge, 1979'; Oldridge & Jones, 1981; Oldridge & Spencer, 1983) reported that more dropouts than adherers were blue c o l l a r workers. A study by Friedman and He l l e r s t e i n (1973) showed that adherence rate was inversely correlated with annual income among 173 upper-middle class Jewish businessmen and professionals. Findings of -several studies have indicated that poor compliance among cardiac exercise program participants i s related to being inactive during leisure time (Oldridge, 1979; Oldridge & Jones, 1981; Oldridge & Spencer, 1983; Snyder et a l . , 1982). The relationship between exercise adherence and reg i s t r a t i o n fees has received l i t t l e attention. Massie and Shephard (1971) found that adherence was much greater in a YMCA class (52.6%) where participants paid a fee of $60.00, than in an individual program (18.2%) the cost of which was a $1.00 copy of a book. However, i t i s not known whether t h i s adherence discrepancy was a result of f i n a n c i a l incentive in the YMCA group, lack of support in the individual group, or some other 25 spurious factor. Since previous behavior would seem to be a l o g i c a l predictor of present behavior, i t i s surprising that in a study involving 362 males, Dishman (1981) found no relationship between self-reported previous involvement in physical a c t i v i t y and program adherence. This contrasts with the finding of Snyder and Baber (1979) that former college athletes (n=233) demonstrated more interest and involvement in sports and physical a c t i v i t y than former nonathletic students (n=l90). Situational Factors Social Factors. Andrew et a l . (1981) reported that cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n participants who f e l t t heir spouses were ind i f f e r e n t or negative toward the program were three times more l i k e l y to dropout than those who f e l t spouse support. S i m i l a r l y , in a study involving 195 men, Heinzelmann and Bagley (1970) found that exercisers with supportive spouses were twice as l i k e l y to have good adherence as those with unsupportive spouses. Faulkner and Stewart (1978) reported that, following a 10-week exercise program, female subjects (N=149) commonly c i t e d in a questionnaire that spouse and friend influence were important for adherence. Two studies have reported s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower adherence rates among those exercising alone than among group participants (Massie & Shephard, 1971; Wilhelmsen et a l . , 1975). Heinzelmann and Bagley (1970) found that almost 90% of 195 exercisers indicated that they preferred to exercise with others. Related to t h i s , findings of a study involving 302 males and 58 females, 26 showed that support was s i g n i f i c a n t l y predictive of exercise a c t i v i t y l e v e l 12 months after coronary artery bypass surgery (Knapp, Gutmann, Squires, & Pollock, 1983). Program Factors. The convenience and a c c e s s i b l i t y of the program setting seem to be important adherence factors. Andrew et a l . (1981) found that the dropout rate in a longitudinal (seven year) study was greater among those who f e l t that the exercise center was inconveniently located and found parking d i f f i c u l t . This result was supported by an e a r l i e r finding that subjects (N= 1708) who indicated a willingness to p a r t i c i p a t e in exercise programs l i v e d nearer the f a c i l i t i e s than those unwilling to p a r t i c i p a t e (Teraslinna, Partanen, Oja, & Koskela, 1970). Program dropout rates have also been greater among participants who found i t d i f f i c u l t to attend on time (Andrew et a l . , 1981), or did not l i k e the training time (Mann, Garrett, Farhi, Murray, & B i l l i n g s , 1969). The relationship between program personnel and exercise adherence has rarely been reported. Andrew et a l . (1981) found that more dropouts than adherers f e l t that they had received l i t t l e individual attention and that the program staff were impersonal and unreceptive. Although the behavioral, demographic, and s i t u a t i o n a l factors mentioned in the above discussion lack the explanatory power of t h e o r e t i c a l l y based variables, they are nevertheless of interest to measure in r e l a t i o n to exercise adherence. Exercise Adherence Rates and Measurement In order to determine average dropout and attendance rates, 27 as well as methods for measuring adherence, 35 exercise adherence studies, including 14 involved with healthy subjects and 21 dealing with coronary heart disease patients, were reviewed. Among the studies which used healthy samples (e.g., Faulkner & Stewart, 1978; Massie & Shephard, 1971), the dropout rates ranged from 9% to 75%, with a mean of 33% (over an average time span of eight months). Twenty cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n studies (e.g., Blumenthal et a l . , 1982; Bruce et a l . , 1976) reported dropout rates ranging from 3% to 87%, with a mean of 44% (over an average time period of 26 months). Average percent attendance which was reported in six studies of healthy subjects ranged from 42% to 80.5%, with a mean of 59%; whereas among five cardiac studies, the mean attendance rate was 73%, with a range of 58.5% to 85%. Information on the methods used for determining adherence was gathered from 22 studies. Of these, six studies placed subjects in adherence categories based on subjective inspections of attendance data, eight described dropouts as those who stopped attending any time prior to completion of the program, and eight defined dropouts according to some predetermined attendance c r i t e r i a . The inconsistency of adherence measurement techniques across studies makes comparison of findings d i f f i c u l t and may contribute to the equivocal results often obtained in adherence studies. Adherence measurement is an area that needs to be examined in future research. 28 Method Subjects and Setting The subjects were 61 females, aged 15 to 57 (M=28), who had vol u n t a r i l y elected to parti c i p a t e in 8-12 week fitness programs offered at various schools and community centers throughout the Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley areas. These coeducational programs were sponsored by a l o c a l fitness organization which maintains uniformity of ins t r u c t i o n , content, and le v e l of d i f f i c u l t y across programs. Subjects were taken from 14 programs, which met two or three times per week for one hour. Registered participants (n=48) were required to pay a fee of $1.50 per cl a s s , while drop-in (n=l3) participants paid $2.00 per c l a s s . The programs were designed to increase cardiovascular endurance, f l e x i b i l i t y , strength, body awareness, and movement co n t r o l . Each class also featured a warm-up, cool-down, and some exercises considered b e n e f i c i a l for the back. Measures Two locus of control instruments were used. Generalized locus of control was measured using Levenson's Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance (IPC) Scales (1974, 1981), while exercise s p e c i f i c locus of control was assessed by the Exercise Objectives Locus of Control (EOLOC) Scales, developed by the researcher (Appendix A). Values held towards exercise were measured using the Revised Children's Attitudes Toward Physical A c t i v i t y (CATPA) Inventory (Schutz, Smoll, & Wood, 1981a). A measure of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y was obtained using a shortened 29 version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l i t y Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), c a l l e d the M-C 1(10) scale (Strahan & Gerbashi, 1972). This measure tested whether or not the EOLOC Scales were contaminated by s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l t y . The recently developed Causal Dimension Scale (Russel, 1982) was used to determine the locus of causality, s t a b i l i t y , and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y of the reasons dropouts gave for discontinuing p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the program. A detailed description of each of these measures is provided in Appendix B. Adherence data were determined from class attendance sheets maintained by the program instructors. Drop-in participants were required to sign one of these sheets each time they attended a c l a s s . Registered participants were asked to sign an attendance sheet in some programs, while in others the instructor checked off the dates which they attended. A l l attendance records were forwarded to the head o f f i c e where they were made available to the researcher. Procedure Prior to the start of the fit n e s s programs, instructors were given packages containing the f i r s t questionnaire, a covering l e t t e r , a pencil, and a prestamped envelope bearing the address of the investigator (Appendix C). The instructors were asked to d i s t r i b u t e these packages to registered participants who had not previously been enrolled in the program nor been following a regular regimen of physical a c t i v i t y over the la s t year. Neither the instructors nor the subjects were informed that adherence was the focus of the study. 30 The c o v e r i n g l e t t e r which accompanied each q u e s t i o n n a i r e comprised a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the study, an informed consent form, and general i n s t r u c t i o n s on how to complete and r e t u r n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Subjects were asked not to c o l l a b o r a t e with others when completing the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and assurances were made that a l l data would be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l . A summary report of the study r e s u l t s was o f f e r e d as a small reward for p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of s i x s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n p e r t a i n e d to demographic and b e h a v i o r a l f a c t o r s such as: age, sex, smoking h a b i t s , l e i s u r e and work a c t i v i t y , employment s t a t u s , spouse and f a m i l y support, and previous e x e r c i s e behavior. T h i s was followed by the IPC S c a l e s , Revised CATPA Inventory, and the M-C 1(10) S c a l e . S u b j e c t s were then asked to l i s t the goals they most wanted to achieve, (to a maximum of t h r e e ) , and to rate on a 5-point L i k e r t - t y p e s c a l e t h e i r expectancy of s u c c e s s f u l l y o b t a i n i n g each of them. The EOLOC Scal e s made up the f i n a l s e c t i o n of t h i s 13-page q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A t o t a l of about 120 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d . In order to promote more candid responses, s u b j e c t s were not requested to put t h e i r names on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . However, s i n c e names were needed i n order to t r a c e s u b j e c t s ' d a i l y attendance, the i n s t r u c t o r s were requested to rec o r d the name, telephone number, and q u e s t i o n n a i r e number of each s u b j e c t . Two to three weeks f o l l o w i n g t e r m i n a t i o n of the f i t n e s s programs, the researcher contacted by telephone, 63 of the 66 31 s u b j e c t s f o r whom names were a v a i l a b l e . The o t h e r t h r e e c o u l d n o t be r e a c h e d b e c a u s e t e l e p h o n e numbers were n o t p r o v i d e d . T h o s e who were c o n t a c t e d were a s k e d i f t h e y w o u l d c o m p l e t e a f o l l o w u p q u e s t i o n n a i r e . S i x t y - t w o s u b j e c t s a g r e e d t o t h i s r e q u e s t , a n d a p a c k a g e c o n t a i n i n g t h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e was s u b s e q u e n t l y m a i l e d t o e a c h o f t h e i r homes. Once a g a i n , a c o v e r i n g l e t t e r , p e n c i l a n d r e t u r n s t a m p e d e n v e l o p e were i n c l u d e d i n t h e p a c k a g e . One month l a t e r , t h o s e s u b j e c t s who had n o t r e t u r n e d t h e s e c o n d q u e s t i o n n a i r e were c a l l e d a n d r e m i n d e d t o do s o . The f o l l o w u p q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o m p r i s e d t h r e e p a r t s ( A p p e n d i x C ) . The EOLOC was i n c l u d e d i n o r d e r t o o b t a i n a measure o f t h e t e s t - r e t e s t s t a b i l i t y o f l o c u s o f c o n t r o l o r i e n t a t i o n a s m e a s u r e d by t h i s i n s t r u m e n t . The e x e r c i s e g o a l s t h a t e a c h s u b j e c t h a d r e c o r d e d i n t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e were p r o v i d e d a n d s u b j e c t s were a s k e d t o r a t e how s u c c e s s f u l t h e y had been a t a c h i e v i n g t h e s e g o a l s . F i n a l l y , a d i s t i n c t i o n was made b e t w e e n d r o p o u t s a n d a d h e r e r s - - b y a s k i n g s u b j e c t s w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e y h a d c o n t i n u e d t o a t t e n d c l a s s e s u n t i l t h e p r o g r a m t e r m i n a t e d . B o t h g r o u p s w ere t h e n a s k e d q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e i r s u b s e q u e n t e x e r c i s e b e h a v i o r . I n a d d i t i o n , t h o s e who had n o t f i n i s h e d t h e p r o g r a m were a s k e d t o i d e n t i f y t h e m a i n r e a s o n t h e y had s t o p p e d a t t e n d i n g a n d t o r a t e t h i s r e a s o n on t h e C a u s a l D i m e n s i o n S c a l e . D a t a A n a l y s i s I n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e e x p l o r a t o r y n a t u r e o f t h i s s t u d y e x e r c i s e a d h e r e n c e was m e a s u r e d u s i n g t h r e e m e t h o d s . I n t h e f i r s t m ethod s u b j e c t s were d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e g r o u p s b a s e d on 32 the percentage of classes attended out of the t o t a l number of possible attendances. These groups were broken down according to the following c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : low attendance (under 50%), moderate attendance (50%-74%), and high attendance (over 74%). These cut-off percentages were chosen to y i e l d approximately equal group sizes. Since a number of previous studies (e.g., Dishman & Gettman, 1980; Massie & Shephard, 1971) have categorized adherers and dropouts according to whether or not they attended u n t i l the end of their program, a second method of measuring adherence was used in which subjects were c l a s s i f i e d into three groups according to their attendance during the f i n a l six fitness classes in their program. One group consisted of those who did not attend any of the last six classes. The second group included subjects who attended more than one and less than six of the last classes. The t h i r d group comprised those individuals who attended the last class of the program and at least three other classes of the f i n a l s i x . These groups were so chosen because i t was f e l t that there was a difference in degree of commitment to exercise between these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . The t h i r d technique used for measuring adherence was percent attendance (based on the number of classes attended out of the t o t a l number possible) measured on an interval scale rather than by discrete categories. Descriptive s t a t i s t i c s including means, standard deviations, ranges, and frequencies were calculated for each variable. In addition, a missing value c o r r e l a t i o n matrix was 33 determined f o r the dependent and independent v a r i a b l e s , as w e l l as other v a r i a b l e s of i n t e r e s t . In t h i s procedure only those cases with data present f o r both v a r i a b l e s were used i n e s t i m a t i n g the c o r r e l a t i o n s . M u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of v a r i a n c e (MANOVA) were used to t e s t f o r any d i f f e r e n c e s among the low, moderate, and high attendance groups. Separate MANOVAs used the f o l l o w i n g two sets of dependent v a r i a b l e s : EOLOC (3 scores) and CATPA (8 s c o r e s ) ; IPC (3 scores) and CATPA (8 s c o r e s ) . CATPA was used i n both MANOVAs because i n keeping with s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory, the lo c u s of control-CATPA i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p was of primary i n t e r e s t . Two separate MANOVAs were a l s o used to t e s t the d i f f e r e n c e between the three l a s t - s i x - c l a s s e s adherence groups on the s t r e n g t h of t h e i r EOLOC and CATPA s c o r e s , and on t h e i r IPC and CATPA s c o r e s . Since some information i s l o s t by c l a s s i f y i n g attendance i n t o d i s c r e t e c a t e g o r i e s , stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses were conducted in order to determine whether or not a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s between percent attendance and the two s e t s of p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s ( i . e . , EOLOC and CATPA, IPC and CATPA). Based on s o c i a l l e a r n i n g theory which p o s t u l a t e s that the p o t e n t i a l f o r a behavior to occur i s a f u n c t i o n of both expectancy and reinforcement v a l u e , s e v e r a l i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s were a l s o examined using stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s e s . Each of the three l o c u s of c o n t r o l subdomains ( i n t e r n a l , powerful o t h e r s , and chance) of the EOLOC and IPC S c a l e s were m u l t i p l i e d by S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n and C a t h a r s i s - - t h e two CATPA 34 v a r i a b l e s that c o r r e l a t e d highest with percent attendance. As a r e s u l t , s i x new v a r i a b l e s were c r e a t e d , each of which was the product of an expectancy score and a value s c o r e . These i n t e r a c t i v e v a r i a b l e s were c r e a t e d to t e s t the extent to which the j o i n t e f f e c t of expectancy and value a f f e c t s e x e r c i s e adherence. Frequency t a b l e s and Chi Square analyses were used to determine the degree of r e l a t i o n s h i p between nominally s c a l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e data (e.g., smoking, spouse support, etc.) and attendance (low, moderate, h i g h ) . Many of the c a t e g o r i e s i n these v a r i a b l e s were c o l l a p s e d i n an e f f o r t to b r i n g the expected^ c e l l f r e q u e n c i e s up to 5. Procedure f o r h a n d l i n g m i s s i n g v a l u e s . M i s s i n g values from the IPC (5 s u b j e c t s each had 1 missing value) and EOLOC (see Appendix A) S c a l e s were r e p l a c e d with the corresponding group item mean. Data mi s s i n g from CATPA subdomains (2 s u b j e c t s each missed 1 subdomain) were r e p l a c e d with a value of 15, s i n c e t h i s score i n d i c a t e s mid-point responses on the 5 b i p o l a r a d j e c t i v e s of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e . Six s u b j e c t s completed the CATPA inventory i n c o r r e c t l y , r e s u l t i n g i n m i s s i n g . v a l u e s f o r a l l e i g h t subdomains. These values were not r e p l a c e d and these s i x s u b j e c t s were not used in any analyses which used CATPA sc o r e s . M i s s i n g responses from demographic items and other q u e s t i o n n a i r e data were not a l t e r e d . 35 Results Questionnaire Return Of the 120 (approximately) i n i t i a l questionnaires dist r i b u t e d , 91 were returned for a response rate of about 76%. Since only four of these questionnaires were completed by males, they were eliminated, thereby reducing the number to 87. Some fitness instructors did not record the names of subjects to whom the questionnaires were handed out. As a result only 66 of the returned questionnaires had names to match them. A t o t a l of 62 followup questionnaires were dis t r i b u t e d , of which 53 were returned--a response rate of 85%. Attendance data were not available for 5 of the 66 subjects for whom names were available thereby the number of usable i n i t i a l questionnaires was reduced to 61 . Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s Table I presents the descriptive s t a t i s t i c s of the attendance data. Percent attendance ranged from 6% to 100% with a mean attendance rate of 60%. A t o t a l of 16 subjects (26%) were absent from the f i n a l six classes of the program, while 28 participants (46%) attended one to five of the la s t six classes excluding the very l a s t c l a s s , and 17 subjects (28%) attended the l a s t class and at least three others of the l a s t s i x . These results are comparable to the mean percent attendance and dropout percentages reported in exercise adherence studies of similar length (Epstein, Wing, Thompson, & G r i f f i n , 1980; O'Connell & Price, 1982). The means of the primary dependent variables (EOLOC, IPC, 3 6 and CATPA) in each of the adherence c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are presented in Table II. Also included are the t o t a l group means and standard deviations for each variable. In general, the sample tended to be i n t e r n a l l y oriented. The average internal score on the IPC was approximately 37, out of a maximum of 48, compared to the average external scores of 20 and 21. Si m i l a r l y , the internal average of 27, out of a possible 30, on the EOLOC was substantially higher than the external scales' average scores of 10 and 11. This finding supports the comment made by Levenson (1981) that subjects engaged in health-related a c t i v i e s tend to be more in t e r n a l . In this study, subjects also tended to score more homogeneously on the EOLOC Scales than on the IPC Scales. This is especially true.of the Internal Scale of the EOLOC where i t i s seen that 72% of the subjects scored either 29 or 30 out of 30. The mean CATPA scores were a l l very pos i t i v e with the exception of the Vertigo and Ascetic subdomains. This result agrees with the finding of an e a r l i e r study (Schutz, Smoll, & Wood, 1981b) in which 215 young female athletes were seen to have considerably less p o s i t i v e attitudes about these two variables than about other CATPA variables. MANOVA Analyses Multivariate analyses of variance revealed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference among low, moderate, and high attenders on their EOLOC and CATPA scores, (F<1.0); or on their IPC and CATPA scores, (F(22,84)=1.24, p_<.25). In addition, results of two separate MANOVAs showed no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the 37 three l a s t - s i x - c l a s s e s adherence groups on the strength of their EOLOC and CATPA scores, (F ( 22 , 84 ) = 1 . 1 1 , p_<.40); or on their IPC and CATPA scores, (F(22,84)=1.13, p<.35). These nonsignificant results indicate that there is e s s e n t i a l l y no difference among adherence groups in locus of control orientation or attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y . Stepwise Multiple Regression Results of the stepwise multiple regression procedure, using EOLOC and CATPA as predictors, revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t linear r e l a t i o n s h i p (F(3,51)=5.07, p_< . 0 1 ) between percent attendance and three CATPA variables. With the F-to-Enter set at 2.0, Social Continuation, Catharsis, and Health and Fitness: Value contributed to the prediction equation. In a second multiple regression analysis, using IPC and CATPA as predictors, the two external locus of control variables entered the regression equation (F(5,49)=4.13, p_=<.0l) following the three CATPA variables, mentioned above (See Table I I I ) . Inclusion of these f i v e variables resulted in a multiple c o r r e l a t i o n of .54 (adjusted R_^=.22). However, most of the variance accounted for was due to Social Continuation and Catharsis (adjusted R_^=.16). Since these factors account for only 22% of the variance in percent attendance, they cannot be considered strong predictors. In general, individuals with higher percent attendance tended at the beginning of the fitness program to have less positive attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y as a means of continuing s o c i a l relations and achieving health and f i t n e s s , more positive attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y 38 f o r r e l e a s e of t e n s i o n , a weaker b e l i e f that t h e i r reinforcements are c o n t r o l l e d by powerful other people, and a stronger b e l i e f that chance elements a f f e c t t h e i r l i v e s . R e s u l t s of a m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n analyses using EOLOC and CATPA, as w e l l as s i x i n t e r a c t i v e v a r i a b l e s ( I n t e r n a l , Powerful Others, and Chance Sca l e s were each m u l t i p l i e d by C a t h a r s i s and S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n ) r e v e a l e d no change i n the p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d r e g r e s s i o n equation. When t h i s procedure was repeated using IPC and CATPA as w e l l as s i x i n t e r a c t i v e v a r i a b l e s , a small but s i g n i f i c a n t l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p (F(5,49)=4 . 39, p_<.C)1), was found between percent attendance and f i v e v a r i a b l e s (Table IV). These v a r i a b l e s entered the r e g r e s s i o n equation i n the f o l l o w i n g order: S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n , C a t h a r s i s , Powerful Others x C a t h a r s i s , Chance, and I n t e r n a l x S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n . As a r e s u l t of i n c l u d i n g i n t e r a c t i v e v a r i a b l e s i n the a n a l y s i s , the m u l t i p l e R was i n c r e a s e d s l i g h t l y to .56, with an a d j u s t e d R_^  of . 2 4 . Again most of the v a r i a n c e accounted f o r was a r e s u l t of S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n and C a t h a r s i s (adjusted R 2=.16). Table V comprises a c o r r e l a t i o n matrix of the major dependent v a r i a b l e s and the adherence v a r i a b l e s , as w e l l as s e v e r a l other f a c t o r s of i n t e r e s t (age, s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , the EOLOC r e t e s t scores, and the Causal Dimension S c a l e subdomains). Age d i d not c o r r e l a t e with any of the l o c u s of c o n t r o l subscales nor with the adherence measures. T h i s i n d i c a t e s that there i s no l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and l o c u s of c o n t r o l o r i e n t a t i o n , or age and e x e r c i s e adherence. As a r e s u l t i t was deemed unnecessary to examine age as a f a c t o r i n the 39 multivariate analyses. Social d e s i r a b i l t y was not correlated with adherence indicating that individuals with high scores did not tend to adhere more than those subjects who were less concerned with s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . The relationship between the two locus of control scales and the a t t r i b u t i o n s of dropouts, as measured by the Causal Dimension Scale subdomains, were examined. Neither Locus of Causality (internal-external) nor S t a b i l i t y correlated s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the subscales of the IPC or the EOLOC. C o n t r o l l a b i l i t y correlated negatively with the Powerful Others scale of the EOLOC (£=-.57). This suggests that individuals who stated that their reason for dropping out was con t r o l l a b l e , tended to have a weaker be l i e f that their reinforcements are controlled by other people. Chi Square Analyses The Chi Square analyses showed that adherence, as measured by high, moderate, and low attendance, was independent (p_>.10) of any of the nominally scaled questionnaire variables such as percent l e i s u r e -time a c t i v i t y , e n r o l l i n g with a friend, etc. Only smoking and spouse support approached significance (p_<.lO). Table VI presents the means and frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of a l l of the collapsed demographic, s i t u a t i o n a l , and behavioral data. Of those subjects who claimed to have remained in the program u n t i l i t ended (n=35), 88% stated that they intended to continue exercising regularly (2-3 times per week). Of these, 83% said they intended to e n r o l l in another f i t n e s s c l a s s . The 40 second most popular a c t i v i t y c h o i c e among t h i s group was a e r o b i c a c t i v i t i e s such as jogging, b i k i n g , swimming, and c r o s s - c o u n t r y s k i i n g . A t o t a l of 15 s u b j e c t s s t a t e d that they had d i s c o n t i n u e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n p r i o r to the end of the program. Of these, only 38% cl a i m e d that they had been e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y a f t e r l e a v i n g program. The primary types of e x e r c i s e s that these s u b j e c t s had been doing were the a e r o b i c a c t i v i t i e s mentioned above. D i s c u s s i o n In g e n e r a l , the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study suggest that l o c u s of c o n t r o l measures combined with val u e s h e l d toward p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y are not very s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d to e x e r c i s e program adherence. The EOLOC was expected to p r e d i c t adherence b e t t e r than the g e n e r a l i z e d IPC however, data i n d i c a t e that the reverse i s t r u e . R e s u l t s a l s o show that there i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between adherence and any of the demographic, s i t u a t i o n a l , and b e h a v i o r a l v a r i a b l e s measured. The only f a c t o r s which appear to p r e d i c t adherence are two a t t i t u d e v a r i a b l e s - - v a l u e s h e l d toward p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y f o r S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n and C a t h a r s i s . The f i n d i n g s of t h i s study p r o v i d e very weak support f o r the h ypothesis that e x e r c i s e adherence i s p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to the combined e f f e c t s of g e n e r a l i z e d i n t e r n a l l o c u s of c o n t r o l and v a l u e s h e l d toward p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y . I n t e r n a l l o c u s of c o n t r o l by i t s e l f does not appear i n e i t h e r r e g r e s s i o n equation; while a very small p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s seen between percent attendance and the i n t e r a c t i o n of i n t e r n a l l o c u s of c o n t r o l and 41 attitude toward Social Continuation. This interactive variable is however, a very weak predictor of adherence, accounting for only 3% of the t o t a l explained variance. Results of the multiple regression analyses provide weak support for the hypothesis that exercise adherence is negatively related to a generalized b e l i e f in Powerful Others control combined with exercise reinforcement values. Results of a multiple regression analysis (Table III) show a negative relationship between Powerful Others and percent attendance in combination with 3 CATPA variables. A negative relationship also exists between percent attendance and the interaction of Powerful Others bel i e f and Catharsis (Table IV). However, since Powerful Others and the interactive variable each account for only' about 4% of the t o t a l variance explained in their respective regression equations, they are very poor predictors of exercise adherence. The hypothesis is not supported that a negative relationship exists between generalized Chance orientation combined with values held toward exercise. Although Chance appears in both multiple regression equations, i t i s seen to be p o s i t i v e l y rather than negatively related to adherence (percent attendance) as predicted. Again th i s finding does not coincide with s o c i a l learning theory which posits that the potential for a behavior to occur is lower when belief in control of reinforcement i s more externally oriented (Rotter, 1966, 1975). It i s not readily explainable why adherence tends to be greater among subjects with a stronger general b e l i e f that luck, chance, 42 or fate control their reinforcements. This could possibly be a chance finding. Data indicate that there i s no relationship between exercise s p e c i f i c locus of control and exercise adherence. Therefore, a l l three hypotheses regarding the a b i l i t y of the EOLOC to predict adherence can be rejected. This finding does not support the suggestion made e a r l i e r that s p e c i f i c expectancy measures may be more b e n e f i c i a l than generalized instruments in situations where p r e d i c t a b i l t y is of prime importance (Phares, 1976; Rotter, 1975; Saltzer, 1982). One possible explanation for the f a i l u r e of EOLOC to predict adherence is that the scores on the subscales, and in pa r t i c u l a r the Internal Scale, were quite homogeneous. A possible explanation for the r e l a t i v e homogeneity of the EOLOC Scales i s that the subjects are homogeneously positive in their b e l i e f s about exercise locus of control. If thi s i s the case, the problem could possibly be r e c t i f i e d by increasing the number of p o s i t i v e l y worded responses. Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s that the items in EOLOC, and in pa r t i c u l a r the Internal Scale, require some revisions to make them less similar in wording. With l i t t l e v a r i a b i l i t y to e x p l a i n — i t is d i f f i c u l t to achieve a high c o r r e l a t i o n between variables. Two attitude v a r i a b l e s — S o c i a l Continuation and Catharsis are seen to be related to exercise adherence, as measured by percent attendance. In general, those subjects who, at the outset of the program, had a less positive attitude toward p a r t i c i p a t i n g in physical a c t i v i t y for continuing s o c i a l 43 relations and more positive attitude toward p a r t i c i p a t i n g in order to reduce stress and tension—tended to have a higher percent attendance. The positive relationship between exercise adherence and Catharsis has been reported previously. Shephard and Cox (1980) found that female dropouts from an i n d u s t r i a l fitness program placed s i g n i f i c a n t l y less value on Catharsis than did adherers. The negative rel a t i o n s h i p between Social Continuation and adherence is interesting in l i g h t of the fact that this attitude variable has not been used in previous adherence studies. The Social Continuation subdomain was created recently (Schutz et a l . r 1981a) by s p l i t t i n g the Social Experience domain of CATPA into two separate dimensions, the other dimension being Social Growth (to meet new people). Speculating on possible reasons for the negative relationship between percent attendance and Social Continuation, i t could be that those individuals who enroll, in order to be with friends' are disappointed by the lack of opportunity for s o c i a l interaction during an aerobic fitness class and as a result tend to par t i c i p a t e less or to dropout. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i t may be that those individuals with more posit i v e attitudes toward Social Continuation may have a greater tendency to e n r o l l with a friend and to attend only when the friend attends; whereas those with a less p o s i t i v e attitude toward Social Continuation may have more of a tendency to attend alone and not to be influenced by the attendance patterns of others. A number of investigators have reported relationships between exercise adherence and demographic, s i t u a t i o n a l or 44 behavior f a c t o r s . F i n d i n g s of t h i s study i n d i c a t e that age, percent l e i s u r e time a c t i v i t y , employment s t a t u s , types of goals s e t , expected success and success i n goal attainment, n o n l e i s u r e e x e r t i o n , f a m i l y support, e n r o l l i n g with or without a f r i e n d , p r e v i o u s number of program enrollments or completions, s p o r t s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , p revious i n d i v i d u a l e x e r c i s e behavior, and s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y , are a l l u n r e l a t e d to e x e r c i s e adherence. There was a tendency f o r nonsmokers and those with f u l l spouse support to have gre a t e r percent attendance. Information regarding the e x e r c i s e behavior of dropouts subsequent to l e a v i n g e x e r c i s e programs i s seldom r e p o r t e d . Data i n d i c a t e that some dropouts do continue to e x e r c i s e a f t e r they d i s c o n t i n u e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the program, p r i m a r i l y i n a c t i v i t i e s such as b i k i n g , jogging, and swimming. Most dropouts however, do not engage in r e g u l a r p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y a f t e r l e a v i n g a program. A number of suggestions f o r f u t u r e e x e r c i s e adherence re s e a r c h are l i s t e d below. 1 . Since other s t u d i e s have demonstrated the p o t e n t i a l u s e f u l n e s s of s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c l o c u s of c o n t r o l measures, i t may be worthwhile pursuing the development of an e x e r c i s e l o c u s of c o n t r o l s c a l e . Adjustments to the EOLOC S c a l e s combined with f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , may improve the a b i l i t y of t h i s instrument to p r e d i c t behaviors i n p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y s e t t i n g s . 2. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between e x e r c i s e adherence and values h e l d toward p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y f o r S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n and C a t h a r s i s deserves f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n . As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , S o c i a l 45 C o n t i n u a t i o n i s of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t , as t h i s v a r i a b l e i s seen to be the s t r o n g e s t p r e d i c t o r of adherence i n t h i s study and i t has not been used i n adherence s t u d i e s p r e v i o u s l y . 3. I t i s a l s o suggested that f u t u r e adherence s t u d i e s undertake to examine the e x e r c i s e behavior of dropouts subsequent to l e a v i n g a program. Those dropouts who engage i n r e g u l a r e x e r c i s e may be more s i m i l a r to adherers than to other dropouts who do not e x e r c i s e r e g u l a r l y . 4. Since the r a t h e r haphazard methods of measuring adherence makes the comparisons of r e s u l t s d i f f i c u l t , i t i s recommended that the problem of measuring adherence be examined. Adherence i s measured in so many d i f f e r e n t ways that comparison of r e s u l t s in the l i t e r a t u r e i s very d i f f i c u l t . 5. Since the study of e x e r c i s e adherence o f t e n r e q u i r e s the use of a l a r g e number of v a r i a b l e s and concomitant m u l t i v a r i a t e s t a t i s t i c a l techniques to deal with them, i t i s suggested that l a r g e r sample s i z e s be obtained i n f u t u r e s t u d i e s . 46 References Andrew, G.M., O l d r i d g e , N.B, Parker, J.O., Cunningham, D.A., Re c h n i t z e r , P.A., Jones, N.L., Buck, C , Kavanagh, T. , Shephard, R.J., & Sutton, J.R. (1981). Reasons f o r dropout from e x e r c i s e programs i n post-coronary p a t i e n t s . Medicine  and Science i n Sports and E x e r c i s e , _1_3 (13), 164-168. Balch, P., & Ross, A.W. (1975). P r e d i c t i n g success i n weight r e d u c t i o n s as a f u n c t i o n of locus of c o n t r o l : A unidimensional and m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l approach. J o u r n a l of  C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 43, 119. B i a l e r , I. (1961). C o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of success and f a i l u r e i n mentally r e t a r d e d and normal c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of P e r s o n a l i t y , 29,303-320. B l a c k i n t o n , J.G. (1981). Locus of c o n t r o l and moods as a f f e c t e d by a e r o b i c e x e r c i s e . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 42, 2042B-2043B. Blumenthal, J.A., W i l l i a m s , R.S., Wallace, A.G., Wi l l i a m s J r . , R.B., & Needles, T.L., (1982). P h y s i o l o g i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a r i a b l e s p r e d i c t compliance t o p r e s c r i b e d e x e r c i s e therapy i n p a t i e n t s r e c o v e r i n g from myocardial i n f a r c t i o n . Psychosomatic Medicine, 44(6), 519-527. Bonds, A.G. (1980). The r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - c o n c e p t and locus of c o n t r o l and p a t t e r n s of e a t i n g , e x e r c i s e , and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o l d e r a d u l t s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s  I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 41, 1397A. Bruce, E.H., F r e d e r i c k , R., Bruce, R.A., & F i s h e r , L.D. (1976). Comparison of a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a n t s and dropouts i n CAPRI 47 cardiopulmonary r e h a b i l i t a t i o n programs. The American Journal of Cardiology. 37, 53-60. Crowne, D.P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354. Cunningham, J. (1980). The e f f e c t s of exercise and relaxation t r a i n i n g upon psychological variables in coronary heart patients. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2313B-2314B. Danielson, R.R., & Wanzel, R.S. (1977). Exercise objectives of fit n e s s program dropouts. In D.M. Landers & R.W. Christina (Eds.) Psychology of motor behavior and sport (pp. 310-320). I l l i n o i s : Human Kinetics Publishers. Di, G., & Raymond, A. (1973). Internal-external control of reinforcement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in team, in d i v i d u a l , and intramural sports. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 36(1), 33-34. Dishman, R.K. (1981). Prediction of adherence to habitual physical a c t i v i t y . In F.J. Nagle & H.J. Montoye (Eds.), Exercise in health and disease(pp. 259-275). I l l i n o i s : Charles C. Thomas, Pub. Dishman, R.K., & Gettman, L.R. (1980). Psychobiologic influences on exercise adherence. Journal of Sport Psychology, 2, 295-310. Dishman, R.K., & Ikes, W. (1981). Self-motivation and adherence to therapeutic exercise. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(4), 421-438. 48 Dishman, R.K., & Ikes, W., & Morgan, W.P. (1980). Self-motivation and adherence to habitual physical a c t i v i t y . Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10^(2), 115-132. Epstein, L.H., Wing, R.R., Thompson, J.K., & G r i f f i n , W. (1980). The effects of contract and l o t t e r y procedures. Behavior Modification, 4(4), 465-479. Faulkner, R.A., & Stewart, G.W. (1978). Exercise programmes-recruitment/retention of participants. Recreation Canada, 36(3), 21-27. Friedman, E.H., & H e l l e r s t e i n , H.K. (1973). Influence of psychosocial factors on coronary risk and adaptation to a physical f i t n e s s evaluation program. In J.P. Naughton & H.K. H e l l e r s t e i n (Eds.) Exercise testing and exercise tra i n i n g in coronary heart disease. New York: Academic Press. G i l l i l a n d , L.L. (1974). Internal versus external locus of control and the high-level a t h l e t i c competitor. Perceptual  and Motor S k i l l s , 39(1), 38. Ho, P., Graham, L., B l a i r , S., Wood, P., Haskell, W., Williams, P., Vranizan, K., Terry, R., Vodak, P., Gelston, M., & Farquhar, J. (1981). Adherence prediction and psychological/behavioral changes following a 1-year randomized exercise program. International Journal of Sports  Medicine, 2, 276. Heinzelmann, F., & Bagley, R.W. (1970). Response to physical a c t i v i t y programs and their e f f ects on health behavior. U.S.  Public Health Reports, 85(2), 905-911. 49 Howley, F.M. (1982). The t r a n s f e r of h e a l t h s p o r t behaviors to d i s a b l e d persons from t r a i n i n g program s i t e to home community. D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 4, 2959A-2960A. J e f f e r s , J.M. (1977). The e f f e c t s of p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n i n g on lo c u s of c o n t r o l , body image, and i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p o r i e n t a t i o n of u n i v e r s i t y males and females. Di s s e r t a t ion A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 38, 3289A- 3290A. Kaplan, G.D., & Cowles, A. (1978). Health lo c u s of c o n t r o l and h e a l t h value i n the p r e d i c t i o n of smoking r e d u c t i o n . Health Education Monographs, 6(2), 129-137. Kenyon, G.S. (1968a). A conceptual model f o r c h a r a c t e r i z i n g p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y . Research Q u a r t e r l y , 39, 96-105. Kenyon, G.S. .(1968b). Six s c a l e s f o r a s s e s s i n g a t t i t u d e toward p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y . Research Q u a r t e r l y , 39, 566-574. Kenyon, G.S. (1968c). Values h e l d f o r p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y by s e l e c t e d urban secondary school students i n Canada, A u s t r a l i a , England, and the U n i t e d S t a t e s . Washington, D.C.: Un i t e d S t a t e s O f f i c e of E d u c t i o n . K i l d e a , A.E. (1980). Meaningfulness i n l i f e , l o c u s of c o n t r o l and s e x - r o l e o r i e n t a t i o n of s e l e c t e d female a t h l e t e s and no n - a t h l e t e s . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 40, 4519A-4520A. Knapp, D., Gutmann, M., Squ i r e s , R., & P o l l o c k , M.L. (1983). E x e r c i s e adherence amon coronary a r t e r y bypass surgery (CABS) p a t i e n t s . Medicine and Science i n Sports and E x e r c i s e , 15 (2) , 120. 50 Laffrey, S.C., & Isenberg, M. (1983). The relationship of internal locus of control, value placed on health, perceived importance of exercise, and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in physical a c t i v i t y during l e i s u r e . International Journal of Nursing  Studies, 20(3), 187-196. Levenson, H. (1974). Activism and powerful others: D i s t i n c t i o n s within the concept of internal-external control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 3_, 377-383. Levenson, H. (1981). D i f f e r e n t i a t i n g among i n t e r n a l i t y , powerful others, and chance. In H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol. 1):  assessment methods(pp.15-63). New York: Academic Press. Lynn, R.W., Phelan, J.G., & Kiker, V.L. (1969). Belie f s in internal-external control of reinforcement and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in group and individual sports. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 29, 551-553. Mann, G.V., Garrett, H.L., Farhi, A., Murray, H., & B i l l i n g s , F.T. (1969). Exercise to prevent coronary heart disease. American Journal of Medicine, 46, 12-21. Massie, J.F., & Shephard, R.J. (1971). Physiological and psychological effects of t r a i n i n g . Medicine and Science in Sports, .3(3) , 110-117. McKelvie, S.J., & Huband, D.E. (1980). Locus of control and anxiety in college athletes and non-athletes. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 50(3), 819-822. Mat t e l l , M.S., & Jacoby, J. (1971). Is there an optimal number of al t e r n a t i v e s for Likert scale item? Study 1: R e l i a b i l i t y 51 and v a l i d i t y . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 657-674. Monahan, J.T. (1972). S e l f - a t t r i b u t i o n and the maintenance of behavior change. Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 2351B. Moore, S.L. (1980). A study of perceived locus of control in college women athletes in team and individual sports. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 3479A. Morris, A.F., Vaccaro, P., & Clarke, D.H. (1979). Psychological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of age-group competitive swimmers. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 48_(3), 1265-1266. Noland, M.P. (1981). The e f f i c a c y of a new model to explain leisure exercise behavior. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Maryland, Maryland. O'Connell, J.K., & Price, J.H. (1982). Health locus of control of physical fitness-program p a r t i c i p a n t s . Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 55 , 925-926. Oldridge, N.B. (1979). Compliance of post myocardial in f a r c t i o n patients to exercise programs. Medicine and Science in Sports, JJ_(4), 373-375. Oldridge, N.B., & Spencer, J. (1983). Exercise habits and health perceptions after graduating or dropping out of cardiac r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, J_5(2), 120. Oldridge, N.B., & Jones, N.L. (1981). Contracting as a strategy to reduce dropout in exercise r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, J_3(2), 125. 52 Oldridge, N.B., Wicks, J.R., Hanley, C , Sutton, J.R., & Jones, N.L. (1978). Noncompliance in an exercise r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program for men who have suffered a myocardial i n f a r c t i o n . Canadian Medical Journal, 118 ,361-364. Phares, E.J. (1976). Locus of control in personality. New Jersey: General Learning Press. Rotter, J.B. (1954). Social learning and c l i n i c a l psychology. New York: Prentice-Hall. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28. Rotter, J.B. (1975). Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology , 43 ( 1 ) , 56-67. Rotter, J.B., Chance, J.E., & Phares, E.J. (Eds.). (1972). Applications of a s o c i a l learning theory of personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, Inc. Russel, D. (1982) The causal dimension scale: A measure of how individuals perceive -causes. Journal of Personality an Social Psychology, 42(6), 1137-1145. Ryckman, R.M., & Mal i k i o s k i , M. (1975). Relationship between locus of control and chronolgical age. Psychological Reports . 655-658. Saltzer, E.B. (1978). Locus of control and the intention to lose weight. Health Education, 6(2), 118-127. Saltzer, E.B. (1982). The weight locus of control (WLOC) 53 scale: A s p e c i f i c measure for obesity research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46(6), 620-628. Schutz, R.W., & Smoll, F.L. (1977). Equivalence of two inventories for assessing attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y . Psychological Reports, 40 , 1031-1034. Schutz, R.W., & Smoll, F.L., & Wood, T.M. (1981a). A psychometric analysis of an inventory for assessing children's attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y . Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 321-344. Schutz, R.W., & Smoll, F.L., & Wood, T.M. (1981b). Physical a c t i v i t y and sport: Attitudes and perceptions of young Canadian athletes. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science , 6(1), 32-39. Simon, J.A., & Smoll, F.L. (1974). An instrument for assessing children's attitudes toward physical a c t i v i t y . Research  Quarterly, 45(4), 407-415.. Shephard, R.J., & Cox, M. (1980). Some char a c t e r i s i c s of participants in an i n d u s t r i a l f i t n e s s programme. Canadian  Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 5(2), 69-76. Snyder, E.E., & Baber, L.L. (1979). A p r o f i l e of former c o l l e g i a t e athletes and nonathletes: Leisure a c t i v i t i e s , attitudes toward work, and aspects of s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i f e . Journal of Sport Behvior, 2(4), 211-219. Snyder, E.E., Franklin, B., Foss, M. , & Rubenfire, M. (1982). Charact e r i s t i c s of compliers and non-compliers to cardiac exercise therapy programs. Medicine and Science in Sports  and Exercise, J j l(2), 179. 54 Sonstroem, R.J. (1978) P h y s i c a l e s t i m a t i o n and a t t r a c t i o n s c a l e s : R a t i o n a l e and r e s e a r c h . Medicine and Science i n Sports and E x e r c i s e , j_0(2), 97-102. Sonstroem, R.J., & Kampper, K.P. (1980). P r e d i c t i o n of a t h l e t i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n middle sc h o o l males. Research Q u a r t e r l y f o r E x e r c i s e and Sport, 5J_(4), 685-694. Sonstroem, R.J., & Walker, M.I. (1973). R e l a t i o n s h i p of a t t i t u d e s and locus of c o n t r o l to e x e r c i s e and p h y s i c a l f i t n e s s . P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 36, 1031-1034. S t o v e l , S., B a i l e y , G., & Cumming, G.R. (1970). Endurance f i t n e s s and a home e x e r c i s e program i n c o l l e g e g i r l s . Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n , 102, 715-717. Strahan, R., & Gerbashi, K.C. (1972). Short, homogeneous v e r s i o n s of the Marlowe-Crowne S o c i a l D e s i r a b i l i t y S c a l e . J o u r n a l of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 28, 191-193. S t r i c k l a n d , B.R. (1977). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l c o n t r o l of reinforcement. In T. Bl a s s (Ed.) P e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s i n s o c i a l behavior(pp. 219-279). New J e r s e y : Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Pub. S t r i c k l a n d , B.R. (1978). I n t e r n a l - e x t e r n a l e x pectancies and h e a l t h - r e l a t e d b e haviors. J o u r n a l of C o n s u l t i n g and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 46 (6), 1192-1211. T e r a s l i n n a , P., Partanen, T., Oja, P., & Koskela, A. (1970). Some s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and l i v i n g h a b i t s a s s o c i a t e d with w i l l i n g n e s s to p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y i n t e r v e n t i o n study. J o u r n a l of Sports Medicine and P h y s i c a l  F i t n e s s , 10(1), 138-143. 55 Tobias, L.L., & MacDonald, M.L. (1977). Internal locus of control and weight loss: An i n s u f f i c i e n t condition. Journal  of Consulting and C l i n i c a l Psychology, 45, 647-653. Wallston, K.A., Wallston, B.S. (1981). Health locus of control scales. In H.M. Lefcourt (Ed.), Research with the locus of  control construct (Vol. 1): Assessment methods(pp. 189-243). New York: Academic Press. Wallston, B.S., & Wallston, K.A., Kaplan, G.D., & Maides, S.A. (1976). Development and vali d a t i o n of the Health Locus of Control (HLC) Scale. Journal of Consulting and C l i n i c a l  Psychology, 44, 580-585. Wallston, K.A., Wallston, B.S., & DeVellis, R. (1978). Development of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control (MHLC) Scales. Health Education Monographs, 6(2), 160-170. Wellwood, J.K., Kennedy, A.E., & Sharratt, M.T. (1982). A behavioral strategy for promoting exercise compliance in TypeA/B post-infarct men. Medicine and Science in Sports and  Exercise, j_4(2), 179. Wieman, J.B. (1980). Running as treatment for depression: A theo r e t i c a l basis. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 1935B-1936B. Wilhelmsen, L., Sanne, H., Elmfeldt, D., T i b b l i n , B., Grimby., & Wedel, G. (1975). A controlled t r i a l of physical training after myocardial i n f a r c t i o n . Preventive Medicine, 4, 491-508. TABLE I Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s of Attendance Data (rounded to nearest whole number) Var iables M SD Mode No. possible attendances 22 6 18 No. actual attendances 1 3 6 7 Percent attendance 60% 26% 83% KEY TO VARIABLE ABBREVIATIONS USED IN SUBSEQUENT TABLES IPCIN IPC(Internal) IPCPO I P C ( P o w e r £ u l Others) IPCCH I PC (Chance) SOCIALG CATPA(Social Growth) SOCIALC CATPA(Social Continuation) VERTI GO CATPA (Ve r t i go) H&FUSE CATPA(Health & F i t n e s s : Value) H&FENJ CATPA(Health & F i t n e s s : Enjoyment) AESTHET CATPA (Aesthetic) CATHARS CATPA (Catharsis) ASCETIC CATPA (Ascet ic) EOLOCIN EOLOC ( Internal) EOLOCPO EOLOC (Powerful Others) EOLOCCH EOLOC (Chance) EOLOC2IN Followup EOLOC (I nternal ) EOLOC2PO Followup EOLOC(Powerful Others) EOLOC2CH Followup EOLOC (Chance) LOFCAUS CDS(Locus of Causal i ty ) CONTROL CDS(Cont ro l lab i l i t y ) STABIL CDS ( S t a b i l i t y ) PERCATT. Percent Attendance ATTL6 Attendance During Last 6 Classes 58 TABLE II Means and Standard Deviations of Dependent Variables % Attendance Att. Last 6 Classes Variable Low Mod High Low Mod High Total M M M M M M M SD IPCIN 36. , 1 36. ,2 36. ,8 36. , 2 37. ,8 37. ,2 37. ,3 5. , 1 IPCPO 23. , 1 19. ,4 19. ,8 23. , 1 19. ,9 20. , 1 20. ,4 6. ,0 IPCCH 20. ,5 22. ,8 20. ,7 20. ,3 22. ,2 20. ,2 20. ,6 6. ,4 SocialG 23. ,2 22. , 1 22. , 1 21 . ,9 22. .2 22. ,5 22. , 1 2. ,9 Soc ialC 23. ,2 22. ,6 20. .9 23. ,5 22. ,4 20. , 1 22. ,3 3. ,3 Vert igo 14. .7 12. ,3 16. .7 14. .5 14. .2 16. ,4 14. ,6 5. ,8 H&F:Use 9. .9 9. .7 9. .8 10. .0 9. .9 9. ,6 9. .9 0. ,5 H&F:Enjoy 13. .5 13. .0 13. .0 13, .5 13, .2 12. .8 13. .3 2. ,2 Aesthet ic 21 . 5 20. .7 21 , .5 22, .0 21 , .0 21 . 0 21 , .4 3. ,5 Catharsi s 21 , .7 22, . 1 23, . 1 22, .4 22, .2 22. .5 22, .4 3. .2 Ascetic 14, .4 1 1 , ,1 15, .6 13, .4 13, .6 15. .9 14, .0 4. .9 EOLOCIN 26, .5 27, . 1 27, .6 27, .3 26, .6 28. .0 27, .3 3, .0 EOLOCPO 10, .6 9, .0 9, .5 10, .8 9, .9 8, .3 9.6 3.2 EOLOCCH 1 1 , .4 1 1 , .9 10, .9 10, .5 12, .5 10. . 1 11, .3 4, .2 59 TABLE III Stepwise Multiple Regression Results (Predictors=IPC and CATPA) Adj Step No. Variable Entered F-To-Enter R2 SEE 0 27.110 1 Social Continuation 7.53 . 1 1 25.606 2 Catharsis 4.28 . 1 6 24.847 3 Health & Fitness:Value 2.55 .18 24.485 4 IPC Powerful Others 2.15 .20 24.215 5 IPC Chance 2.45 .22 23.872 ANOVA TABLE Source df Mean Square F p Regression 5 2353.11 4.13 <.01 Residual 49 569.85 MR equation: Percent attendance=-2.51(Social Continuation)* 2.92(Catharsis)-9..0(Health & Fitness: V a l u e ) -1.23(Powerful Others)+0.94(Chance)+143.89 60 TABLE IV Stepwise Multiple Regression Results (Predictors=IPC,CATPA, and Interactive Variables) Step No. Variable Entered F-To-Enter R2 SEE 0 27. 110 1 Social Continuation 7.53 .11 25.606 2 Catharsis 4.28 .16 24.847 3 PO x Catharsis 2.81 .19 24.426 4 IPC Chance _ 2.84 .22 23.996 5 IN x Soc. Cont. 2.48 .24 23.648 ANOVA TABLE Source DF Mean Square F P Regression 5 2457.11 4.39 <.01 Residual 49 559.24 MR Equation:Percent attendance=-3.90(Social Continuation)+ 3.50(Catharsis)-0.07(POxCatharsis)+1.29(Chance)+ 0.04(INxSocial Continuation)+34.96 61 TABLE V Cor re la t ions of Dependent Var iab les and Other Selected Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AGE 1 1 .0000 IPCIN 2 0 . 1476 1 OOOO IPCPO 3 0 .0399 - 0 .0771 1 OOOO IPCCH 4 - 0 . 1547 - 0 .3090 0 .4453 1 .0000 SOCIALG 5 0 . 0 1 1 1 0 . 1432 - 0 .0485 -0 .2498 1 .0000 SOCIALC 6 - 0 .0117 0 .0317 0 . 1495 - 0 . 1308 0 .4053 1 .0000 VERTIGO 7 - 0 . 1800 0 .0633 - 0 .0163 - 0 . 1239 0 . 1025 - 0 016J 1 ,0000 HiFUSE a 0 .0301 -0 . 1664 0 .0390 - 0 .0893 0 .0756 0 0439 - 0 .0777 1 .0000 H&FENJ 9 - 0 .0869 - 0 . 1362 0 .0550 0 1017 0 . 0 1 0 1 0 . 1046 0 .0524 0 3484 1 .0000 AESTHET 10 0 . 1572 - 0 .0912 0 . 1750 - 0 .0721 0 .2486 0 .34 30 0 .2374 0 2074 0 .2910 1 . OOOO CATHARS 11 0 .0726 0 . 1539 0 .0026 - 0 . 1438 0 .3644 0 .114 1 0. 1493 0 36 1 1 0 . 1721 0 .4784 ASCETIC 12 0 .0854 0 . 2937 - 0 ,0495 - 0 .2645 0 .2246 0 .0711 0 3951 0. 0076 0 . 2994 0 . 2660 S O C D E 5 13 0 .0779 0 3342 - 0 .2536 -0 .2518 - 0 .2047 - 0 1500 -0. 1326 0. C4 19 -0 . 1083 -0 .0521 EOLOCIN 14 - 0 . 0978 0 .0699 0 . 1604 -0 .0107 0 .0563 - 0 OS 70 0. 0926 0. 2094 0 .0733 0 .3064 EOLOCPO 15 -0. .0788 -o . 1208 0 .3856 0. .2740 -0 . 1865 0 0317 0. 0207 0. C338 o .0766 -0 .0507 EOLOCCH 16 - 0 . 1446 -0 . 1951 0 . 1306 0 4163 - 0 0060 - 0 2478 -0. 122 1 0 C033 0 .0127 -0 . 3478 EOLOC2IN 17 - 0 . 1620 - 0 .0527 - 0 .1431 -0 0913 0 . 1396 - 0 0422 0 .0839 0. 2320 0 . 1622 0 . 2283 EOLOC2P0 18 0 .0127 0 . 1514 0 . 3295 0 2078 - 0 .0734 0 0434 -0. . 109R -0. 0267 -0 .0452 -0 .04 10 EOLOC2CH 19 0 . 1537 -0 .0273 0 .2687 0 3929 0 .0173 -o 0374 -0 0269 -0. 1485 0 .073 1 -0 . 2608 LOFCAUS 20 0 .0434 -0 . 1357 0 . 1509 -0 0607 - 0 .6283 - 0 04 15 0 3307 0. 2nan -0 . 1892 0 .3192 STABIL 21 0 . 2365 0 .2004 -0 .2088 -0. 4423 0 2633 o. 1O08 -0 0562 0. 1029 -0 .8915 0 .0186 CONTROL 22 -0. .0485 o 0143 -0 .0503 0 2673 - 0 .5059 - 0 1988 0. 3196 -0. 2356 0 .3017 -0 . 1231 PERCATT 23 0. .0650 0 .0934 -0 . MS91 0 148 1 0 .0444 - 0 . 3342 0. 1623 -o. C995 -0 .0-145 0 02 96 ATTL6 2-1 0. 051 1 0 .0346 -0. . 1579 0 0262 0 . .0754 - 0 . 3248 0 0834 -0. 2288 -0 .0862 -0 0761 CATHARS ASCETIC SOCDES EOLOCIN EOLOCPO EOLOCCH E0L0C2IN EOLOcrt-c E0L0C2CH LOFCAUS 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 CATHARS 1 1 1 . .OOOO ASCETIC 12 0. 1708 1 OOOO SOCDES 13 -0. 014 1 -0 .0372 1 OOOO EOLOCIN 14 0 4061 0 0025 -0 .0773 1 . OOOO EOLOCPO 15 0. OOS7 -0. 1372 0. 0546 -0. 1422 1 OOOO EOLOCCH 16 -0. 2054 -0. 2973 0 0319 -0 3978 0 .4000 1 . OOOO EOLOC21N 17 0 2231 0 2 195 -0 0630 0. 3230 -0 3886 -0 2526 1 . OOOO EOLOC2PO 16 0. 0469 -0. 2748 0. 1381 -0. 0478 0. 7 194 0 . 4243 -0 5882 1. OOOO EOLOC2CM 19 -0. 2240 -o. 1758 -0. 0745 -0. 2046 0 2B30 0 5980 -o'. 5427 0. J54Q 1 OOOO LOFCAUS 20 -0. 18 1 1 -0. 5362 0. 1727 0 4099 -0. 24 90 -o 4492 0. 1482 -0. 1473 -0. 134 1 1 . OOOO STABIL 21 0. 2779 0. 0077 0. 2286 0. 1505 -0. 1800 - 0 1953 0. 1949 -0. C' 03 -0. 0463 0. 2206 CONTROL 22 -0. 5438 -o 07 10 -0. 2215 0. 0154 -0. 5745 - 0 . 1929 0. 422 1 -0. 6510 -0. 2092 0. 4004 PERCATT 23 o 2307 o 0724 0 0705 o 1498 - 0 1010 o O f i 4 S o 17 17 -0. 1923 0 .0166 -0. 1869 ATTL6 24 0. 0338 0. 1853 0 .0727 0. 1089 -0. 2609 0 01*5 0. 2593 -0. 2"QC -0 .0295 -0. 4 206 CONTROL PERCATT ATTL6 -0.4130 -0.3202 -O.3573 1 .0000 0.4087 0.4090 1.0000 0.6225 C r i t i c a l r values: .05; ;55- .201 05; .279 Causal Dimension Scale.. . -r 05; 13 -' .514 TABLE VI Frequency Distributions of Selected Questionnaire Data (N=61 ) Age 1 5-26 26-57 Inactive le i s u r e time 20-60% 60-95% Active le i s u r e time 5-35% 35-95% Smoking smoker nonsmoker Employment status employed not employed Nonleisure exertion some to great deal minimal Spouse support Percent Attendance low mod high 13 7 11 7 10 13 11 9 11 9 8 13 9 8 13 11 9 11 6 9 5 14 8 19 8 10 15 12 7 8 15 16 18 5 1 6 not f u l l support f u l l support Family support not f u l l support f u l l support Who e n r o l l e d with 1 or more f r i e n d / r e l a t i v e s no f r i e n d s / r e l a t i v e s P revious program enrollments one or more none Previous program completions one or more never/NA P a r t i c i p a t e d school s p o r t s yes no P a r t i c i p a t e d post school s p o r t s yes no P a r t i c i p a t i n g s p o r t s c u r r e n t l y yes no P r e v i o u s l y e x e r c i s e d r e g u l a r l y on own yes no Primary e x e r c i s e goal h e a l t h / f i t n e s s / f e e l b e t t e r weight l o s s / l o o k b e t t e r / o t h e r Second e x e r c i s e goal h e a l t h / f i t n e s s / f e e l b e t t e r weight l o s s / l o o k b e t t e r / o t h e r T h i r d e x e r c i s e goal h e a l t h / f i t n e s s / f e e l b e t t e r weight l o s s / l o o k b e t t e r / o t h e r Expected success goal 1 u n s u c c e s s f u l to moderate q u i t e to very s u c c e s s f u l Expected success goal 2 u n s u c c e s s f u l to moderate q u i t e to very s u c c e s s f u l Expected success goal 3 u n s u c c e s s f u l to moderate q u i t e to very s u c c e s s f u l Success achieved goal 1 u n s u c c e s s f u l to moderate q u i t e to very s u c c e s s f u l Success achieved goal 2 u n s u c c e s s f u l to moderate q u i t e to very s u c c e s s f u l Success achieved goal 3 u n s u c c e s s f u l to moderate q u i t e to very s u c c e s s f u l 65 Appendix A Development of the E x e r c i s e O b j e c t i v e s Locus of C o n t r o l S c a l e s The EOLOC S c a l e s were modeled a f t e r Levenson's (1974, 1981) m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l IPC S c a l e s which assess three d i s t i n c t dimensions: i n t e r n a l i t y , powerful others e x t e r n a l i t y , and chance e x t e r n a l i t y . I n i t i a l l y , a 24-item t e s t pool was developed, which i n c l u d e d e i g h t items f o r each of the three subdomains (IN, PO, CH) mentioned above. T h i s inventory was presented to 10 graduate students who acted as judges in a s s e s s i n g the face v a l i d i t y of the f a c t o r s t r u c t u r e and the c l a r i t y of the statements. The dimensions a s s o c i a t e d with 22 of the items were c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d by a l l of the judges, while 90% of the judges placed the other 2 items i n the c o r r e c t grouping. None of the items were deemed by the judges to be u n c l e a r . Study 1. Since the judges responses were f a v o r a b l e , the same 24 items were adm i n i s t e r e d to 60 p a r t i c i p a n t s (50 females and 10 males) from two UBC Aquatic Center a e r o b i c f i t n e s s c l a s s e s . These s u b j e c t s ranged in age from 17 to 55 (M=30). On average the s u b j e c t s had been p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the c l a s s e s f o r 15 months (range=1 day to 4.5 y e a r s ) . S u b j e c t s responded to each item on a 5-point L i k e r t format. A "do not understand" response category was a l s o i n c l u d e d i n order to determine the extent to which s u b j e c t s d i d not comprehend the items, and to e l i m i n a t e the ambiguity of the midpoint response of "undecided". An item a n a l y s i s of the raw data was then completed. Based on the i t e m - t o t a l c o r r e l a t i o n s , , the lowest two items from each subdomain were d e l e t e d . In a subsequent a n a l y s i s , a l l remaining 66 item-total correlations were greater than .60, .45, and .15 for the IN, PO, and CH Scales respectively. Cronbach's alphas were calculated for each subdomain following deletion of the six items and values of .86 (IN), .79 (PO), and .57 (CH) were obtained. Since the CH Scale had the lowest alpha and two of the remaining items in i t had item-total correlations less than .20, two new chance items were developed and included in the EOLOC for the subsequent study. Study 2. The revised 20-item EOLOC was administered to 87 females, aged 15 to 57 (M=30), who had v o l u n t a r i l y elected to part i c i p a t e in 8-12 week fitness programs sponsored by a l o c a l f i t n e s s organization. Prior to analyzing the inventory, a l l missing values (7 subjects had 1 missing value and 2 subjects had 2'missing values) from the raw data were replaced by the corresponding group item mean. . Based on the results of an item analysis, the two items in the Chance Scale which correlated the lowest with the t o t a l were deleted. The item-total c o r r e l a t i o n of the remaining 18 items were a l l greater than .30. Cronbach's alphas of .79, .69, and .75 were obtained for the Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales, respectively. A posit i v e c o r r e l a t i o n of .402 was found between the Powerful Others and Chance Scales, while a negative co r r e l a t i o n of -.40 was found between the Chance and Internal Scales. The Internal and Powerful Others Scales were found to be unrelated with a co r r e l a t i o n of -.14. The c o r r e l a t i o n between the IPC and EOLOC Internal Scales was .07, indicating no relat i o n s h i p between these scales. However, 67 the Powerful Others and Chance Scales of the EOLOC and IPC correlated p o s i t i v e l y .39 and .42, respectively. Test-retest correlations (3 to 4 months) of the three scales were .32 (Internal), .72 (Powerful Others), and .60 (Chance), indicating that Internal Scale in p a r t i c u l a r is not highly stable over time. Another possible explanation i s that the locus of control orientation of subjects changed as a result of p a r t i c i p a t i n g in a physical a c t i v i t y program as seen in a previous study (Jeffers, 1977). Correlations of -.07, .05, and .03 were found between the M-C 1(10) Scale and the Internal, Powerful Others and Chance Scales of the EOLOC. These results indicate that the EOLOC i s not contaminated by s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y . 68 .Appendix B Description of Measures  Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales Generalized locus of control was measured using Levenson's IPC Scales (1974, 1981) which comprise three 8-item subscales presented as a unif i e d scale of 24 items. Subjects rated each item, on a 6-point Likert-type scale, by placing a checkmark under the heading they f e l t was most appropriate. These responses were scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) and a t o t a l score was computed for each subscale. This method of rating d i f f e r s from Levenson's format in which subjects are asked to respond to each statement by c i r c l i n g a number ranging from -3 to +3. Scoring was altered because there was concern that subjects would be less i n c l i n e d to disagree with statements i f they attached a negative connotation to negative numbers. Internal consistency estimates of the IPC Scales have been moderate, ranging from: .51 to .67 for the I scale, .72 to .82 for the P scale, and .73 to .79 for the C scale. Spearman-Brown s p l i t - h a l f r e l i a b i l i t i e s were reported at .62, .66, and .64 for the I,P, and C scales respectively. Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t i e s were in the .60 to .79 range (Levenson, 1981). V a l i d i t y of the IPC scales has primarily been established through t h e o r e t i c a l l y anticipated positive and negative relationships with other variables and through convergent and discriminant methods which have shown low-order correlations with other locus of control measures (Levenson, 1981). 69 Revised Children's Attitude Toward Physical A c t i v i t y Inventory Values held toward physical a c t i v i t y were measured using the Revised CATPA inventory (Schutz, et a l . , 1981a). Subjects were required to rate seven subdomains of physical a c t i v i t y on a 5-point semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale which used five bipolar adjectives. A score ranging from 5 to 25 was obtained for each subdomain with the exception of Health and Fitness which had two scores—one for the f i r s t two word pairs and one for the last three word pai r s . Internal consistency estimates of the revised CATPA inventory have been reported as being r e l a t i v e l y h i gh—with Cronbach's alphas ranging from .77 to .94 (Schutz et a l . , 1981a). Kenyon's Attitude Toward Physical A c t i v i t y Scale (ATPA), from which CATPA was derived, was not used in t h i s study for two reasons. F i r s t , , the s i m p l i f i e d wording in the revised CATPA makes the statements clearer thereby reducing the p o s s i b i l i t y of ambiguous or inconsistent interpretation. Second, the revised CATPA was considered to be more time e f f i c i e n t and psychometrically superior to ATPA (Schutz, et a l . , 1981a). These j u s t i f i c a t i o n s are expanded in the following discussion of the development of CATPA and revised CATPA. The o r i g i n a l CATPA inventory (Simon & Smoll, 1974) was adapted from the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l version of Kenyon's ATPA (1968b). This adaptation mainly involved simplifying the wording, while the form and content of Kenyon's inventory were followed c l o s e l y . The equivalence of the CATPA and ATPA inventories was later tested by Schutz and Smoll (1977). 70 F i n d i n g s showed that the two i n v e n t o r i e s were e s s e n t i a l l y e q u i v a l e n t with the exception that CATPA y i e l d e d small but c o n s i s t e n t l y higher scores on the a s c e t i c subdomain than d i d the a d u l t i n v e n t o r y . Recently, a r e v i s e d CATPA inventory (Schutz, et a l . , 1981a) was developed, based on the r e s u l t s of two s t u d i e s (N=1,752 and N=1,895). T h i s inventory i n c l u d e s the f o l l o w i n g s i x m o d i f i c a t i o n s : 1. Three of the o r i g i n a l e i g h t a d j e c t i v e p a i r s ( b i t t e r - s w e e t , d i r t y - c l e a n , steady-nervous) were e l i m i n a t e d as they were p s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y weak compared to the other f i v e . 2. The s c a l e f o r each word p a i r was reduced from 7-points to 5-points based on frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses and the f i n d i n g s of M a t t e l l and Jacoby (1971). 3-. An "I do not understand t h i s i d e a " response category was added in order to reduce ambiguity when i n t e r p r e t i n g a midpoint response. 4. An a c t i o n element was added to each statement by i n c l u d i n g the phrase "Taking part in p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y " . 5. The S o c i a l subdomain was s p l i t i n t o two dimensions: S o c i a l Growth (to meet new people) and S o c i a l C o n t i n u a t i o n (to be with f r i e n d s ) . 6. The H e a l t h and F i t n e s s subdomain was l e f t i n t a c t but two scores are d e r i v e d on the b a s i s of two s e t s of a d j e c t i v e p a i r s . Health and F i t n e s s Value i s made up of the good-bad and u s e f u l - o f no use word p a i r s , while H e a l t h and F i t n e s s Enjoyment comprises the word p a i r s p l e a s a n t - n o t p l e a s a n t , n i c e - a w f u l , and 71 happy-sad. M-C 1(10) Scale Social d e s i r a b i l i t y was measured using the M-C 1(10) Scale (Strahan & Gerbashi, 1972) which i s a 10-item version of the 33-item Marlowe-Crowne Social D e s i r a b i l t i t y Scale (M-C SDS). This shortened scale was used to avoid excessive questionnaire length. Subjects responded to each of the scales items by answering true or f a l s e . Half of the items were negatively keyed and half were p o s i t i v e l y keyed as a control for acquiescence set. A score of one was given for each item which was answered in a s o c i a l l y desirable d i r e c t i o n . The M-C 1(10) scale was reported to have moderate Ruder-Richardson formula 20 r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s ranging from .59 to .70. The correlations between the M-C SDS and t h i s shorter scale were a l l in the .80s and .90s (Strahan & Gerbashi, 1972). Causal Dimension Scale Three dimensions of the causal a t t r i b u t i o n s of dropouts were assessed using Russel's Causal Dimension Scale (1982). Subjects who did not continue attending classes u n t i l the r e g i s t r a t i o n period ended were asked to state their main reason for discontinuing p a r t i c i p a t i o n . They were then requested to rate t h i s reason on the Causal Dimension Scale, which consists of three 3-item subscales measuring locus of causality (internal-external), s t a b i l i t y (stable-unstable), and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y (controllable-uncontrollable). This scale uses a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l format with a 9-point scale. A score 72 for each subscale was obtained by summing the responses to the three items in each of them. High scores on these subscales indicated that the reason for dropping out was perceived as i n t e r n a l , stable, and c o n t r o l l a b l e . The internal consistency estimates of the subscales were moderately high with reported alpha c o e f f i c i e n t s of .87, .84, and .73 for locus of causality, s t a b i l i t y , and c o n t r o l l a b i l i t y respectively (Russel, 1982). Although the v a l i d i t y of the Causal Dimension Scale has not yet been established in r e a l -world settings, this measure was considered to be more accurate than having the researcher subjectively translate reasons for dropping out into causal a t t r i b u t i o n s . Exercise Objectives Locus of Control Scales Exercise s p e c i f i c locus of control was measured using the Exercise Objectives Locus of Control (EOLOC) Scales developed by the investigator (see Appendix A). The EOLOC Scales consist of three 6-item subscales presented as a u n i f i e d scale. Each item was rated on a 5-point Likert-type format, ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). A score ranging from 6 to 30 was obtained for each subscale. Internal consistency estimates, obtained as part of t h i s study, were moderate with Cronbach's alphas of .79, .69, and .75 for the Internal, Powerful Others, and Chance Scales respectively. V a l i d i t y of the EOLOC has not been established yet. Appendix C Quest ionna i res 74 I n i t i a l Informed Consent We a r e c o n d u c t i n g a r e s e a r c h s t u d y a s s e s s i n g some a s p e c t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n e x e r c i s e p r o g r a m s . F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y we a r e i n t e r e s t e d o n l y i n t h o s e p e o p l e who have NOT been e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y (2 o r 3 t i m e s p e r week) o v e r t h e l a s t y e a r , e i t h e r i n o r g a n i z e d p r o g r a m s o r i n d i v i d u a l l y . I f you f i t t h i s c a t e g o r y ( i e . i f you have n o t been e x e r c i s i n g c o n s i s t e n t l y o v e r t h e l a s t y e a r ) , we would l i k e 20 m i n u t e s o f y o u r t i m e t o c o m p l e t e t h i s s e t o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . A l l i n f o r m a t i o n c o l l e c t e d f r o m y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i l l be k e p t s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l , and w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d o n l y by number. A summary r e p o r t o f t h e s t u d y ' s f i n d i n g s w i l l be made a v a i l a b l e on r e q u e s t t o t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s s t u d y . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s s t u d y i s c o m p l e t e l y v o l u n t a r y , and you may w i t h d r a w a t any t i m e w i t h o u t p e n a l t y o f any k i n d . I f t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a r e c o m p l e t e d i t w i l l be assumed t h a t c o n s e n t has been g i v e n t o use t h e d a t a from y o u r r e s p o n s e s . INSTRUCTIONS P l e a s e c o m p l e t e t h e f o l l o w i n g s e t o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and r e t u r n i t by m a i l i n t h e a d d r e s s e d and stamped e n v e l o p e , p r o v i d e d . When you r e s p o n d t o t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , p l e a s e do so w i t h o u t d i s c u s s i n g t h e i t e m s w i t h o t h e r s . We want o n l y y o u r own o p i n i o n s and a n s w e r s . A l s o , p l e a s e t r y t o r e s p o n d t o a l l s t a t e m e n t s and q u e s t i o n s . F o r y o u r c o n v e n i e n c e , a p e n c i l has been e n c l o s e d f o r use i n c o m p l e t i n g t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . We ask t h a t you r e t u r n t h e p e n c i l a l o n g w i t h t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . Your c o o p e r a t i o n i s v e r y s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d , as i t makes a d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e o v e r a l l s u c c e s s o f t h i s s t u d y . .We t h a n k y o u . P r i m a r y r e s e a r c h e r : M a r i n a McCready ( g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t ) Under t h e d i r e c t i o n o f : Dr. B. Long Background Questions 3. Gender ( a a l e o r f e a « l e ) _ >. E s t i m a t e whit p e r c e n t a g e o f y o u r 1 * 1 m r « t l a e (when net w o r k i n g o r engaged In compulsory a c t i v i t i e s ) jot) spend: a. p h y s i c a l l y i c t c t l v * % b. p h y s i c a l l y a c t i v e % (NOTE: t h a i * s h o u l d add up t o 100%) PLEASE READ THE T0I.L0VIKG STATEMENTS ADD CIRCLE THE LETTER BESIDE THE RESPONSE WHICH IS MOST APPROPRIATE TOR YOU. TOR EXAMPLE, IT TOU ARE A SMOKER YOU WOULD CIRCLE THE LETTER " a " IH QUESTION |*. » . I • • : a. a aaoker b. an o c c a s i o n a l s a o k e r c. a nonsaoker 5. X an c u r r e n t l y : a. employed b. unemployed c. r e t i r e d d. a hou s e w i f e e. a s t u d e n t 6. My normal n o n - l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s (work o r c o m p u l s o r y a c t i v i t i e s ) r e q u i r e : a. a t r e a t d e a l o f p h y s i c a l e a e r t l o n b. some p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n c. a l n l a s l p h y s i c a l e x e r t i o n 7. The most i m p o r t a n t p e r s o n i s ay l i f e ( e g . , s p o u s e , a e t e , r e l e t i v e etc.) : a. dees not s u p p o r t siy p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s t h i s e x e r c i s e program b. i s eoaewhet s u p p o r t i v e of ay p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o g r a a c. Is i n d i f f e r e n t t o ay p a r t i c i p a t i o n In t h i s p r o g r a a d. f u l l y a u p p o r t s ay p a r t i c i p a t i o n l a t h i s p r o g r a a 6. Ry f a m i l y ; a. does not s u p p o r t ay p a r t i c i p a t i o n In t h i s e x e r c i s e p r o g r a a b. i s »onewhat s u p p o r t i v e of ay p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o g r a a c. i s i n d i f f e r e n t t o ay p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n T h i s p r o g r a a d. f u l l y s u p p o r t s ay p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s p r o g r a a 9. I e n r o l l e d i n t h i s p r o g r a a w i t h : a. a f r i e n d o r r e l a t i v e b. a o r e than one f r i e n d or r e l a t i v e s c . no f r i e n d s o r r e l a t i v e s 10. 1 have p r e v i o u s l y been e n r o l l e d In an ergar.lxed f i t n e s s c l a s s a. once t . t w i c e c. t h r e e o r a o r e t l a e s d. n e v e r 11. Of the f i t n e s s c l o s e t 1 have p r e v i o u s l y been e n r o l l e d i n I c o m p l e t e d the p r o g r a a from s t a r t t o f i n i s h a. once b. t w i c e c. t h r e e o r more t l a e s d. not a p p l i c a b l e -12. I used t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n o r g a n i s e d s p o r t : 1) d u r i n g ay s c h o o l y e a r s a . yes b. no i l ) a f t e r l e a v i n g s c h o o l a . yes b. no 13. I aa c u r r e n t l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g In o r g a n i s e d s p o r t : a . yes It. I have p r e v i o u s l y e x e r c i s e d (swimming, j o g g i n g , c y c l i n g , e t c . ) on a r e g u l a r b a s i s (2 o r 3 t l a e s p e r weak) on ay own: a. yes b. no 7 6 CATPA Inst ruct ions The f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s d e s i g n e d t o f i n d o u t how you f e e l a b o u t c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y . At t h e t o p o f each page i n t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e r e i s a box c o n t a i n i n g an i d e a . Down below t h e box a r e f i v e d i f f e r e n t p a i r s o f w o r d s . You a r e b e i n g a s k e d t o mark each o f t h e s e word p a i r s t o show how you f e e l a b o u t t h e i d e a . T h e r e a r e no r i g h t o r wrong a n s w e r s . Here i s how you a r e t o use t h e s e s c a l e s : Read t h e i d e a i n t h e box, say f o r example, RUNNING. Now go down t o t h e f i r s t p a i r o f words--Good-Bad. T h i n k how you f e e l a b o u t r u n n i n g . I f you t h i n k r u n n i n g i s v e r y good you would p l a c e a check-mark as f o l l o w s : good : : : : bad I f you t h i n k r u n n i n g i s p r e t t y good but n o t s u p e r good you would p l a c e a check-mark as f o l l o w s : good : : : : bad I f you t h i n k r u n n i n g i s n e i t h e r good n o r bad ( i e . , a n e u t r a l f e e l i n g ) you would put a check-mark i n t h e m i d d l e s p a c e as f o l l o w s : good : : y / : : bad I f you t h i n k r u n n i n g i s s o r t o f bad b u t n o t r e a l l y bad you would p l a c e a check-mark as f o l l o w s : good : : : : bad I f y ou t h i n k r u n n i n g i s v e r y bad you would p l a c e a check-mark as f o l l o w s : good : : : : bad I f you do n o t u n d e r s t a n d t h e i d e a i n t h e box put a check-mark i n t h e do n o t u n d e r s t a n d box on t h e m i d d l e o f t h e p a g e . I t i s i m p o r t a n t f o r you t o remember s e v e r a l t h i n g s . F i r s t o f a l l , p u t y o u r c h e c k - m a r k s i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e s p a c e , n o t on t o p o f t h e d o t s . S e c o n d , n e v e r p l a c e more t h a n one check-mark on a s i n g l e s c a l e . T h i r d , t h e r e a r e f i v e p a i r s o f words on e a c h page ; do n o t o m i t any. Read t h e i d e a i n t h e box a t t h e t o p o f t h e page and f i l l i n how you f e e l a b o u t a l l o f t h e word p a i r s b e f o r e you go on t o t h e n e x t page . Do n o t go back t o a page a f t e r you have f i n i s h e d i t , and do n o t t r y t o remember how you answered t h e o t h e r p a g e s . T h i n k a b o u t e a c h word p a i r by i t s e l f . Work f a i r l y q u i c k l y t h r o u g h t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e ; do not w o r r y o r t h i n k t o o l o n g a b o u t any word p a i r . Mark t h e f i r s t t h i n g t h a t comes i n t o y o u r m i n d , b u t do n o t be c a r e l e s s . Remember, t h e i d e a i n t h e box i s a new i d e a , so t h i n k o n l y a b o u t t h a t i d e a . 77 Exercise Goals and Goal Attainment SETTING EXERCISE GOALS Using the blank spaces below, l i s t the go a l or goals you would most l i k e to achieve i n t h i s e x e r c i s e program. L i s t a maximum of three goals ranked i n order of importance, so that number one corresponds to the goal that i s most important to you, and so on. 1 . 2. 3 . I n d i c a t e how s u c c e s s f u l you expect to be at a c h i e v i n g these goalCs) by p l a c i n g a check-mark under the a p p r o p r i a t e heading seen below. I f you f i n d that none of the headings t o t a l l y r e f l e c t s your o p i n i o n , check the one that most c l o s e l y approximates the way you f e e l . s l i g h t l y moderately q u i t e very u n s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l feoal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 78 EOLOC S c a l e s The s t a t e m e n t s l i s t e d below a r e commonly h e l d o p i n i o n s . You a r e b e i n g asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h you a g r e e o r d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s . There a r e no r i g h t o r wrong an s w e r s . F i r s t i m p r e s s i o n s a r e b e s t . Read each s t a t e m e n t c a r e f u l l y , d e c i d e t he e x t e n t t o which you agree o r d i s a g r e e , and t h e n p l a c e a check-mark under the a p p r o p r i a t e h e a d i n g . GIVE YOUR OPINION ON EVERY STATEMENT. I f you f i n d t h a t t h e h e a d i n g s do not a d e q u a t e l y r e f l e c t y o u r o p i n i o n , use t h e one t h a t i s c l o s e s t t o the way you f e e l . I f you do not u n d e r s t a n d t h e s t a t e m e n t , p l a c e a c h e c k - n a r k under the h e a d i n g "Do Not U n d e r s t a n d " . Thank y o u . S t r o n g l y S t r o n g l y Do Not Agree A g r e e Undecided D i s a g r e e D i s a g r e e U n d e r s t a n d 1. Whether o r not I r e a c h my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s i s dependent on c i r c u m s t a n c e s beyond my c o n t r o l . 2. My own a c t i o n s w i l l d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t I a c h i e v e my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s . • _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 3. I f i t ' s meant t o b e , I w i l l r e a c h my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s . _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ U. Whether o r not I o b t a i n my e x e r i s e o b j e c t i v e s depends m o s t l y on my own b e h a v i o r . _____ _____ _____ ______ ________ ________ 5. Whether o r not I a c h i e v e my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s i s l a r g e l y a m a t t e r o f good o r bad f o r t u n e . 6. The encouragement I g i v e m y s e l f w i l l g r e a t l y a f f e c t whether or n o t I r e a c h my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s . _____ _____ _____ _____ — — 7. I f I do not a t t a i n my e x e r c i s e g o a l s , o t h e r p e o p l e w i l l be t o blame. ______ _____ _____ ______ _____ 8. F o r the most p a r t , o t h e r p e o p l e a r e i n c o n t r o l o v e r whether or n o t I a t t a i n my e x e r c i s e g o a l s . _____ ' _____ _____ _____ 9. Whether o r not I a c h i e v e my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s i s l a r g e l y a m a t t e r o f f a t e . _____ _____ _____ 10. My a c t i o n s o r the a c t i o n s o f o t h e r p e o p l e have nothinp, t o do w i t h w h e t h e r c r n o t I a c c o m p l i s h my e x e r c i s e g o a l s . _____ _____ _____ ______ 11. I t i s e n t i r e l y up t o o t h e r p e o p l e whether o r not I a c c o m p l i s h my e x e r c i s e g o a l s . 12. Whether or not I a c c o m p l i s h my e x e r c i s e g o a l s depends on how l u c k y I am. ______ _____ _____ _____ _ — _ _____ 13. I am d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r whether o r n o t I r e a c h my e x e r c i s e g o a l s . 1 •+. A c h i e v i n g my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s w i l l depend on how f o r t u n a t e I am. 15. Whether o r not I a c c o m p l i s h my e x e r c i s e g o a l s i s e n t i r e l y up t o me. _____ _____ _ _ _ _ _____ _____ 16. Whether o r n o t I r e a c h my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s depends on t h e a c t i o n s o f c e r t a i n o t h e r p e o p l e . _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 17. Other p e o p l e have t h e power t o make c e r t a i n t h a t I a c c o m p l i s h my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s . _____ _____ _ — — _____ IB. Not a c h i e v i n g my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s w i l l be a m a t t e r o f bad f o r t u n e . _____ _____ _____ _ — _____ 19. The b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r p e o p l e w i l l g r e a t l y I n -f l u e n c e whether o r n o t I r e a c h my e x e r c i s e • .  o b j e c t i v e s . , 20. I am p r i m a r i l y i n c o n t r o l o v e r whether o r not I r e a c h my e x e r c i s e o b j e c t i v e s . _____ _____ _____ _ _ _ _ _____ . — — 79 Followup Informed Consent We have been conducting a r e s e a r c h study (of which you have been a v a l u a b l e p a r t ) a s s e s s i n g some aspects a s s o c i a t e d w i t h p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n f i t n e s s c l a s s e s . I f you v o l u n t e e r once again t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s study, you w i l l be asked t o f i l l out the a t t a c h e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e which w i l l take about t en minutes t o complete. A l l i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be kept s t r i c t l y c o n f i d e n t i a l and a l l completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w i l l be de s t r o y e d once the i n f o r m a t i o n i s anonymously s t o r e d i n a computer. Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s study i s s t r i c t l y v o l u n t a r y , and you may withdraw a t any time without p e n a l t y of any k i n d . I f the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e i s completed i t w i l l be assumed t h a t consent has been g i v e n t o use the data from your responses. INSTRUCTIONS P l e a s e complete the f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n n a i r e and r e t u r n i t by m a i l i n the addressed and stamped envelope p r o v i d e d . When you respond t o the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , p l e a s e do so without d i s c u s s i n g the items w i t h o t h e r s . We want only your own o p i n i o n s and answers. A l s o p l e a s e t r y t o respond t o a l l statements and q u e s t i o n s . Your p a r t i c i p a t i o n has been very s i n c e r e l y a p p r e c i a t e d , and has made a d i f f e r e n c e t o the o v e r a l l success of t h i s study. Thank you very much. Happy New Year! Primary r e s e a r c h e r : Marina McCready (graduate student) Under the d i r e c t i o n o f : Dr. B o n i t a Long 80 Followup Questions L i s t e d below are the goals you s t a t e d t h a t you most wanted t o a c h i e v e by a t t e n d i n g f i t n e s s c l a s s e s . 1. 2. 3 . I n d i c a t e how s u c c e s s f u l you f e e l you were a t a c h i e v i n g t h e s e g o a l s — b y p l a c i n g a check-mark under the a p p r o p r i a t e heading below. I f you f i n d t h a t none of the headings t o t a l l y r e f l e c t s your o p i n i o n , check the one t h a t most c l o s e l y approximates the way you f e e l . s l i g h t l y moderately q u i t e very u n s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l s u c c e s s f u l g o a l 1 g o a l 2 g o a l 3 D i d you c o n t i n u e t o a t t e n d c l a s s e s u n t i l the program ended? ( c i r c l e Yes or No) a. Yes (answer q u e s t i o n s 1 to 3 below and i g n o r e the f o l l o w i n g page) b. No (go d i r e c t l y t o the f o l l o w i n g p a g e — i g n o r e q u e s t i o n s 1 to 3) 1. Now t h a t you have completed t h i s e x e r c i s e program do you i n t e n d to c o n t i n u e e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y ( i e . , 2 or 3 times per week)? a. Yes b. No c. Not sure 2. I f you do i n t e n d t o continue e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y , what are the main types of p h y s i c a l a c t i v i t y you w i l l be doing? 3. I f you do not i n t e n d to continue e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y , what i s your main reason? 81 Followup Questions Continued THIS PAGE IS FOR THOSE WHO DID NOT ATTEND UNTIL PROGRAM COMPLETION 4. S i n c e you stopped a t t e n d i n g c l a s s e s have you been e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y ( i e . , 2 or 3 times per week)? a. Yes b. No 5. I f you have been e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y , what are the main types o f a c t i v i t i e s you have been doing? 6. I f you have not been e x e r c i s i n g r e g u l a r l y , what i s your main reason? 7. What i s the main reason you stopped a t t e n d i n g ENERFIT c l a s s e s ? Think of the reason you have w r i t t e n i n number 7 above. The items below concern your impressions or o p i n i o n s of t h i s cause. CIRCLE one number f o r each of the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e s . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077285/manifest

Comment

Related Items