Which of the following was a direct long-term effect of the inconsistency evident in the image?

  1. Physical activity guidelines advisory committee report. 2008, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington DC

  2. Sisson SB, Katzmarzik PT: International prevalence of physical activity in youth and adults. Obesity Reviews. 2008, 9: 606-614. 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2008.00506.x.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eurobarometer: Sport and Physical Activity. Sport and Physical Activity. 2010, Special Eurobarometer, 334/Wave 72.3

  4. Prevalence of Regular Physical Activity Among Adults—United States, 2001 and 2005. MMWR. 2007, 56: 1209-1212.

  5. Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig CL, Clarke J, Tremblay MS: Physical activity of Canadian Adults: Accelerometer data from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Statistics Canada, Health Reports 2011 22, Catalogue no. 2011, 22: 82-003.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, Franklin BA, Lamonte MJ, Lee I, Nieman DC, Swain DP: Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory, Musculoskeletal, and Neuromotor Fitness in Apparently Healthy Adults: Guidance for Prescribing Exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2011, 43: 1334-1359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ryan RM, Williams GC, Patrick H, Deci EL: Self-determination theory and physical activity: The dynamics of motivation in development and wellness. Hellenic Journal of Psychology. 2009, 6: 107-124.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Korkiakangas EE, Alahuhta MA, Laitinen JH: Barriers to regular exercise among adults at high risk or diagnosed with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review. Health Promot Int. 2009, 24: 416-427. 10.1093/heapro/dap031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Markland D: The mediating role of behavioural regulations in the relationship between perceived body size discrepancies and physical activity among adult women. Hellenic Journal of Psychology. 2009, 6: 169-182.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ryan RM, Deci EL: Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist. 2000, 55: 68-78.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hall A: Tonic for Gyms?. Recreation. 2008, 24-26.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deci EL, Ryan RM: The 'what' and 'why' of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000, 11: 227-268. 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Deci EL: Intrinsic Motivation. 1975, Plenum, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Deci E, Ryan R: Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. 1985, Plenum, New York, 113-148.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Ryan RM, Deci EL: Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. 2002, Edited by Deci EL, Ryan RM, Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press, 3-33.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wilson PM, Rogers WT, Rodgers WM, Wild TC: The psychological need satisfaction in exercise scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2006, 28: 231-251.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fortier MS, Sweet SN, O'Sullivan TL, Williams GC: A self-determination process model of physical activity adoption in the context of a randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2007, 8: 741-757. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Silva MN, Vieira PN, Coutinho SR, Minderico CS, Matos MG, Sardinha LB, Teixeira PJ: Using self-determination theory to promote physical activity and weight control: a randomized controlled trial in women. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2010, 33: 110-122. 10.1007/s10865-009-9239-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sebire S, Standage M, Vansteenkiste M: Examining goal content in the exercise domain: Intrinsic versus extrinsic goals and cognitive, affective, and behavioural outcomes, and psychological need satisfaction. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2009, 31: 189-210.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vansteenkiste M, Niemiec CP, Soenens B: The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement (Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Volume 16). 2010, Edited by Urdan TC, Karabenick SA, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 105-165.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Grouzet FM, Kasser T, Ahuvia A, Dols JM, Kim Y, Lau S, Ryan RM, Saunders S, Schmuck P, Sheldon KM: The structure of goals across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2005, 89: 800-816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kasser T, Ryan RM: Further examining the American Dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1996, 22: 80-87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NL: Self-determination theory and the psychology of exercise. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2008, 1: 79-103. 10.1080/17509840701827437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson P, Mack D, Grattan K: Understanding Motivation for Exercise: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Canadian Psychology. 2008, 49: 250-256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Blair SN, Haskell WL, Ho P, Paffenbager RS: Vranizan KM, Farquhar JW, Wood PD: Assessment of habitual physical activity by a seven-day recall in a community survey and controlled experiments. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1985, 122: 794-804.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Godin G, Shepherd R: A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science. 1985, 10: 141-146.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryan RM, Frederick CM, Lepes D, Rubio N, Sheldon KM: Intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence. International Journal of Sport Psychology. 1997, 28: 335-354.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wininger SR: Self-determination theory and exercise behavior: An examination of the psychometric properties of the exercise motivation scale. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology. 2007, 19: 471-486. 10.1080/10413200701601466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilson PM, Blanchard CM, Nehl E, Baker F: Predicting physical activity and outcome expectations in cancer survivors: An application of self-determination theory. Psycho-Oncology. 2006, 15: 567-578. 10.1002/pon.990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Buckworth J, Lee RE, Regan G, Schneider LK, DiClemente CC: Decomposing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for exercise: Application to stages of motivational readiness. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2007, 8: 441-461. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodgers WM, Hall CR, Duncan LR, Pearson E, Milne MI: Becoming a regular exerciser: Examining change in behavioural regulations among exercise initiates. Psychology of Sports and exercise. 2010, 11: 378-386. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.04.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Silva MN, Markland D, Carraça EV, Vieira PN, Coutinho SR, Minderico CS, Matos MG, Sardinha LB, Teixeira PJ: Exercise Autonomous Motivation Predicts 3-Year Weight Loss in Women. Medicine and Sciences in Sports and Exercise. 2011, 43: 728-737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Silva MN, Markland DM, Vieira PN, Coutinho SR, Carraça EV, Palmeira AL, Minderico CS, Matos MG, Sardinha LB, Teixeira PJ: Helping Overweight Women Become More Active: Need Support and Motivational Regulations for Different Forms of Physical Activity. Psychology of Sports and exercise. 2010, 11: 591-601. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NL, Harris J: From psychological need satisfaction to intentional behavior: Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2006, 32: 131-148. 10.1177/0146167205279905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NL, Harris J: The process by which relative autonomous motivation affects intentional behavior: Comparing effects across diet and exercise behaviors. Motivation and Emotion. 2006, 30: 307-321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Fortier MS, Wiseman E, Sweet SN, O'Sullivan TL, Blanchard CM, Sigal RJ, Hogg W: A moderated mediation of motivation on physical activity in the context of the PAC randomized control trial. Psychology of Sport and exercise. 2011, 12: 71-78. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Markland D, Tobin V: A modification of the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2004, 26: 191-196.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Edmunds J, Ntoumanis N, Duda J: Adherence and well-being in overweight and obese patients referred to an exercise on prescription scheme: A Self-Determination Theory perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2007, 8: 722-740. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Edmunds J, Ntoumanis N, Duda J: Testing a self-determination theory-based teaching style intervention in the exercise domain. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2008, 38: 375-388. 10.1002/ejsp.463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Levy SS, Cardinal BJ: Effects of a self-determination theory-based mail-mediated intervention on adults' exercise behavior. American Journal of Health Promotion. 2004, 18: 345-349. 10.4278/0890-1171-18.5.345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Duncan LR, Hall CR, Wilson PM OJ: Exercise motivation: A cross-sectional analysis examining its relationships with frequence, intensity, and duration of exercise. 2010, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7-10.1186/1479-5868-7-7.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Brickell T, Chatzisarantis N: Using self-determination theory to examine the motivational correlates and predictive utility of spontaneous exercise implementation intentions. Psychology of Sport and exercise. 2007, 8: 758-770. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2006.11.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Peddle CJ: R.C. P, T.C. W, J. A., K.S. C: Medical, demographic, and psychosocial correlates of exercise in colorectal cancer survivors: an application of self-determination theory. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2008, 16: 9-17. 10.1007/s00520-007-0272-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Edmunds J, Ntoumanis N, Duda J: A Test of Self-Determination Theory in the Exercise Domain. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2006, 36: 2240-2265. 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00102.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wilson PM, Rodgers WM, Fraser SN, Murray TC: The relationship between exercise regulations and motivational consequences. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2004, 75: 81-91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ingledew DK, Markland D: The role of motives in exercise participation. Psychology and Health. 2008, 23: 807-828. 10.1080/08870440701405704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Craike M: Application of self-determination theory to study determinants of regular participation in leisure-time physical activity. World Leisure Journal. 2008, 50: 58-70. 10.1080/04419057.2008.9674527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lewis M, Sutton A: Understanding exercise behaviour: Examining the intereaction of exercise motivation and personality in predicting exercise frequency. Journal of Sport Behavior. 2011, 34: 82-97.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Wilson PM, Rodgers WM, Fraser SN: Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Behavioral Regulation for Exercise Questionnaire. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2002, 6: 1-21. 10.1207/S15327841MPEE0601_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. McDonough MH, Crocker PR: Testing self-determined motivation as a mediator of the relationship between psychological needs and affective and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Sport and exercise Psychology. 2007, 29: 645-663.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Edmunds J, Ntoumanis N, Duda JL: Examining exercise dependence symptomatology from a self-determination perspective. Journal of Health Psychology. 2006, 11: 887-903. 10.1177/1359105306069091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Thögersen-Ntoumani C, Ntoumanis N: The role of self-determined motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions and physical self-evaluations. Journal of Sports Sciences. 2006, 24: 393-404. 10.1080/02640410500131670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Kwan BM: Caldwell Hooper AE, Magnan RE, Bryan AD: A longitudinal diary study of the effects of causality orientations on exercise-related affect. Self and Identity. 2011, 10: 363-374. 10.1080/15298868.2010.534238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sorensen M: Motivation for physical activity of psychiatric patients when physical activity was offered as part of treatment. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine Sciences in Sports. 2006, 16: 391-398. 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00514.x.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Daley AJ, Duda J: Self-determination, stage of readiness to change for exercise, and frequency of physical activity in young people. European Journal of Sport Sciences. 2006, 6: 231-243. 10.1080/17461390601012637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Rose EA, Parfitt G, Williams S: Exercise causality orientations, behavioural regulation for exercise and stage of change for exercise: exploring their relationships. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2005, 6: 399-414. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2004.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mullan E, Markland D: Variations in Self-Determination Across the Stages of Change for Exercise in Adults. Motivation and Emotion. 1997, 21: 349-362. 10.1023/A:1024436423492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wilson PM, Rodgers WM, Blanchard CM, Gessell J: The Relationship Between Psychological Needs, Self-Determined Motivation, Exercise Attitudes, and Physical Fitness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2003, 33: 2373-2392. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01890.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Frederick CM, Ryan RM: Differences in motivation for sport and exercise and their relations with participation and mental health. Journal of Sport Behavior. 1993, 16: 124-146.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Markland D, Ingledew D: The measurement of Exercise Motives: factorial validity and Invariance across gender of a revised Exercise Motivation Inventory. Brit J Health Psych. 1997, 2: 361-376. 10.1111/j.2044-8287.1997.tb00549.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. McAuley E, Duncan T, Tammen VV: Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1989, 60: 48-58.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lee RE, DiClemente CC: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation: Which is important for exercise?. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. 2001, 33: S112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sebire S, Standage M, Vansteenkiste M: Development and validation of the Goal Content for Exercise Questionnaire. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2008, 30: 353-378.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Segar ML, Spruijt-Metz D, Nolen-Hoeksema S: Go figure? Body-shape motives are associated with decreased physical activity participation among midlife women. Sex Roles. 2006, 54: 175-187. 10.1007/s11199-006-9336-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Segar ML, Eccles JS, Richardson CR: Type of physical activity goal influences participation in healthy midlife women. Women's Health Issues. 2008, 18: 281-291. 10.1016/j.whi.2008.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wilson P, Mack D, Grattan K: Understanding Motivation for Exercise: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Canadian Psychology. 2008, 49.

  67. Silva MN, Markland D, Minderico CS, Vieira PN, Castro MM, Coutinho SR, Santos TC, Matos MG, Sardinha LB, Teixeira PJ: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate self-determination theory for exercise adherence and weight control: rationale and intervention description. BMC Public Health. 2008, 8: 234-246. 10.1186/1471-2458-8-234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Mildestvedt T, Meland E, Eide GE: How important are individual counseling, expectancy beliefs and autonomy for the maintenance of exercise after cardiac rehabilitation?. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2008, 36: 832-840. 10.1177/1403494808090633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Jolly K, Duda J, Daley AJ, Eves FF, Mutrie N, Ntoumanis N, Rouse PC, Lodhia R, Williams GC: Evaluation of a standard provision versus an autonomy promotive exercise referral programme: Rationaly and study design. BMC Public Health. 2009, 9: 176-10.1186/1471-2458-9-176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Koestner R, Losier GF, In Handbook of self-determination research: Distinguishing three ways of being internally motivated: a closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. 2002, Edited by Deci EL, Ryan RM, Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 101-121.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Vallerand RJ, Fortier MS, Guay F: Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model of high school dropout. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1997, 72: 1161-1176.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Vieira PN, Mata J, Silva MN, Coutinho SR, Santos TC, Minderico CS, Sardinha LB, Teixeira PJ: Predictors of psychological well-being during behavioral obesity treatment in womenJournal of Obesity.  .  , Predictors of psychological well-being during behavioral obesity treatment in women Journal of Obesity:  -(doi: 101155/2011/936153) 2011

  73. Assor A, Vansteenkiste M, Kaplan A: Identified Versus Introjected Approach and Introjected Avoidance Motivations in School and in Sports: The Limited Benefits of Self-Worth Strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2009, 101: 482-497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Cusumano DL, Thompson JK: Body image and body shape ideals in magazines: exposure, awareness, and internalization. Sex Roles. 1997, 37: 701-721. 10.1007/BF02936336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Shrout PE, Bolger N: Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods. 2002, 7: 422-445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Halvary H, Ulstad SA, Bagoien TE, Skjesol K: Autonomy support and its links to physical activity and competitive performance: Mediations through motivation, competence, action orientation and harmonious passion, and the moderator role of autonomy support by perceived competence. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2009, 53: 533-555. 10.1080/00313830903302059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Puente R, Anshel MH: Exercisers' perceptions of their fitness instructor's interacting style, perceived competence, and autonomy as a function of self-determined regulation to exercise, enjoyment, affect, and exercise frequency. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 2010, 51: 38-45. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00723.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Markland D, Ingledew DK: Exercise Participation Motives: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. 2007, Edited by Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NL, United States of America: Human Kinetics, 23-35.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ingledew DK, Markland D, Ferguson E: Three levels of exercise motivation. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. 2009, 1: 336-355. 10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01015.x.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Cash TF, Novy PL, Grant JR: Why do women exercise? Factor analysis and further validation of the Reasons for Exercise Inventory. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1994, 78: 539-544. 10.2466/pms.1994.78.2.539.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Sheldon KM, Ryan RM, Deci EL, Kasser T: The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It's both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2004, 30: 475-486. 10.1177/0146167203261883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Rhodes RE, Pfaeffli LA: Review Mediators of physical activity behaviour change among adult non-clinical populations: a review update. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2010, 7: 37-48. 10.1186/1479-5868-7-37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Williams GC, Grow VM, Freedman ZR, Ryan R, Deci E: Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal Personal Social Psychology. 1996, 70: 115-126.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Ryan R, Connell J: Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. 1989, 57: 749-761.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Wilson PM, Rodgers WM, Loitz CC, Scime G: "It's who I am…really!": The importance of integrated regulation in exercise contexts. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research. 2006, 11: 79-104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Landry JB, Solmon M: African American women's self-determination across the stages of change for exercise. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2004, 26: 457-469.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Milne HM: K.E. W, A. G., S. G, K.S. C: Self-determination theory and physical activity among breast cancer survivors. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2008, 30: 23-38.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Markland D, Tobin VJ: Need support and behavioural regulations for exercise among exercise referral scheme clients: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2010, 11: 91-99. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Moreno JA, Cervelló EM, Martínez A: Measuring self-determination motivation in a physical fitness setting: validation of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-2 (BREQ-2) in a Spanish sample. The Journal of Sport Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2007, 47: 366-378.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Hall CR, Rodgers WM, Wilson PM, Norman P: Imagery use and self-determined motivations in a community sample of exercisers and non-exercisers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2010, 40: 135-152. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00566.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Standage M, Sebire S, Loney T: Does exercise motivation predict engagement in objectively assessed bouts of moderate-intensity exercise?: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Sport and exercise Psychology. 2008, 30: 337-352.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Hurkmans EJ, Maes S, de Gucht V, Knittle K, Peeters AJ, Ronday HK: Vliet Vlieland T: Motivation as a determinant of physical activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care & Research. 2010, 62: 371-377. 10.1002/acr.20106.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Lutz RS, Karoly P, Okun MA: The why and the how of goal pursuit: Self-determination goal process cognition, and participation in physical exercise. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 2008, 9: 559-575. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Tsorbatzoudis H, Alexandris K, Zahariadis P, Grouios G: Examining the relationship between recreational sport participation and intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2006, 103: 363-374.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Chatzisarantis NL, Biddle SJ: Functional significance of psychological variables that are included in the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Self-Determination Theory approach to the study of attitudes, subjective norms, perceptions of control, and intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1998, 28: 303-322. 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199805/06)28:3<303::AID-EJSP853>3.0.CO;2-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Matsumoto H, Takenaka K: Motivational profiles and stages of exercise behavior change. International Journal of Sport and Health Science. 2004, 2: 89-96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. McNeill LH, Wyrwick KW, Brownson RC, Clarck EM, Kreuter MW: Individual, social environmental, and physical environmental influences in physical activity among black and white adults: A structural equation analysis. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2006, 31: 36-44. 10.1207/s15324796abm3101_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Russell KL, Bray SR: Self-determined motivation predicts independent, home-based exercise following cardiac rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2009, 54: 150-156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Russell KL, Bray SR: Promoting self-determined motivation for exercise in cardiac rehabilitation: the role of autonomy support. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2010, 55: 74-80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Fortier MS, Kowal J, Lemyre L, Orpana HM: Intentions and actual physical activity behavior change in a community-based sample of middle-aged women:Contributions from the theory of planned behavior and self-determination theory. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 2009, 9: 46-67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Barbeau A, Sweet SN, Fortier MS: A path-analytic model of self-determination theory in a physical activity context. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research. 2009, 14: 103-118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Sweet SN, Fortier MS, Guérin E, Tulloch H, Sigal RJ, Kenny GP, Reid RD: Understanding physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes after completing an exercise intervention trial: A mediation model of self-efficacy and autonomous motivation. Psychol Health Med. 2009, 14: 419-429. 10.1080/13548500903111806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Vlachopoulos SP, Michailidou S: Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The basic psychological needs in exercise scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2006, 10: 179-201. 10.1207/s15327841mpee1003_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Frederick CM, Morrison C, Manning T: Motivation to participate, exercise affect, and outcome behaviors toward physical activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1996, 82: 691-701. 10.2466/pms.1996.82.2.691.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Sit CH, Kerr JH, Wong IT: Motives for and barriers to physical activity participation in middle-aged Chinese women. Psychology of Sport and exercise. 2008, 9: 266-283. 10.1016/j.psychsport.2007.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Davey J, Fitzpatrick M, Garland R, Kilgour M: Adult participation motives: Empirical evidence from a workplace exercise program. European Sport Management Quarterly. 2009, 9: 141-162. 10.1080/16184740802571427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Ingledew DK, Markland D, Medley AR: Exercise Motives and Stages of Change. Journal of Health Psychology. 1998, 3: 477-489. 10.1177/135910539800300403.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Levy AR, Polman RC, Borkoles E: Examining the relationship between perceived autonomy support and age in the context of rehabilitation adherence in sport. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2008, 53: 224-230.

    Article  Google Scholar 


Page 2

Reference Design Sample Measures Significant Predictors Outcomes Analysis/Observations
   Size (%F) Features Location      
I. Exercise self-regulations and related measures
ThØgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006 [52] Cross-sectional 375 (51) Exercisers (Mean 38.7 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) + amotivation (AMS) MV: IM (+) a, ID (+) a,b, INTR (+) a; EXT (−) a,b, AMOT (−) a Exercise stages of change a; Exercise relapses (fewer) b Multivariate logistic regressions, adjusting for sex and age; Manovas
Rose et al., 2005 [56] Cross-sectional 184 (55) Healthy adults (17–60 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: IM (+) a, ID (+) , INTR (+) EXT (−) Exercise stages of change Discriminant function analysis (IM was redundant); Manovas a
Ingledew et al., 2009 [79] Cross-sectional 251 (52) University Students (Mean 19.5 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (+),ID (+),INTR (n.s) EXT (n.s) Self-reported exercise (measure analogous to LTEQ) Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS); Mediation analysis
Edmunds et al., 2006 [44] Cross-sectional 369 (52) Healthy individuals (Mean 31.9 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: IM (n.s.), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (−) Self-reported exercise (total and strenuous PA; LTEQ) Multiple regressions; Mediation analysis. No associations with mild/moderately intense PA.
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.)
Wilson et al., 2006 [85] Cross-sectional 139 (64) Undergraduate students (Mean 19.5 yr) Canada Exercise extrinsic self-regulations (BREQ) and Integrated Regulation scale (INTEG) MV: INTEG (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: INTEG (+), ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.)
McDonough et al., 2007 [50] Cross-sectional 558 (72)    Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: RAI (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; SEM; Mediation analysis. Only RAI was tested in multivariate analysis.
BIV: RAI (+), IM (n.s.), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.)
Daley & Duda, 2006 [55] Cross-sectional 409 (61) Undergraduate students (19.9 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (+), ID (++), INTR (+); EXT (− M); AMOT (− F) Exercise stages of change; Physical activity status (from inactive to active) Discriminant function analysis
Wilson et al., 2004 [45] Cross-sectional 276 (64) Undergraduate students (20.5 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (n.s.); ID (+), INTR (+ F; - M), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regressions analysis
BIV: IM (+); ID (+), INTR (+ F), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (n.s.)
Markland, 2009 [9] Cross-sectional 102 F Healthy individuals (Mean 29.2 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (+), ID (+), AMOT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression/mediation (Preacher & Hayes): INTR and EXT not analyzed.
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (−)
Ingledew & Markland, 2008 [46] Cross-sectional 252 (48) Office workers (Mean 40 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (n.s.), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−) Self-reported exercise (measure analogous to LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; SEM
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−)
Peddle et al., 2008 [43] Cross-sectional 413 (46) Colorectal cancer survivors (Mean 60 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (n.s.), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Path analysis
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (−)
Landry & Solmon, 2004 [86] Cross-sectional 105 F African-American (Mean 56 yr) USA Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (−), EXT (n.s.) Exercise stages of change; exercise categories Anovas; Discriminant function analysis
  BIV: RAI (+); IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.)
Milne et al., 2008 [87] Cross-sectional 558 F Breast cancer survivors (Mean 59 yr) Australia Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ); exercise categories (meeting vs. not meeting guidelines) Anovas; Hierarchical regression analysis
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−), AMOT (−)
Mullan & Markland, 1997 [57] Cross-sectional 314 (49.7) Healthy individuals (Mean 35–40 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.) Exercise stages of change Anova (RAI was analyzed); Discriminant function analysis;
BIV: RAI (+)
Lewis & Sutton, 2011 [48] Cross-sectional 100 (50) 95% undergraduates, members of a university gym; age not specified UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (+); ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−), AMOT (n.s.) Exercise frequency Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: IM (+); ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (−), AMOT (−)
Markland & Tobin, 2010 [88] Cross-sectional 133 F Exercise referral scheme clients (Mean 54.5 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Wilson et al., 2002 [49] Cross-sectional 500 (81) Aerobic exercisers (Mean 34 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (−) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations. Differences between PA intensities.
Sebire et al., 2009 [19] Cross-sectional 410 (71) Exercisers (Mean 41.4 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: RAI (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Hierarchical regression analysis
BIV: RAI (+)
Brickell & Chatzisarantis, 2007 [42] Cross-sectional 252 (61) College students (Mean 23.2 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: IM (n.s.), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Multiple regression analysis
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s)
Edmunds et al., 2006 [51] Cross-sectional 339 (53) Symptomatic vs asymptomatic for exercise dependence (Mean 32.1 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) and Integrated Regulation scale (INTEG) MV: Symptomatic: INTR (+ tendency); Asymptomatic: ID (+). Remaining variables not significant. Self-reported exercise (total and strenuous PA; LTEQ) Multiple regressions. No associations with moderately intense PA.
Moreno et al., 2007 [89] Cross-sectional 561 (53) Healthy adults (Mean 31.8 yr) Spain Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: IM (n.s.), ID (−), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−), AMOT (−) Exercise duration (0-45 min vs. 45-60 min vs. > 60 min) Manovas
Hall et al., 2010 [90] Cross-sectional 470 (54) Adults (Mean 44.9 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2); Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (−) Exercise status (active vs. inactive) Anovas
Standage et al., 2008 [91] Cross-sectional 52 (50) University students (Mean 22 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations; Autonomous and controlled motivations (BREQ) MV: AutMot (+), CtMot (n.s.)
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s), AutMot (+), CtMot (n.s.)
Accelerometry Bivariate correlations; Sequential regression analysis
Duncan et al., 2010 [41] Cross-sectional 1079 (57) Regular exercisers (Mean 24.2 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) + Integrated reg. scale MV: IM (n.s.), INTEG (+), ID (+)*, INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s), AMOT (n.s) * PA frequency; PA intensity; PA duration (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: IM (+), INTEG (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (− F)*, AMOT (−)
Sorensen et al. 2006 [54] cross-sectional 109 (59) Psychiatric patients (Mean age group 31–49 yr) Norway Exercise regulations (based on BREQ) MV: IM (+), ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise level Bivariate correlations; Logistic regressions
BIV: IM (+), ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−)
Puente & Anshel, 2010 [77] Cross-sectional 238 (57) College students (Mean 20.4 yr) USA Exercise self-regulations (SRQ-E) MV: RAI (+) Exercise frequency Bivariate correlations; SEM
BIV: RAI (+)
Halvary et al., 2009 [76] Cross-sectional 190 (44) Healthy adults (Mean 21.8 yr) Norway Autonomous motivation (SRQ) MV: AutMot (+) Exercise frequency and duration Bivariate correlations; SEM; Mediation analysis
BIV: AutMot (+)
Wilson et al., 2006 [29] Cross-sectional 220; 220 (56) Cancer survivors (Mean 60–64 yr) vs non-cancer (Mean 50 yr) Canada Autonomous and controlled motivation (TSRQ-PA) MV: AutMot (+), CtMot (−) in both samples Self-reported exercise (min/wk of MVPA) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: AutMot (+), CtMot (n.s.) in both samples
Hurkmans et al., 2010 [92] Cross-sectional 271 (66) Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (Mean 62 yr) Netherlands Exercise self-regulations (TSRQ-PA). Adated RAI. MV: RAI (+) Self-reported exercise (SQUASH) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: RAI (+)
Lutz et al., 2008 [93] Cross-sectional 535 (60) University students (Mean 20 yr) USA Exercise self-regulations (EMS). Adapted RAI. MV: RAI (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlation; Preacher & Hayes mediation analysis
BIV: RAI (+)
Wininger, 2007 [28] Cross-sectional 143; 58 (76) Undergraduates (Mean 21–22 yr) USA Exercise self-regulations (EMS) MV *: IM (+), INTEG (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (−) * Exercise stages of change; ** Distance walked on treadmill Bivariate correlations; Manovas
BIV **: IM experience sensations (+), INTEG (n.s.), ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (−)
Craike, M., 2008 [47] Cross-sectional 248 (53) Healthy adults (Mean 48 yr) Australia Exercise self-regulations (based on BREQ and EMS) MV: IM (+), ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−) Self-reported LTPA SEM
Tsorbatzoudis et al., 2006 [94] Cross-sectional 257 (55) Healthy adults (Mean 31 yr) Greece Exercise self-regulations (SMS) MV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (−), AMOT (−) Exercise frequency (from the least to the most frequent) Multivariate analysis of variance; multiple regressions
Chatzisarantis & Biddle, 1998 [95] Cross-sectional 102 (50) University employees (Mean 40 yr) UK Behavioral regulations for PA (SMS adaptation) MV: Autonomous group (vs controlled) based on RAI scores (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) SEM
Matsumoto & Takenaka, 2004 [96] Cross-sectional 486 (53) Healthy individuals (Mean 45 yr) Japan Exercise self-regulations (SDMS); profiles of self-determination BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.) AMOT (−); Self-determined profile (+) Exercise stages of change Bivariate correlations and cluster analysis
McNeill et al., 2006 [97] Cross-sectional 910 (80) Healthy individuals (Mean 33 yr) USA Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (MPA) MV: Intrinsic motivation (+); Extrinsic motivation for social pressure Self-reported exercise (minutes of walking, and MVPA) SEM. Indirectly through self-efficacy.
Russell & Bray, 2009 [98] Cross-sectional and prospective (6 + 6wk) 68 (13) Cardiac rehabilitation outpatients (Mean 64.9 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: RAI (+) Self-reported exercise (7Day-PAR) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: RAI (+)
Russell & Bray, 2010 [99] Cross-sectional and Observational (14wk) 53 M Exercise cardiac rehabilitation patients (Mean 62.8 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (SRQ-E) MV: AutMot (+) Exercise frequency; duration (+); volume (+) – 7Day-PAR Bivariate correlations; Hierarchical regression analysis
BIV: AutMot (+), CtMot (n.s.)
Fortier et al., 2009 [100] Prospective (6mo) 149 F Healthy adults (Mean 51.8 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (TSRQ-adapted) MV: AutMot (n.s.) Duration, Frequency, and Energy Expenditure (CHAMPS) Bivariate correlations; Mediation/regression analysis
BIV: AutMot (n.s.), CtMot (n.s.)
Rodgers et al., 2010 [31] Prospective 1572 (60) Initiate vs. long-term exercisers (Mean 22–51 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (−) overtime for initiates, but < to regular exercisers Self-reported exercise (LTEQ); Initiate vs. long-term exercisers Manovas. Total N from 6 samples: initiates (60, 134, 38, 84), regular exercisers (202, 1054)
Barbeau et al., 2009 [101] Prospective (1mo) 118 (65) Healthy adults (Mean 19 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) MV: AutMot (+), CtMot (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Path analysis
BIV: AutMot (+), CtMot (n.s.)
Hagger et al., 2006 [35] Prospective (4wk) 261 (64) University students (Mean 24.9 yr) UK Relative autonomy index (based on PLOC scale) BIV: RAI (+) Self-reported exercise (frequency) Bivariate correlations; SEM
Hagger et al., 2006 [34] Prospective (4 wk) 261 (64) Exercise sample of university students (Mean 24.9 yr) UK Relative autonomy index (based on PLOC Scale) BIV: RAI (+) Self-reported exercise (frequency) Bivariate correlations
Kwan et al., 2011[53] Prospective (4 wk) 104 (58) Undergraduate students; active (Mean 18.2 yr) USA Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) BIV: IM (+), ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.), AMOT (n.s.), RAI (n.s) Self-reported exercise (online diary) Bivariate correlations
Edmunds et al., 2007 [38] Prospective (uncontrolled intervention) (3mo) 49 (84) Overweight/Obese patients (Mean BMI: 38.8; Mean 45 yr) on an exercise scheme UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2); Integrated regulation subscale (EMS) MV: IM (n.s.), INTEG (+), ID (−)*, INTR (+)*, EXT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ); Bivariate correlations; Multilevel regression analysis.* ID and INTR multivariate outcomes resulted from net suppression; thus, not considered by the authors.
    BIV: ID (+), INTR (−)  
Wilson et al., 2003 [58] Experimental (12wk) 53 (83) Adults (Mean 41.8 yr; BMI: 19.9 ± 3.0 kg/m2) Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: IM (+), ID (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis. IM and ID increased from pre- to post-exercise program
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.)
Sweet et al., 2009 [102] Experimental (12mo) 234 (38) Inactive with type 2 diabetes (Mean 53 yr) on an exercise program Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ) MV: AutMot (+) Amount of PA (kcal/month) Bivariate correlations; Regression/Mediation analysis
   BIV: AutMot (+)
Fortier et al., 2011 [36] Experimental (13wk); RCT 120 (69) Inactive patients (Mean 47.3 yr): intensive vs. brief PA intervention Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2) BIV: IM, ID, INTR, EXT, and RAI were not significant predictors Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Fortier et al., 2007 [17] Experimental (13wk); RCT 120 (69) Autonomy supportive vs brief PA counseling (Mean 47.3 yr) Canada Treatment self-regulations (TSRQ-PA) MV: AutMot (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Path/Mediation analysis
BIV: AutMot (n.s.)
Levy & Cardinal, 2004 [40] Experimental (2mo); RCT 185 (68) Adults (Mean 46.8 yr); SDT-based mail intervention vs. controls USA Exercise self-regulations (EMS) MV: IM, INTEG, ID, INTR, EXT, and AMOT were not significant predictors Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Manovas with repeated measures
Mildestvedt et al., 2008 [68] Experimental (4wk); RCT 176 (22) Cardiac rehabilitation patients (Mean 56 yr): SDT-based vs standard rehab treatment Norway Autonomous and controlled motivations (TSRQ) BIV: AutMot (+); CtMot (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (composite score); exercise intensity ANOVAs with repeated measures
Silva et al., 2010 [33] Experimental (12mo); RCT 239 F OW/Obese women (Mean 38 yr); SDT-treatment vs controls Portugal Exercise self-regulations (SRQ-E) MV: IM (+)*, ID (n.s.), INTR (n.s.), EXT (n.s.) Self-reported exercise: MVPA * (7-day PAR); lifestyle PA index Bivariate correlations; PLS analysis; Mediation analysis
BIV: IM (+), ID (+), INTR (+), EXT (n.s.)
Silva et al., 2010 [32] Experimental (1 yr + 2y follow-up); RCT 221 F OW/Obese women (Mean 38 yr); SDT-treatment vs controls Portugal Exercise self-regulations (SRQ-E) at 1 yr and 2 yr MV: AutMot 2 yr (+), INTR 2 yr (n.s.), EXT 2 yr (n.s.) 2-yr self-reported exercise: MVPA (7-day PAR) Bivariate correlations; PLS analysis; Mediation analysis
BIV: AutMot 1 and 2 yr (+), INTR 2 yr (+), EXT 2 yr (n.s.)
II. Exercise-related psychological need satisfaction
Puente & Anshel, 2010 [77] Cross-sectional 238 (57) College students (Mean 20.4 yr) USA Basic Psychological Needs Scale (BPNS); Perceived Competence Scale (PCS) MV: Competence (+) Exercise frequency Bivariate correlations; SEM; Relatedness not measured.
BIV: Autonomy (n.s.), Competence (+)
Edmunds et al., 2006 [44] Cross-sectional 369 (52) Healthy individuals (Mean 31.9 yr) UK Psychological need satisfaction (BNSWS adapted) MV: Autonomy (n.s.), Competence (+), Relatedness (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (total and strenuous PA; LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Regression analysis; mediation analysis
BIV: Autonomy (+), Competence (+), Relatedness (+)
Edmunds et al., 2006 [51] Cross-sectional 339 (53) Symptomatic vs asymptomatic for exercise dependence (Mean 32.1 yr) UK Psychological need satisfaction (BNSWS adapted) BIV: Autonomy (n.s.), Competence (+), Relatedness (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (total and strenuous PA; LTEQ) Bivariate correlations. No associations with mild/moderately intense PA
Peddle et al., 2008 [43] Cross-sectional 413 (46) Colorectal cancer survivors (Mean 60 yr) Canada Psychological need satisfaction (PNSE) BIV: Autonomy (+), Competence (+), Relatedness (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
McDonough et al., 2007 [50] Cross-sectional 558 (72) Recreational dragon boat paddlers (Mean 45 yr) Canada Exercise need satisfaction (PNSE) MV: Autonomy (−), Competence (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; SEM
BIV: Autonomy (n.s.), Competence (+), Relatedness (n.s.)
Sebire et al., 2009 [19] Cross-sectional 410 (71) Exercisers (Mean 41.4 yr) UK Exercise need satisfaction (PNSE) BIV: Exercise need satisfaction (composite score) (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Milne et al., 2008 [87] Cross-sectional 558 F Breast cancer survivors (Mean 59 yr) Australia Perceived competence (PCS) MV: Competence (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ); Exercise categories (meeting vs. not meeting guidelines) Anovas; Hierarchical regression analysis
BIV: Competence (+)
Halvary et al., 2009 [76] Cross-sectional 190 (44) Healthy adults (Mean 21.8 yr) Norway Perceived competence (PCS) MV: Competence (n.s.) Exercise frequency and duration Bivariate correlations; SEM/Mediation analysis
BIV: Competence (+)
Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006 [103] Cross-sectional 508 (50) Greek adults (Mean 30 yr) Greece Psychological needs satisfaction in exercise (BPNES) MV: Autonomy (n.s.), Competence (+); Relatedness (n.s.) Exercise frequency SEM
Markland & Tobin, 2010 [88] Cross-sectional 133 F Exercise referral scheme clients UK Autonomy need (LCE); Perceived Competence (IMI); Relatedness (8-item scale) BIV: Autonomy (+), Competence (+), Relatedness (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Russell & Bray, 2009 [98] Cross-sectional and prospective (6 + 6wk) 68 (13) Cardiac rehabilitation outpatients (Mean 64.9 yr) Canada Exercise need satisfaction (PNSE) BIV: Autonomy (n.s.), Competence (+)*, Relatedness (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (7Day-PAR) at 3wk and 6wk* follow-up Bivariate correlations
Barbeau et al., 2009 [101] Prospective (1mo) 118 (65) Healthy adults (Mean 19 yr) Canada Exercise need satisfaction (PNSES) BIV: Autonomy (+), Competence (+), Relatedness (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Hagger et al., 2006 [34] Prospective (4 wk) 261 (64) Exercise sample of university students (Mean 24.9 yr) UK Psychological need satisfaction BIV: Psychological need satisfaction (composite score) (+) Self-reported exercise (frequency). Bivariate correlations
Edmunds et al., 2007 [38] Prospective (uncontrolled intervention) (3mo) 49 (84) OW/Obese patients (BMI: 38.75; Mean 45 yr) UK Psychological need satisfaction (PNSS) MV: Autonomy (n.s.), Competence (n.s.); Relatedness (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ); (Increase in relatedness overtime) Multilevel regression analysis; Paired T-tests
Fortier et al., 2007 [17] Experimental (13 wk); RCT 120 (69) Healthy adults (Mean 47.3 yr) Canada Perceived Competence (PCES) MV: Competence (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Path analysis; Mediation analysis
Levy & Cardinal, 2004 [40] Experimental (2mo); RCT 185 (68) Adults (Mean 46.8 yr); SDT-based mail intervention vs. controls USA Perceived autonomy satisfaction (LCE) MV: Autonomy (+ F), Competence (n.s.), Relatedness (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Manovas with repeated measures
Silva et al., 2010 [33] Experimental (12mo); RCT 239 F OW/Obese women (Mean BMI: 31.5; Mean 38 y); SDT-based weight loss treatment vs controls Portugal Perceived autonomy satisfaction (LCE); Competence (IMI) BIV: Autonomy (+), Competence (+) Self-reported exercise: MVPA (7-day PAR); lifestyle PA index Bivariate correlations
III. Exercise motives and related measures
Ingledew et al., 2009 [79] Cross-sectional 251 (52) University Students (Mean 19.5 yr) UK Exercise motives (EMI-2) MV: Intrinsic motives: Stress management (+), Affiliation (+), Challenge (+); Extrinsic: Health/fitness (+); body-related (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (measure analogous to LTEQ) Partial Least Squares Analysis (PLS); Mediation analysis
Ingledew & Markland, 2008 [46] Cross-sectional 252 (48) Office workers (Mean 40 yr) UK Exercise motives (EMI-2) BIV: Intrinsic motives (n.s.), Extrinsic motives: health/fitness (+) and body-related (−) Self-reported exercise (measure analogous to LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Frederick & Ryan, 1993 [59] Cross-sectional 376 (64) Healthy individuals (Mean 39 yr) USA Exercise motives (MPAM) Intrinsic motives: interest/enjoyment (+); competence (+); Extrinsic motives: body-related (+) Self-reported exercise (levels, intensity) Differences between PA categories; correlations and Manovas
Frederick et al., 1996 [104] Cross-sectional 118 (68) College students (Mean 22 yr) USA Exercise motives (MPAM-r) MV: Extrinsic: body-related (+ M) Self-reported exercise: frequency, volume Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: Intrinsic motives (+ F), Extrinsic: body-related (+ M)
Buckworth et al., 2007 [30] a Cross-sectional 184;220 (60) University students (Mean 18–22 yr) USA Exercise motives (EMI and IMI; total and subscales) Intrinsic motives (except choice) (+); Extrinsic motives (except tangible rewards) (+) Exercise stages of change Anovas and profile analysis
Sebire et al., 2009 [19] Cross-sectional 400 (73) Exercisers (Mean 41.4 yr) UK Exercise goal content (GCEQ) MV: Intrinsic motives (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations; Hierarchical regression analysis
BIV: Intrinsic motives (+)
Segar et al., 2006 [64] Cross-sectional 59 F Healthy adults (Mean 45.6 yr) USA Body and non-body shape motives for exercise (via inductive, qualitative methods) BIV: Body motives (−); non-body shape motives (+). Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Hierarchical regression analysis
Sit et al., 2008 [105] Cross-sectional 360 F Chinese adults (30–59 yr) China Exercise motives (MPAM-r) MV: Intrinsic motives : competence/challenge (+), interest/enjoyment (+); Extrinsic: fitness/health (+); appearance (n.s.) Exercise stages of change Manovas
Davey et al., 2009 [106] Cross-sectional 134 (66) Employees (estimated mean age between 25–44 yr) New Zeland Exercise motives (based on MPAM-r and SMS) MV: Intrinsic motives: enjoyment (+), competence/challenge (+); Extrinsic: appearance (−); Fitness (n.s.) Total number of steps in 3wk Multiple regression analysis
Segar et al., 2008 [65] Prospective 156 F Healthy women (Mean 49.3 yr) USA Extrinsic and Intrinsic goals (based on a list of goals and on cluster analysis) MV: Intrinsic goals (+); Extrinsic goals: weight maintenance/toning (−); health benefits (−) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Linear mixed model
Ingledew et al., 1998 [107] Prospective (3mo) 425 (34) Government employees (Mean 40 yr) UK Exercise motives (EMI-2) MV: Intrinsic motives: enjoyment (+); Extrinsic: body-related (+ action; - maintenance); health pressures (+ preparation; - action/maintenance) Exercise stages of change Discriminant function analysis
Ryan et al., 1997 [27] a Prospective (10wk) 40 (80) University students and employees (Mean 21 yr) USA Exercise motives (MPAM) MV: Intrinsic motives: enjoyment (+), competence (+); body-related motives (n.s.) Reduced dropout and attendance to exercise classes Manovas and multiple regressions
Ryan et al., 1997 [27] b Prospective (10wk) 155 (57) New fitness center members (Mean 19.5 yr) USA Exercise motives (MPAM-R) MV: Intrinsic motives: enjoyment (+), competence (+), social interactions (+); Extrinsic motives: fitness (n.s.), appearance (n.s.) Attendance to and duration of exercise workout Manovas and multiple regressions
Buckworth et al., 2007 [30] b Experimental (10wk) 142 (66) College Students (Mean 21.3 yr) USA Exercise motives (EMI and IMI); BIV: Intrinsic motives: effort/competence (+) and interest/enjoyment (+); Extrinsic motives: appearance (+) * Exercise patterns (from stable inactive to stable active); Activity vs. Lecture (no activity) Classes * Anovas with repeated measures.
IV. Perceived need support
Peddle et al., 2008 [43] Cross-sectional 413 (46) Colorectal cancer survivors (Mean 60 yr) Canada Perceived need support (PAS, based on HCCQ-short) BIV: Need support (+) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Milne et al., 2008 [87] Cross-sectional 558 F Breast cancer survivors (Mean 59 yr) Australia Perceived need support (mHCCQ) MV: Need support (+)
BIV: Need support (+)
Self-reported exercise (LTEQ); exercise categories (meeting vs. not meeting guidelines) Anovas; Hierarchical regression analysis
Hurkmans et al., 2010 [92] Cross-sectional 271 (66) Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (Mean 62 yr) Netherlands Perceived need support (HCCQ-mod) MV: Need support (n.s.) Self-reported PA (SQUASH) Bivariate correlations; Multiple regression analysis
BIV: Need support (n.s.)
Halvary et al., 2009 [76] Cross-sectional 190 (44) Healthy adults (Mean 21.8 yr) Norway Perceived need support (SCQ based on HCCQ) BIV: Need support (+) Exercise frequency and duration Bivariate correlations
Markland & Tobin, 2010 [88] Cross-sectional 133 F Exercise referral scheme clients UK Need support (15-item scale) BIV: Need support (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Puente & Anshel, 2010 [77] Cross-sectional 238 (57) College students (Mean 20.4 yr) USA Exercise need support (SCQ) BIV: Need support (+) Exercise frequency Bivariate correlations
Russel & Bray, 2010 [99] Cross-sectional and prospective (14wk) 53 M Exercise cardiac rehabilitation patients (Mean 62.8 yr) Canada Perceived need support (HCCQ-short) MV: Need support (n.s.) Exercise frequency; duration (+); volume – 7Day-PAR Bivariate correlations; Hierarchical regression analysis
BIV: Need support (+)
Levy et al., 2008 [108] Prospective (8-10wk) 70 (37) Injured exercisers in rehabilitation (Mean 33 yr; 69% recreational) UK Perceived need support (HCCQ) MV: Need support (+) a, c Exercise adherence: a clinical, b home-based; c attendance Bivariate correlations; Manovas
BIV: Need support (+) a, c
Edmunds et al., 2007 [38] Uncontrolled Prospective (3mo) 49 (84) OW/Obese patients (BMI: 38.75; Mean 45 yr) on an exercise scheme UK Perceived need support (HCCQ) MV: Need support (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (LTEQ); Multilevel regression analysis
Fortier et al., 2007 [17] Experimental (13 wk); RCT 120 (69) Autonomy supportive vs. brief PA counseling (Mean 47.3 yr) Canada Perceived need support (HCCQ) BIV: Need support Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Bivariate correlations
Mildestvedt et al., 2008 [68] Experimental (4wk); RCT 176 (22) Cardiac rehabilitation patients (Mean 56 yr): autonomy supportive vs. standard rehab Norway Perceived need support (mHCCQ) MV: Need support (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (composite score); exercise intensity Manovas with repeated measures
Silva et al., 2010 [33] Experimental (12mo); RCT 239 F OW/Obese women (Mean BMI: 31.5; Mean 38 y): SDT-based WL treatment vs. controls Portugal Perceived need support (HCCQ) MV: Need support (+) Self-reported exercise: MVPA (7-day PAR); lifestyle PA index Bivariate correlations; PLS/mediation analysis
BIV: Need support (+)
Silva et al., 2010 [32] Experimental (1 yr + 2y follow-up); RCT 221 F OW/Obese women (Mean BMI: 31.5; Mean 38 y): SDT-based WL treatment vs. controls Portugal Perceived need support (HCCQ) BIV: Need support (+) Self-reported exercise: MVPA (7-day PAR) Bivariate correlations
V. Exercise Causality Orientations
Rose et al., 2005 [56] Cross-sectional 375 (51) Volunteers (17–60 yr) UK Exercise causality orientations (ECOS) MV: Autonomy O. (+), Controlling O. (− F), and Impersonal O. (−) Exercise stages of change Discriminant function analysis. Gender differences
Kwan et al., 2011[53] Prospective (4 wk) 104 (58) Undergraduate students; active (Mean 18.2 yr) USA Exercise causality orientations (ECOS) BIV: Autonomy O. (+), Controlling O. (−), and Impersonal O. (n.s.) Self-reported exercise (online diary) Bivariate correlations
VI. SDT-based Interventions and other SDT-related measures
Edmunds et al., 2008 [39] Experimental (10wk) 55 F Exercisers (Mean 21 yr) UK Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2); Need support (PESS); Basic needs (PNSS); Exercise attendance Groups: SDT-based exercise classes vs. traditional exercise classes Higher perceived need support, autonomy and relatedness needs; Competence (+), INTRO (+) and amotivation (−) overtime for both groups Higher exercise attendance Multilevel regression analysis
Fortier et al., 2007 [17] Experimental (13wk); RCT 120 (69) Healthy adults (Mean 47.3 yr) Canada Exercise self-regulations (TSRQ-PA); Perceived Competence (PCES); Need Support (HCCQ); Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Groups: autonomy supportive vs. brief PA counseling Higher perceived need support, autonomous motivation overtime Higher reported exercise overtime Ancovas
Fortier et al., 2011 [36] Experimental (13wk); RCT 120 (69) Inactive primary care patients (Mean 47.3 yr): intensive vs. brief PA counseling intervention Canada Exercise self-regulations (BREQ-2); Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Groups: autonomy supportive - intensive vs. brief PA counseling Higher perceived need support, autonomous motivation overtime Higher reported exercise overtime Ancovas
Mildestvedt et al., 2008 [68] Experimental (4wk); RCT 176 (22) Cardiac rehabilitation patients (Mean 56 yr): autonomy supportive vs. standard rehab Norway Exercise self-regulations (TSRQ); Perceived need support (mHCCQ); Self-reported exercise Groups: autonomy supportive vs. standard rehab No significant differences No significant differences Anovas with repeated measures
Levy & Cardinal, 2004 [40] Experimental (2mo); RCT 185 (68) Adults (Mean 46.8 yr); SDT-based mail intervention vs. controls USA Exercise self-regulations (EMS); Perceptions of autonomy (LCE); Competence (PSPP); Self-reported exercise (LTEQ) Groups: SDT-based mail vs. controls Women only: increase in perception of autonomy Women only: increase self-reported exercise Anovas with repeated measures
Silva et al., 2010 [18] Experimental (12mo); RCT 239 F OW/Obese women (Mean BMI: 31.5; Mean 38 y); RCT Portugal Exercise self-regulations (SRQ-E); Need support (HCCQ); Perceived autonomy (LCE); Self-reported exercise (MVPA, lifestyle, steps) Groups: SDT-based weight loss treatment vs. controls Higher need supportive climate, autonomy satisfaction, IM, IDENT, INTRO Higher reported exercise (all measures) Effect sizes; T-tests
Silva et al., 2011 [32] Experimental (1 yr + 2y follow-up); RCT 221 F OW/Obese women (Mean BMI: 31.5; Mean 38 y); RCT Portugal Exercise self-regulations (SRQ-E) at 1 yr and 2 yr; Need support (HCCQ); Self-reported exercise (MVPA) Groups: SDT-based weight loss treatment vs. controls Higher 2-yr EXT, INTRO and autonomous regulations Higher 2-yr reported exercise Effect sizes; T-tests

  1. Legend: F, female; M, male ; BIV, uni/bivariate associations; MV, multivariate associations; IM, intrinsic motivation; INTEG, integrated regulation; ID, identified regulation; INTR, introjected regulation; EXT, external regulation; AMOT, amotivation; RAI, relative autonomy index; AutMot, autonomous motivations; CtMot, controlled motivations; Autonomy O., autonomy orientation; Controlling O., controlling orientation; Impersonal O., impersonal orientation; (+), positive association; (-), negative association; (n.s.), not significant. Superscript letters are used to signal associations between specific predictors and outcomes (check the ‘significant predictors’ and ‘outcomes’ columns when applied). (*) is used when specific comments need to be made (check the ‘observations’ column on those cases).