Motivational Climate as a Determinant of Future Running Participation

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether an enhanced motivational climate in a running program would: 1) increase future running intent among high school students; and 2) increase individual performance in the Cooper 12-minute Run.

Methods: Participants included 198 students enrolled in Fit-for-Life classes (69 treatment school, 129 control school). Each student participated in a 4-month running program which included four timed runs (one per month), a pretest prior to the first timed run and a posttest following the last timed run. The running curriculum was identical at both schools and included instructions for running time and locations for runs. The treatment group experienced an enhanced motivational climate. The enhanced motivational climate included keeping a logbook (Galloway, 2001), goal setting (Weinberg & Gould, 2003), listening to music while running (Xiang, et al., 2006), and running with a partner/group (Xiang, et al., 2006). Handouts were distributed (throughout - treatment group, at the end - control group) on basic nutrition and hydration, information on running clothing and foot wear, and a schedule of local races. Future intent was assessed using intent-to-run questions on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). This method has been used in similar studies (Xiang, et al., 2006; Xiang, et al., 2004). Running performance was assessed using the Cooper 12-minute run/walk test. Additional survey questions where asked regarding students' feelings towards running in general and in physical education.

Analysis/Results: Factorial mixed repeated measures ANOVA revealed overall significance regarding future intent (p = .026) at both schools. No significance was found with regards to future intent and school, future intent and gender, and future intent, school, and gender. A separate one-way repeated measures ANOVA indicated differences between the runs at both schools (p = .000). Paired samples t-tests were conducted to examine significance with runs which were paired. Results revealed significance in four of the six pairs at the treatment school, most notably between the first and last timed run (p = .004). Only two pairs were found to be significant (p = .000, p = .008) with the control school (September/October and October/November).

Conclusions: The running program revealed positive results at both schools. Overall lap means increased as well as future intent scores at both schools. Positive feelings toward running increased from the beginning to the end of the program and equally important results revealed a decrease in disliking running from pre to posttest.