Background/Purpose: Developing positive motivation toward physical activity (PA) has historically been a goal of PA classes (Siedentop, 2000). The expectancy-value model of achievement choice has been proven to be a very useful theoretical framework to understand students' achievement-related behaviors in education and PA domains (Xiang et al., 2003). Further, researchers have recommended that the efficacy of expectancy-value model can be improved when combined with other motivational theories to understand students' motivational processes (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Weiss, 2008). The purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore the integration of the expectancy-value model with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) in order to evaluate the influence of expectancy-value constructs and situational motivation (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, external regulation, amotivation) on motivational outcomes (effort and task choice in the future) in college PA classes. A secondary purpose was to examine how expectancy value constructs relate to situational motivation.
Method: Participants were 121 female students (M age = 21.08, SD = 1.73) who took part in exercise-based college PA classes at a southeastern university. They completed previously validated questionnaires to assess their expectancy-related beliefs, subjective task values, situational motivation, task choice, and self-reported effort.
Analysis/Results: Hierarchical regression analyses, entering situational motivation in the first block, followed by the expectancy-related beliefs and subjective task values in the second block, indicated that expectancy-related beliefs (b = .51, p< .01) and subjective task values (b = .27, p< .01) were positive predictors of effort (R2 = 55.0%). Intrinsic motivation (b = .28, p< .05) and subjective task values (b = .55, p< .01) were positive predictors of task choice, accounting for 58.9 % of the variance. Stepwise regressions further revealed that subjective task values positively predicted intrinsic motivation and identified regulation (R2 = 52.0%, b = .72, p< .01; R2 = 39.0%, b = .62, p< .01; respectively), but negatively predicted external regulation and amotivation (R2 = 6.0%, b = -.24, p< .01; R2 = 33.0%, b = -.57, p< .01; respectively).
Conclusions: Findings support the integration of expectancy-value model with self-determination theory to examine college students' motivational outcomes in college PA classes. Results demonstrate that it is important to emphasize the task values and maintain positive expectancy-related beliefs about PA to promote students' motivation. Consistent with theoretical predications, this should increase the likelihood that individuals will exert a high level of effort, as well as choose to be physically active in the future.