Motivation and Intention to Integrate Physical Activity Into Daily School Life

Abstract

Research on the motivation of stakeholders to integrate physical activity into daily school life is limited. The purpose was to examine the motivation of stakeholders to participate in a world record physical activity event and whether motivation was associated with future intention to use activity breaks during the daily school life and future participation in a similar event. After the 2012 JAM (Just-a-Minute) World Record event, 686 adults (591 women; 76.1% participated for children <10 years) completed measures of motivational regulations and future intention to (a) use the activity breaks and (b) participate in the event. High intrinsic motivation and low extrinsic motivation and amotivation for participation in the next event were reported. Hierarchical regression analysis, controlling for age, gender, and occupation, showed that intrinsic forms of motivation positively predicted, whereas amotivation negatively predicted, future intention to participate in the event and use the activity breaks. Multivariate analyses of variance revealed that school-related participants were more intrinsically motivated and intended to use the activity breaks and repeat the event more than those who were not affiliated with a school. Nonschool participants reported higher extrinsic motivation and amotivation than school-related participants.

Keywords

self-determination theory activity breaks school personnel

Physical inactivity is a key determinant of health outcomes and as evidence show, only 42% of U.S. children and fewer than 8% of U.S. adolescents meet the recommended guidelines of at least 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous–intensity physical activity (PA) daily (Troiano et al., 2008). For children to meet the guidelines for daily PA, new strategies have being developed, focusing on a “whole-of-school” approach, with recommendations of at least 50% of the PA levels to be accomplished during regular school hours (Institute of Medicine, 2013). One recently developed and promising strategy for increasing PA at schools is including short PA breaks throughout the school day (Active Living Research, 2013). A recent review (Bassett et al., 2013) showed that activity breaks (AB) are effective at increasing children’s energy expenditure, by accumulating on average 19 minutes of moderate to vigorous PA per day, only 4 minutes short of mandatory physical education (PE). Several AB programs have been developed in the past few years with positive results on children’s PA levels, academic performance, and motivation (Donnelly et al., 2009; Grieco, Jowers, & Bartholomew, 2009; Mahar et al., 2006; Reed et al., 2010; Vazou, Gavrilou, Mamalaki, Papanastasiou, & Sioumala, 2012).

However, school-based PA strategies, such as short ABs, are not required to be implemented at school. Thus, implementation depends on the popularity and acceptability of the program among teachers, school administrators, and students. Although some of the school personnel may be receptive to use ABs, a number of problems have also surfaced during implementation. Such problems relate to the negative preconceived notions, perceptions, or experiences of teachers, school administrators, and students (Active Living Research, 2013). Consequently, even though AB may have the potential to increase the PA behavior of children, it is crucial that teachers and administrators be highly motivated to start using the programs as well as adhere to them in the long run. School administrators (e.g., principals) in particular, who have the authority to determine the nature and direction of nonmandated activities at school, need to be motivated, that is, value the importance of the proposed strategy, for action to be taken. Research findings in the educational settings showed that school principals who are encouraging and supportive toward their academic staff have been found to facilitate the motivation of teachers to act (Eyal & Roth, 2011). In turn, this may have a positive effect on the motivation of students to learn (Atkinson, 2000; Radel, Sarrazin, Legrain, & Wild, 2010; Wild & Enzle, 2002). For example, Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, and Kaplan (2007) found that self-reported autonomous motivation for teaching predicted autonomous motivation for learning when teachers were perceived as autonomy supportive by the students.

One of the main theories for understanding the motivation behind volitional behaviors is self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2002). SDT is based on the assumption that behavior is guided by three main motivational forces: (a) intrinsic motivation, when behavior is enacted out of fun and pleasure; (b) extrinsic motivation, when behavior is enacted for a reason that is separable from the activity itself (e.g., external pressure, avoiding feelings of guilt, considering the behavior as important); and (c) amotivation, which denotes a lack of intention to perform a behavior or simply “going through the motions” while enacting the behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Extrinsic motivation, as outlined in the organismic integration theory, a subtheory of SDT (Vansteenkiste, Niemec, & Soenens, 2010), may also be broken down into further types of behavioral regulation. These are distinguished into controlling forms of extrinsic motivation (i.e., external regulation and introjected regulation) and self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation (i.e., identified regulation and integrated regulation).

Behavior is considered externally regulated when individuals act in order to gain a material reward or avoid punishment. Under introjection, behavior is enacted either to avoid negative feelings (e.g., guilt, shame) or to bolster self-esteem. Under identified regulation, behavior is enacted because it is considered important by the individual. Under integrated regulation, there is congruence between the individual’s regulation, goals, and values, and the behavior has become a significant part of the individual’s identity. These types of extrinsic motivation are theorized to form a self-determination continuum that reflects the extent to which behavior may be internalized into the true self. Moving from external regulation toward integrated regulation is accompanied by a gradual increase in the extent to which one believes to have a choice in enacting the behavior, with integrated regulation reflecting the greatest degree of internalization (Vansteenkiste et al., 2010).

The self-determined types of extrinsic motivation along with intrinsic motivation may lead to more positive motivational outcomes of a cognitive, affective, and behavioral nature (Ryan & Deci, 2002; Vallerand, 1997). Indeed, studies have shown that more autonomous (i.e., more internalized self-regulated behaviors), relative to controlled, motivation is associated with better social functioning, physical and psychological wellness, engagement, and greater performance and persistence (Su & Reeve, 2011; Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). Several studies have provided evidence demonstrating a positive link between more autonomous motivation and longer maintenance of free-choice behavior. Such studies have been conducted in relation to exercise (Buckworth, Lee, Regan, Schneider, & DiClemente, 2007; Moustaka, Vlachopoulos, Kabitsis, & Theodorakis, 2012), tobacco abstinence (Williams, Niemiec, Patrick, Ryan, & Deci, 2009), frequency of proenvironmental behaviors (Lavergne, Sharp, Pelletier, & Holtby, 2010), and long-term weight loss maintenance (Silva et al., 2011). SDT also posits that the degree to which a prosocial behavior (i.e., acts that enhance the welfare of others) is more autonomous predicts more positive effects on the well-being of recipients and helpers (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Classroom teachers and school administrators may fall into this category since their actions are oriented to enhance the health and well-being of their students.

In the context of PA, including exercise and sports, numerous empirical research findings suggest that autonomous motivation is associated with health-related PA behavior and can predict future PA participation (e.g., Gillison, Standage, & Skevington, 2013; Lim & Wang, 2009; Rhodes, Macdonald, & McKay, 2006). In addition, studies show that motivation of children toward one type of activity (e.g., school PE) is associated with motivation for PA in general (e.g., leisure time PA), suggesting that interventions that promote high-quality motivation for PA in one domain may benefit public health more broadly (e.g., Cox, Smith, & Williams, 2008; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003). The motivation of teachers and school administrators to participate in events that aim to promote PA during the school day not for their own benefit but for the welfare of the students and how those motivational regulations are related to future intention to integrate PAs have not been examined.

One of the effective PA break programs for increasing PA levels of children at school is the JAM (Just-a-Minute) school program (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center to Prevent Childhood Obesity, 2012). JAM is a simple 1-minute activity routine that either teachers or students can lead and can be incorporated as an AB throughout the school day. One approach to raise awareness about the potential to increase PA levels through ABs on a large scale was the development of the JAM World Record event. Participation was voluntary, without any external rewards other than the desire to promote PA. Mainly teachers and school personnel were asked to register for the event on behalf of their classroom or school and participate in an AB with their students on the same day at the same time. This initiative resulted in having about 1.3 million people (adults and youth) participating in the JAM World Record event in 2012. The event was mainly focused on the school environment, but participation from workplaces was encouraged. The JAM ABs have been implemented in the work environment in a similar way to the school implementation. However, as a new approach, the type of motivation for participating in this initiative and its impact on intention for future PA behavior are not known. Was participation based on personal interest, the high perceived value of the event, and the intention to help children benefit from this PA experience (autonomous motivation)? Or did it stem from an internal pressure to “do the right thing” or “mandated voluntary” participation (controlling motivation)? Exploring the motivational regulations for participation in a new PA strategy and their association to future intentions may offer potential insights for promoting PA levels within the school environment.

The primary purpose of this study was to measure the motivational self-regulations of adults who participated in this unique event that was designed to promote PA among children and the extent to which each type of regulation contributes to the prediction of intentions for future participation and future use of ABs. A second purpose was to examine whether the motivational self-regulations for participation in the JAM World Record event differed between PE teachers, academic classroom teachers, school personnel (all school-affiliated individuals), and participants outside of the school environment (individuals from workplaces). It was hypothesized that (a) more self-determined types of regulations would contribute more strongly to individuals’ motivation to participate in the JAM World Record event compared to non–self-determined types of regulation, (b) that these regulations would also emerge as predictors of intention for future participation in JAM World Record events and future use of JAM routines, and (c) participants who had a role in schools, presumably because of their role in enhancing the welfare of their students, would score more highly on identified regulation and intrinsic motivation compared to participants not holding school-related roles.

Method

Sample

The sample comprised 686 adults (591 women) who participated in the JAM World Record event in September 2012 (15% response rate from an overall pool of approximately 4,700 adult who registered online for the event either as individuals or on behalf of a bigger group, mainly students). The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 65 years and older (18-24 years, n = 18; 25-34 years, n = 98; 35-44 years, n = 150; 45-54 years, n = 214; 55-64 years, n = 195; >65 years, n = 6). Of the overall sample, only 42 adults reported participating in the JAM World Record for themselves, whereas 644 participants engaged in the JAM World Record for others (n = 610 for students younger than 18 years; with a school involvement as a PE teacher, n = 293; as a teacher, n = 230; and as a school principal, administrator, or nurse, n = 87). Eighty-six percent of the sample (n = 653) reported that they are physically active at least 3 days per week, for 30 minutes or more, at least at a moderate intensity.

Measures

Self-Regulations

It was anticipated that adults who registered for the JAM World Record event would participate mostly to help others benefit from this event, such as their students at school or their colleagues in a work environment. For this reason the Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS; Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 200) was adapted to fit the purposes of the current study. The four regulations from SIMS were used: intrinsic motivation (e.g., “because it was fun”), identified regulation (e.g., “because I think this activity was good for me,” changed to “because I think this was a good thing to do”), external regulation (e.g., “because it is something that I had to do”), and amotivation (e.g., “There may be good reasons to do it, but personally I didn’t see any”). Two new items were developed based on the theoretical constructs and other prosocial motivational scales in the SDT literature (e.g., Weinsteing & Ryan, 2010) “to be an example for others,” “to help others benefit from it.” SIMS does not measure introjected regulation, thus three items (“because I wanted others to think I am good at it,” “because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t,” and “because I would feel bad about myself if others participated and I didn’t”) were adapted from the Learning Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Participants were asked to respond to the stem “Why did you engage in the JAM World Record?” Responses were provided on a 7-point scale, ranging from whether the statement did not apply at all (1) to whether it applied extremely well (7).

Intention for Future Participation

Intention for future participation in the JAM World Record event was measured with the single item: “I intent to participate in the JAM World Record next year.” Intention for future use of the JAM routines was measured with the single item: “I intend to include JAM Routines into my daily routines over the next 3 months.” Responses were provided on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely).

PA Behavior

PA participation was measured with the single item: “Are you physically active at least 3 days a week for 30 minutes or more at a moderate intensity?” and responses were recorded with a “yes” or “no” answer.

Procedure

Approximately 1 week after the JAM World Record event, all adult participants who registered online for the event and had shared their e-mail address with the foundation (N ~ 4,700) received an e-mail message from the foundation asking them to participate in an anonymous Web-based survey about their experiences with the JAM World Record event. Three weekly e-mail reminders were sent after the initial contact. The survey was available for approximately 1 month after the event. The study was approved by the institutional review board.

Data Analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the five-factor self-regulations scale to evaluate its factorial validity using EQS 6.2 software. All other data were analyzed using SPSS 19. Internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha of the factors was estimated and descriptive statistics were calculated for the study variables. To determine whether PA behavior, motivational regulations, and intention for future use of the JAM routines could predict intention for future participation in the JAM Worlds Record event, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted. A similar analysis was repeated for the intention for future use of JAM routines. In both analyses, gender, age, and occupation were entered in Step 1, to control for their effects.

The second purpose was examined with two multivariate analyses of variance, one for the regulations (five dependent variables: intrinsic, identified, introjected, external, amotivation) and one for the intentions—two dependent variables: intention for (a) future participation in this event and (b) future use of the JAM routines—with one between-subject independent variable (occupation, with four levels: PE teachers, teachers, school administrators, nonschool participants). When the sphericity assumption was violated, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was used to adjust the degrees of freedom. Follow-up post hoc comparisons with Bonferoni adjustments were made when differences were significant.

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To evaluate the factor structure of the modified SIMS, a CFA was conducted, followed by an item analysis. A 17-item (excluding only the item “for my own good”) five-factor structure was confirmed with the CFA. The fit of the model was acceptable, χ²(109) = 443.41, p = .000, comparative fit index = .91, standardized root mean square residual = .05, root mean square error of analysis = .06. The internal consistency of each factor was also acceptable: intrinsic motivation (3 items) α =.77; identified regulation (5 items) α =.82; introjected regulation (3 items) α = .71; external regulation (3 items) α =.75; amotivation (3 items) α =.68.

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients are presented in Table 1. In general, the participants reported high levels of self-determined motivation (with identified regulation slightly higher than intrinsic motivation) and low levels of introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation. The intention to participate in future JAM World Record events was high, as was the intention to use the JAM routines in the future. Self-determined motivation was positively related to intention for future participation in both the JAM World Record and JAM routines and negatively related to external regulation and amotivation. Conversely, external regulation and amotivation were negatively related to intention for future participation in the JAM World Record and JAM routines. Furthermore, PA behavior was positively related to identified regulation and intention for future use of the JAM routines.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients for Total Sample

Variables	M ± SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Intrinsic motivation	6.04 ± 0.99	1.00
2. Identified regulation	6.26 ± 0.79	.61**	1.00
3. Introjected regulation	2.14 ± 1.50	.14**	.04	1.00
4. External regulation	1.46 ± 0.95	−.13**	−.24**	.31**	1.00
5. Amotivation	1.37 ± 0.76	−.32**	−.43**	.18**	.37**	1.00
6. Future intention to participate in JAM (Just-a-Minute) World Record events	6.56 ± 0.83	.45**	.58**	−.02	−.24**	−.43**	1.00
7. Future intention to use JAM routines	5.83 ± 1.42	.27**	.44**	.04	−.13**	−.25**	.39**	1.00
8. Physical activity behavior	—	.05	.08*	−.01	.01	.00	.01	.11**

NOTE: All variables were measured with a 7-point scale, except for PA behavior, which was a categorical variable (0 = no, 1 = yes).

p < .05. **p < .01.

Predicting Intention for Future Participation in the JAM World Record Event and Use of JAM Routines

Results showed that self-determined motivation, amotivation, and intention for future use of JAM routines significantly predicted intention for future participation in the JAM World Record, whereas self-reported PA behavior was not a significant predictor. Regarding the intention for future use of the JAM routines, identified regulation was the strongest positive predictor (p = .000), followed by PA behavior (p = .003), whereas amotivation was a negative predictor (p = .038; Table 2).

Table 2

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Intention for Future Participation at JAM World Record Event and Future Use of JAM Routines

Step	Variables	β	t	R ²	R² Change	F Change
Intention to participate in JAM (Just-a-Minute) Record events
1	Age	0.00	0.09	.00	.01	2.11
	Gender	−0.05	−1.71
	Occupation	0.03	1.00
2	Physical activity behavior	−0.04	−1.22	.01	.00	0.01
3	Intrinsic motivation	0.14	3.70***	.39	.39	82.10***
	Identified regulation	0.40	8.18***
	Introjected regulation	−0.02	−0.69
	External regulation	−0.06	−1.74
	Amotivation	−0.17	−4.76***
4	Intention to use JAM routines	0.16	4.87***	.41	.02	23.77***
Intention to use JAM routines
1	Age	0.05	1.34	.02	.03	6.20***
	Gender	0.04	1.02
	Occupation	−0.07	−1.90
2	Physical activity behavior	0.08	2.19*	.03	.01	5.29*
3	Intrinsic motivation	−0.04	−0.91	.20	.17	28.54***
	Identified regulation	0.29	5.80***
	Introjected regulation	0.06	1.60
	External regulation	−0.00	−0.07
	Amotivation	−0.05	−1.15
4	Intention to participate in JAM Record events	0.22	4.87***	.23	.03	23.77***

NOTE: N = 653. Gender: 0 = males, 1 = females; age: 1 = 18-24 years up to 6 = older than 65 years; occupation: 1 = physical education teacher, 2 = teacher, 3 = principal/administrator/nurses; 4 = non–school related.

p < .05. ***p < .001.

Differences on Motivation and Intention for Future Participation in the JAM World Record and JAM Routines Based on Occupation

Results on multivariate analyses of variance showed a significant main effect of occupation for the self-regulations, F(15, 1786) = 4.42, p > .001, η² = .03, and for intentions, F(6, 1298) = 6.36, p > .001, η² = .03. Follow-up univariate analysis of variance showed a significant main effect for identified regulation, external regulation, amotivation, intention for future participation in the event, and intention for future use of the JAM routines. In contrast, no main effects emerged for intrinsic motivation and introjected regulation between the different groups. All univariate main effects and follow-up post hoc analyses are presented in Table 3. Overall, participants who had a role in schools scored significantly higher on identified regulation and intention to use the JAM routines than out-of-school participants. PE teachers scored significantly higher on identified regulation than teachers and outside of the school participants but not school administrators. PE teachers scored significantly lower on (a) external regulation than other groups and (b) amotivation and intention to participate in the JAM event than out-of-school participants.

Table 3

Mean Differences Among Participants’ Occupation in Motivation and Intention

Variable	Physical Education Teachers, M ± SD	Teachers, M ± SD	School Administrator, M ± SD	Nonschool, M ± SD	F
Intrinsic motivation¹	6.13 ± 0.88^a	5.98 ± 1.06^a	5.94 ± 1.19^a	5.99 ± 0.93^a	1.27
Identified regulation²	6.39 ± 0.69^a	6.20 ± 0.82^b	6.29 ± 0.83^ab	5.87 ± 0.90^c	9.15***
Introjected regulation¹	2.01 ± 1.40^a	2.15 ± 1.47^a	2.31 ± 1.67^a	2.49 ± 1.75^a	2.34
External regulation²	1.24 ± 0.59^a	1.62 ± 1.13^b	1.54 ± 1.15^b	1.70 ± 1.08^b	9.23***
Amotivation¹	1.28 ± 0.63^a	1.45 ± 0.81^ab	1.32 ± 0.86^ab	1.58 ± 0.95^b	3.95**
Future intention to participate in JAM Record events¹	6.62 ± 0.76^a	6.55 ± 0.82^ab	6.56 ± 0.91^ab	6.29 ± 1.04^b	12.45***
Future intention to use JAM routines¹	5.94 ± 1.35^a	5.88 ± 1.39^a	6.07 ± 1.18^a	4.85 ± 1.75^b	2.73*
N	293	230	87	69

NOTE: ¹Degrees of freedom = 3,651; ²degrees of freedom = 3,674. Groups with the same superscript letter in the same row did not differ significantly at *p <.05, ** p<.01, *** p<.001.

Discussion

This is the first study to examine the quality of motivational forces leading individuals, both those holding a position in schools (e.g., PE teachers, teachers, school administrators) and those who do not, to participate in the JAM World Record event, and the role of motivational regulations in predicting intention for future participation in the JAM World Record event and use of the JAM routines. Examining the motivation of school administrators and teachers for participation in an event that is aimed to create awareness for the importance of PA and childhood obesity is crucial because (a) schools are a reasonable setting for implementing PA promotion strategies and (b) a change in school strategies requires volitional actions by the decision makers that will help students benefit from the change. Thus, the implications of this study are important for the promotion and adoption of school-based PA strategies.

Consistent with the first hypothesis, identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were found to be more important contributors to participation in the JAM World Record compared to external regulation and amotivation. This finding is consistent with the SDT postulates and empirical research findings (Buckworth et al., 2007; Moustaka et al., 2012) that autonomous motives play the most prominent role in energizing free-choice behavior, which is likely to be long lasting. Indeed, these two forms of regulation also emerged as the strongest predictors of future intention for participation in the JAM World Record and the use of the JAM routine. These findings are in agreement with other studies in the SDT literature showing that self-determined behavioral regulations are the main determinants of intention for exercise (Brickell & Chatzisarantis, 2007; Fortier, Kowal, Lemyre, & Orpana, 2009) or participation in out-of-school PA among students in PE (Cox et al., 2008).

Although the levels of both identified regulation and intrinsic motivation were high compared to non–self-determined forms of regulation, it is noteworthy that identified regulation was even higher than intrinsic motivation. This finding may be attributable to the fact that participants in the current study were mainly adults who participated in the JAM World Record event mostly as leaders of a group (89% of the sample participated for students younger than 18). Endorsing identified regulation items may mean that participation in the activity was viewed as important for the individuals, wherea endorsing intrinsic motivation items may indicate that they also participated in the activity because they found it enjoyable and interesting. In other words, high levels of identified regulation levels likely reflected that participants not only considered the activity important for themselves and for the students involved but also needed to feel that they positively contributed to the health status of their students.

Likewise, the high levels of intrinsic motivation may indicate not only that the adult participants found the participation in PA inherently enjoyable but also that they enjoyed doing something positive for their students. For instance, research has supported the idea that autonomous motivation for helping yields well-being benefits for both the helper and the recipient, an effect that is mediated by greater psychological need satisfaction (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). This may be true for both administrators who are autonomy-supportive toward their staff and for teachers who are autonomy-supportive toward their students. Autonomy-supportive principals, compared to the more controlling principals, significantly predicted the motivational goals and well-being of their educational staff (Eyal & Roth, 2011). Similarly, the motivation of students toward an activity has been found to depend on the motivation of their teachers (Atkinson, 2000; Radel et al., 2010; Roth et al., 2007). This ripple effect on motivation may be attributed to the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs and may result in higher enthusiasm, support, and engagement in the particular behavior on the part of the helper/educator (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Compared to students who perceive their teachers to be nonmotivated, those who believe that their teachers engage in an activity primarily for intrinsic reasons self-generate expectations for higher levels of task engagement (interest, pleasure) and quality of interpersonal relationships (autonomy support and relatedness) with the teachers (Wild & Enzle, 2002; Wild, Enzle, Nix, & Deci, 1997). Thus, the results of this study suggest that participation in the JAM World Record event was self-motivated and volitional, suggesting that it likely comprised enjoyable PAs. Moreover, it was perceived as an event with high value for the promotion of PA behavior among others (in most cases, among students).

In support of the second hypothesis, the findings showed that the participants who had a role in schools reported greater levels of identified regulation and intention for future use of the JAM routines than participants outside of school. PE teachers reported lower (i.e., more positive) levels of external regulation than all other groups. At the same time, PE teachers reported lower levels of amotivation with regard to these activities and intention to participate in the JAM World record event in the future than participants outside of the school environment. It makes intuitive sense that PE teachers would participate in the event for more autonomous reasons than any other group as promotion of PA constitutes one of the national standards for PE. However, what is interesting is that PE teachers did not differ from all other school-affiliated participants (teachers and school administrators) in identified regulation, amotivation, as well as intentions for future use of the activities and participation in the event. What this result suggests is that participants who hold a role in schools have internalized motivation for behaviors that target the promotion of benefits for students to a greater extent compared to participants who do not hold a school-related role. A possible explanation may be that participants who have selected the teaching profession have done so because they find caring about the needs of others fulfilling and this profession clearly offers such opportunities. Helping others may have positive effects on the helper’s own well-being when the act of helping is carried out for autonomous reasons (Weinstein & Ryan, 2010). Additionally, the higher levels of identified regulation reported by the participants in school-related roles may be because experience in working with students can sensitize school personnel to the needs of students to a greater extent compared to participants not holding school-related roles. From an applied perspective, the present findings suggest that participation in the JAM World Record event is a positive experience for school personnel and the activities included in the event were experienced as highly valuable for the improvement of the fitness and PA levels of students. Therefore, the event may have the potential to enhance the motivation of students for engagement in volitional PA behaviors. Experience from participation in an event like this may be positively related to volitional or autonomous prosocial acts that, in turn, may result in positive feelings for the both the participating adults and their students.

The present results are limited to the individuals (mainly females) who participated in the present study and cannot be generalized to the broader population of teachers, PE teachers, school administrative staff, and out-of-school individuals. The relatively low response rate indicates that this may have been a highly motivated sample of respondents and, therefore, not representative of the broader population of participants in the JAM World Record event. Second, the findings should not be interpreted as indicating causation, given the cross-sectional nature of the study. An important avenue for future research would be to examine the factors that lead to enhanced identified regulation and intrinsic motivation to participate in events that promote PA levels among youth.

In conclusion, school personnel should engage in activities that are volitional or autonomously motivated and should value the benefits arising from the activity. Consequently, autonomous motivated school personnel may have a positive impact on the motivation and behavior of their students. In addition, the present findings may be relevant to other school-based strategies aiming to promote participation in PA that are not part of the structured curriculum. Interventions that promote PA in the school environment, which require the volitional involvement of administrators and teachers, should not neglect the beliefs and experiences of school personnel, as they may be the catalysts for the success of these interventions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Ms. Patti Howell, the founder of the JAM minutes and JAM World Record event, for her assistance with the online distribution of the survey.

References

Active Living Research. (2013). Do short physical activity breaks in classroom work? Retrieved from http://activelivingresearch.org/do-short-physical-activity-breaks-classrooms-work

Atkinson

E. S.

(2000). An investigation into the relationship between teacher motivation and pupil motivation. Educational Psychology, 20, 45-57.

Bassett

Fitzhurgr

Heath

Erwin

Frederick

Wolff

. . . Stout

A. B.

(2013). Estimated energy expenditures for school-based policies and active living. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44, 108-113.

Brickell

T. A.

Chatzisarantis

N. L. D.

(2007). Using self-determination theory to examine the motivational correlates and predictive utility of spontaneous exercise implementation intentions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 758-770.

Buckworth

Lee

R. E.

Regan

Schneider

L. K.

DiClemente

C. C.

(2007). Decomposing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for exercise: Application to stages of motivational readiness. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 441-461.

Cox

Smith

Williams

(2008). Change in physical education motivation and physical activity behavior during middle school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43, 506-513.

Donnelly

Greene

Gibson

Smith

Washburn

Sullivan

. . . Williams

S. L.

(2009). Physical activity across the curriculum (PAAC): A randomized controlled trial to promote physical activity and diminish overweight and obesity in elementary school children. Preventive Medicine, 49, 336-341.

Eyal

Roth

(2011). Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 49, 256-275.

Fortier

M. S.

Kowal

Lemyre

Orpana

H. M.

(2009). 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, 7, 46-67.

10.

Gillison

F. B.

Standage

Skevington

S. M.

(2013). The effects of manipulating goal content and autonomy support climate on outcomes of a PE fitness class. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 342-352.

11.

Grieco

Jowers

Bartholomew

(2009). Physically active academic lessons and time on task: The moderating effect of body mass index. American College of Sports Medicine, 41, 1921-1926.

12.

Guay

Vallerand

R. J.

Blanchard

(2000). On the assessment of state intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24, 175-213.

13.

Hagger

M. S.

Chatzisarantis

Culverhouse

Biddle

S. J. H.

(2003). The processes by which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure-time physical activity intentions and behaviour: A trans-contextual model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 784 795.

14.

Institute of Medicine. (2013). Educating the student body: Taking physical activity and physical education to school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

15.

Lavergne

K. J.

Sharp

E. C.

Pelletier

L. G.

Holtby

(2010). The role of perceived government style in the facilitation of self-determined and non self-determined motivation for pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 169-177.

16.

Lim

B. S. C.

Wang

C. K. J.

(2009). Perceived autonomy support, behavioral regulations in physical education and physical activity intention. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 52-60.

17.

Mahar

M. T.

Murphy

S. K.

Rowe

D. A.

Golden

Shields

A. T.

Raedeke

T. D.

(2006). Effects of a classroom-based program on physical activity and on-task behavior. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 2086-2094.

18.

Moustaka

F. C.

Vlachopoulos

S. P.

Kabitsis

Theodorakis

(2012). Effects of an autonomy-supportive exercise instructing style on exercise motivation, psychological well-being and exercise attendance in middle age women. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 9, 138-150.

19.

Radel

Sarrazin

Legrain

Wild

T. C.

(2010). Social contagion of motivation between teacher and student: Analyzing underlying processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 577-587.

20.

Reed

Einstein

Hahn

Hooker

Gross

Kravitz

(2010). Examining the impact of integrating physical activity on fluid intelligence and academic performance in an elementary school setting: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 7, 343-351.

21.

Rhodes

R. E.

Macdonald

H. M.

McKay

H. A.

(2006). Predicting physical activity intention and behavior among children in a longitudinal sample. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 3146-3156.

22.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center to Prevent Childhood Obesity. (2012). Jammin’ minute. Retrieved from http://www.rwjf.org/en/research-publications/find-rwjf-research/2012/05/the-robert-wood-johnson-foundation-center-to-prevent-childhood-o/jammin—minute.html

23.

Roth

Assor

Kanat-Maymon

Kaplan

(2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761-774.

24.

Ryan

R. M.

Connell

J. P.

(1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.

25.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

26.

Silva

M. N.

Markland

Carraca

E. V.

Vieira

P. N.

Coutinho

S. R.

Minderico

C. S.

. . . Teixeira

P. J.

(2011). Exercise autonomous motivation predicts 3-yr weight loss in women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43, 728-737.

27.

Y. L.

Reeve

(2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 159-188.

28.

Troiano

Berrigan

Dodd

Masse

Tilert

McDowell

(2008). Physical activity in the U.S. measured by accelerometer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 40, 181-188.

29.

Vallerand

R. J.

(1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271-360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

30.

Vansteenkiste

Niemiec

C. P.

Soenens

(2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In Urdan

T. C.

Karabenick

S. A.

(Eds.), The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement: Vol. 16. Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 105-165). Bingley, England: Emerald Group.

31.

Vazou

Gavrilou

Mamalaki

Papanastasiou

Sioumala

(2012). Does integrating physical activity in the elementary school classroom influence academic motivation? International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 251-263.

32.

Weinstein

Ryan

R. M.

(2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 222-244.

33.

Wild

T. C.

Enzle

M. E.

(2002). Social contagion of motivational orientations. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 141-157). New York, NY: University of Rochester Press.

34.

Wild

T. C.

Enzle

M. E.

Nix

Deci

E. L.

(1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsically motivated: Effects of expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 837-848.

35.

Williams

G. C.

Niemiec

C. P.

Patrick

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2009). The importance of supporting autonomy and perceived competence in facilitating long-term tobacco abstinence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 315-324.