This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
Author's personal copy
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Psychology of Sport and Exercise
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psychsport
Stage of physical activity and approach-avoidance achievement goals in university
students
Marc Lochbaum a, *, Leslie Podlog b,1, Kyle Litchfield c, 2, James Surles d, 3, Shelby Hilliard a, 2
a
Department of Health, Exercise and Sport Sciences, Texas Tech University, Box 43011, Lubbock, TX 79409-3011, USA
Department of Exercise and Sport Science, University of Utah, College of Health 250 S, 1850 E., HPER East, SLC, UT 84112, USA
c
Department of Educational Psychology and Leadership, Texas Tech University, Box 43011, Lubbock, TX 79409-3011, USA
d
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Texas Tech University, Broadway and Boston, Lubbock, TX 79409-1042, USA
b
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 4 January 2012
Received in revised form
13 September 2012
Accepted 23 September 2012
Available online 12 October 2012
Objectives: The main purpose of the present investigation was to examine approach-avoidance
achievement goal patterns across stages of physical activity participation. In addition, sex differences
in the approach and avoidance goals were examined as well as goal contrast scores (i.e., approach minus
avoidance) as secondary purposes.
Design: The research was cross-sectional in design.
Method: Participants were 804 university students who completed a questionnaire assessing their stage
of physical activity, 2 2 achievement goals, and demographics.
Results: MANOVA results revealed hypothesized and significant (p < .001) physical activity stage
differences in the mastery and performance approach goals as well as significant (p’s < .05) gender
differences in both performance goals. A significant (p < .01) gender by physical activity stage interaction
emerged for the performance goals and surprisingly, was found mainly in the advanced exercise stages
(i.e., action, maintenance, and long-term maintenance). Last, significant (p < .001) gender and physical
activity stage main effects emerged for the achievement goal contrasts. Males endorsed both the mastery
and performance contrasts more than females. Collapsed for both sexes, the contrast scores were greater
in the physically active than the non-active stages.
Conclusions: Findings suggested that interventions targeting physical activity in university students
should emphasize approach goals relative to the avoidance goals. Particular attention should be paid to
the performance goals in the maintenance and long-term maintenance stages as they appeared theoretically inconsistent for the female participants. Last, the split in the preparation stage (active, nonactive) should be incorporated into future stage based investigations as the split demonstrated two
meaningfully different subgroups.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Physical activity stages
Physical activity
Achievement goals
Gender
Goal contrasts
Increasing leisure time physical activity is a U.S. national priority
as approximately 25% of adults report engaging in no form of
leisure-time physical activity (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2010). Consequences of this lack of leisure-time physical activity range from increased risk of cancers, depression,
cardiovascular disease, and overweight to obesity (Warburton,
Nicol, & Bredin, 2006). Consequently, an understanding of leisure
time physical activity determinants is of great importance. Several
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 806 742 3371; fax: þ1 806 742 1688.
E-mail addresses: marc.lochbaum@ttu.edu (M. Lochbaum), lpodlog@
hotmail.com (L. Podlog), kyle.litchfield@ttu.edu (K. Litchfield), james.surles@
ttu.edu (J. Surles), shelby.hillard@ttu.edu (S. Hilliard).
1
Tel.: þ1 801 581 7558.
2
Tel.: þ1 806 742 3371; fax: þ1 806 742 1688.
3
Tel.: þ1 806 742 2566.
1469-0292/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.09.004
approaches both theoretical and atheoretical have been investigated (King, Stokols, Talen, Brassington, & Killingsworth, 2002). For
example, social cognitive approaches, self-determination theory,
and stage models have had some success; and likewise, physical
activity interventions following these approaches have shown
some promise (Bauman, Sallis, Dzewaltowski, & Owen, 2002). Yet,
given the continual high rates of physical inactivity and related
consequences such as the obesity epidemic, more research is
needed. The achievement goal approach (e.g., Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Elliot, 1999; Nicholls, 1989) has demonstrated efficacy in
predicting salient sport and exercise outcomes such as emotions,
intrinsic motivation, and self-regulation of behaviors (see Roberts,
Treasure, & Conroy, 2007 for a review). Research utilizing
achievement goal theory has shown promise in understanding
physical activity, but is relatively understudied with respect to
Author's personal copy
162
M. Lochbaum et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
Elliot’s (1999) contemporary 2 2 framework. Hence, the main
purpose of the present investigation was to examine the relationship of the contemporary 2 2 achievement goal framework to
stages of physical activity participation in a large sample of
university students.
Achievement goal frameworks
Historically, the dichotomous achievement goal approach has
been concerned with an individual’s subjective interpretation of
success corresponding to the task (mastery) and ego (performance)
oriented achievement goals (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls,
1989). A task oriented individual’s action is primarily motivated
by personal mastery or improvement, and as such, reflects a selfreferenced standard of personal achievement. Conversely, an egooriented person strives to win and is motivated to attain high
normative standards of ability. Ego-oriented individuals judge
success and failure on other-referenced standards and are motivationally “fragile” when they doubt their own competence
(Roberts et al., 2007).
Adding to the task/ego distinction, Elliot et al. (Elliot, 1997; Elliot,
1999; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) proposed
that an approach-avoidance goal dimension should be included in
the dichotomous goal framework. While the task/ego distinction
relates to how competence is defined, the approach-avoidance
dimension relates to how competence is valenced. An approach
valence indicates a behavior that is initiated by a positive or
desirable event or possibility. In contrast, an avoidance valence
indicates a behavior which is initiated by a negative or undesirable
event or possibility (Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Church, 1997). Thus,
approach goals focus on attaining competence, whereas avoidance
goals focus on avoiding incompetence. Based on the valence and
definition of achievement goals, (Conroy & Elliot, 2004; Elliot, 1999;
Elliot & Thrash, 2001, 2002) established the following 2 2
achievement goal framework: the mastery-approach, masteryavoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance
goals. The mastery-approach goal is defined by a focus on taskbased attainment. The behavior of going to work-out would be
initiated by seeing the work-out as a desirable event. The masteryavoidance goal is defined by a focus on avoiding a worsening of
task-based attainment. The behavior of missing a work-out would
be initiated by the perception that going to work-out was an
undesirable event, given the likelihood of performing less vigorous
exercise than usual as a result of fatigue or other personal factors.
Research has demonstrated that the mastery-approach goal is
strongly and positively related to intrinsically motivating thoughts
and or self-determined exercise motivation (Moreno, GonzalesCutre, Sicilia, & Spray, 2010; Nien & Duda, 2008; Wang, Liu,
Lochbaum, & Stevenson, 2009), whereas the mastery-avoidance is
related to physical activity amotivation (i.e., antipathy; Nien &
Duda, 2008).
From the performance goal perspective, the performanceapproach goal defines competence based on normative achievements. Thus, engaging in a regimen of upper body strength training
over a given time period to achieve a desired normative based
fitness standard such as the “good” standard for maximal push-ups
is an example of a performance-approach initiated behavior (the
upper body strength training regimen). In contrast, the
performance-avoidance goal defines competence based on avoiding displays of normative incompetence. An individual with
a strong performance-avoidance goal might simply avoid performing normative based fitness tests as a competence protective
mechanism. It is also theoretically possible that a strong
performance-avoidance goal endorsement could lead one to
engage in non-normative forms of exercise (e.g., going for a walk by
oneself) if the outcome in question was not getting worse on
a normative standard in front of others. Thus, if someone knew in
advance of a public fitness display such as group fitness testing, that
individual might engage in upper body strength training to avoid
being in a less than desirable normative category. Research has
demonstrated however, that the performance-avoidance goal is
inversely related to self-determined motivation (Moreno et al.,
2010) and positively related to amotivation for physical activity
(Nien & Duda, 2008).
Achievement goals and leisure time exercise
The 2 2 achievement goal and leisure time physical activity
research base is relatively small. Nonetheless, existing studies
provide a base for the present investigation (Lochbaum, Stevenson,
& Hilario, 2009; Skjesol & Halvari, 2005; Wang, Biddle, & Elliot,
2007). For instance, Lochbaum et al. (2009) reported correlations
between the 2 2 achievement goals and self-reported strenuous
exercise involvement in a university sample. For the males (n ¼ 155),
significant correlations for the mastery (r ¼ .27) and performanceapproach goals (r ¼ .24) emerged. For the females, only the relationship between mastery-approach goals and strenuous exercise
was significant, albeit relatively small in magnitude (r ¼ .17). Skjesol
and Halvari (2005) in a sample of 188 Norwegian secondary
students reported marked differences in Spearman’s point-biseral
coefficients between performance goals and physical activity
involvement (.35 for approach compared to .07 for avoidance). Last,
Wang et al. (2007) in a younger adolescent sample from Singapore
reported stronger correlations with a self-reported measure of
physical activity outside of school physical education for approach
goals (r’s ¼ .30 and .22, for mastery and performance) compared to
avoidance goals (r’s ¼ .10 and .09, for mastery and performance).
Thus, overall with measures of physical activity in three different
aged samples of different nationalities, findings appear to suggest
that both mastery-approach and performance-approach goals are
positively related to self-reported physical activity. With the appetitive nature inherent in both approach goals, these relationships
with physical activity, a motivated behavior, appear theoretically
correct. Further research is clearly needed however, to examine
whether avoidance goals are related to physical activity behaviors as
the literature base to date is relatively small though promising.
Stages of behavior change
The present study sought to explore patterns of Elliot’s
approach-avoidance achievement goals across a number of stages
of physical activity. The various stages of physical activity participation were based on the transtheoretical model stage of change
approach (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983) and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for what
constitutes acceptable physical activity participation (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). The stage approach was
chosen because of the possible advantages of the stage continuum
that separates decisional, implementation, and behavioral actions
from one another (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska &
Velicer, 1997; Weinstein, Lyon, Sandman, & Cuite, 1988). The stage
model describes the different phases involved in the adoption and
eventual maintenance of a behavior, in the case of the present
study, exercise behavior. The six phases of the stage model are precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance,
and termination. In the pre-contemplation stage, there is no
intention to change a behavior. In the contemplation stage, the
individual recognizes that their current behavior is problematic and
assesses the pros and cons of their continued actions or inaction.
The other stages are preparation, whereby the behavior has not
Author's personal copy
M. Lochbaum et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
been sustained but is hoped to begin in consistency in a month;
action, whereby the behavior has been sustained for up to six
months; maintenance, whereby the behavior has been sustained
from six months to five years; and finally, termination where the
behavior has been sustained for at least five years.
Based on data in the literature (Nishida, Suzuki, Wang, & Kira,
2004) and anecdotal evidence from the first author’s experiences
with college aged students, the preparation stage was split into two
distinct phases (see Methods section) as it seemed that meaningful
differences in the achievement goals could exist between “less
active” and “more active” preparation stage participants. It is
reasonable to assume that even within the preparation stage,
a number of participants could be very close to meeting recommended guidelines (i.e., play a variety of intramural sports during
the week, lift weights with friends from time to time) for physical
activity, while others are merely thinking about initiating exercise. In
addition to this modification given the stage approach was initially
concerned with the elimination of undesirable health behaviors
such as drug use, termination was the appropriate label, but for
engagement in a desired behavior such as physical activity it seemed
inappropriate. Hence, the “termination” stage was labeled “longterm maintenance” in the present investigation. Investigations have
demonstrated the efficacy of the stage of change model in understanding how important thought patterns (e.g., Prochaska & Velicer,
1997) or personalities (e.g., Lochbaum et al., 2010) may differ
depending upon one’s stage of physical activity or exercise behavior.
Study purposes and hypotheses
Based on Elliot’s work and the reviewed research with approachavoidance achievement goals and physical activity, four hypotheses
were tested. First, it was hypothesized (HO1) that both approach
goals e mastery and performance e would be more characteristic of
the advanced exercise stages (i.e., action, maintenance, long-term
maintenance) compared to the lower stages. Given the appetitive
nature of both approach goals it seemed logical that they would be
associated with more sustained, personally endorsed exercise
behaviors, characteristic of the advanced stages. Our second
hypothesis (HO2) was that the avoidance based goals would be
more characteristic of the lower stages (i.e., non-exercising). Given
the aversive nature of avoidance goals (i.e., individuals display an
antipathy toward demonstrations of incompetence), it seemed
reasonable that they would be associated with the tendency toward
no or infrequent intentional physical activity.
Two further purposes were also explored. The third hypothesis
(HO3) was related to Elliot’s (1999) hypothesis that gender is an
antecedent of achievement goal adoption. Specifically, he posited,
based on past avoidance motivation research, that females (e.g.,
Markus, Kitayama, & Heimen, 1996; Stein & Bailey, 1973) would be
more likely to endorse a performance-avoidance goal orientation.
Given that Elliot’s mastery-avoidance constructs were advanced
after his 1999 publication, no hypotheses have been forwarded
concerning potential gender differences with regard to the
mastery-avoidance goal. To date, few investigations have reported
intentional tests of Elliot’s hypothesis in the sport and exercise
psychology literature. A few studies with comparable samples do
exist (e.g., university students). Using 230 university athletes,
Morris and Kavussanu (2008) investigated several antecedents to
the approach-avoidance achievement goals and reported that
gender was a significant predictor of the mastery-avoidance goal
with females being higher in this goal. Nien and Duda (2008)
investigated antecedents and consequences to the approachavoidance achievement goals in 450 university and club sport
athletes. An examination of their reported approach-avoidance
achievement goals by gender indicated that females endorsed the
163
mastery-avoidance goal more so than males though no differences
existed for the performance-avoidance goal. Thus, Elliot’s hypothesized gender differences in the performance-avoidance goal seem
to have little support, but evidence exists concerning females being
higher in the mastery-avoidance goal. In summary, it was tentatively hypothesized that females would score higher on both
avoidance goals compared to their male counterparts collapsed
across all physical activity stages.
The final hypothesis (HO4a and HO4b), examined goal contrast
scores. In sport research, the performance goal contrast (i.e., standardized performance-approach score minus standardized
performance-avoidance score) has demonstrated efficacy in predicting youth basketball dribbling performance (Elliot, Cury, Fryer,
& Huguet, 2006), triathlon performance (Stoeber, Uphill, &
Hothman, 2009), and track and field performance (Stoeber &
Crombie, 2010). In these investigations, the contrast score has
been more predictive of performances when compared to either
performance goals. Similarly, in the present investigation such
scores provided the opportunity to gain further insight into
whether participants in the lower exercise stages would have on
average higher avoidance than approach scores or whether those in
the latter exercise stages would have on average higher approach
than avoidance goals. It was hypothesized (HO4a) that the contrast
score would increase (performance-approach > performanceavoidance) across the physical activity stages. In addition, given the
consistent relationship between the mastery-approach goal and
leisure time physical activity, it may as well be that a mastery
contrast score is more characteristic of the advanced exercise stages
(HO4b). This relationship appears logical as personal improvement
is certainly an aspect of consistent, long term physical activity
involvement. Therefore, the mastery contrast/physical activity
stage pattern was also examined.
Method
Participants
Participants were 804 college age students from a large southwestern university enrolled in a variety of 1-h fitness and wellness
classes (377 women and 391 men). Enrollment in the courses is
a partial requirement for graduation from one of the colleges
within the southwestern university, though the courses may be
taken by all students. Mean ages of the participants were
20.88 2.67 and 21.51 2.12 for women and men, respectively.
Participation was voluntary. Participants identified themselves as
Caucasian, 71.51%, Hispanic, 19.02%, African-American, 5.34%, Asian
American, 2.36%, and American Indian, 1.36%. Concerning physical
activity stage, participants identified themselves across the
contemplation to long-term maintenance stages (see Table 1). No
participant identified him or herself in the pre-contemplation
stage. Given the sample was college aged students, the lack of
participants identifying themselves in the pre-contemplation stage
(i.e., no intention of becoming an exerciser) was encouraging.
Instruments
Participants were provided a packet assessing demographic
information (i.e., age, gender, and ethnicity), exercise stage, and
achievement goals.
Exercise stage
The exercise stage measure was comprised of seven sentences
that described an individual’s current situation in regard to exercise
participation and was adapted from several past investigations
(e.g., Courneya, 1995; Lochbaum et al., 2010; Nishida et al., 2004) all
Author's personal copy
164
M. Lochbaum et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
Table 1
Male and female means, standard deviations and number of participants for each stage of exercise.
Stage
Mastery
M Approach
SD
M Avoidance
SD
Performance
M Approach
SD
M Avoidance
SD
Contrasts
M Mastery
SD
M Performance
SD
n
Contemplation
Non-active preparation
Active preparation
Action
Maintenance
Long-term maintenance
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
5.38
1.03
4.64
1.42
5.24
1.06
4.47
1.27
5.20
1.08
4.61
1.40
5.46
.92
4.55
1.37
5.66
.88
4.36
1.35
5.68
.88
4.35
1.45
5.69
1.23
4.65
1.38
6.09
.84
4.22
1.63
5.75
.97
4.34
1.65
6.11
.81
3.80
1.83
6.19
.74
4.61
1.31
6.20
.95
3.80
1.75
4.20
1.29
4.41
1.21
4.65
1.00
4.57
1.11
4.24
1.34
4.54
1.42
4.24
1.47
4.19
1.38
4.34
1.33
4.18
1.46
4.86
1.37
4.25
1.52
4.87
1.51
4.56
1.73
5.17
1.43
4.21
1.57
4.22
1.66
3.85
1.61
5.20
1.43
3.86
1.67
5.77
.86
5.13
1.15
5.15
1.57
3.51
1.51
.47
1.26
.42
.71
.50
1.30
.21
.96
.63
1.02
.48
.93
.34
.99
.24
.74
.01
1.05
.17
.80
.02
1.07
.13
.91
.17
1.25
.06
.82
.51
1.37
.38
1.12
.09
1.03
.03
.94
.82
1.33
.63
1.05
.35
1.09
.18
.73
.71
1.56
.82
1.35
19
29
125
83
133
134
41
65
43
45
31
56
of which based the stages on the transtheoretical model (Marcus,
Selby, Niaura, & Rossi, 1992). In these past investigations, the
participants were queried concerning regular exercise participation, defined as activity completed at least three times per week, for
at least 20e30 min in duration. In the present investigation,
participants were queried with the more contemporary Center for
Disease Control and Prevention’s “Physical Activity for Everyone”
definition of sufficient leisure time exercise for health benefits:
150 min of moderate aerobic activity per week and two days of
muscle-strengthening activities or 75 min of strenuous aerobic
activity per week and two days of muscle-strengthening or an
equivalent combination of strenuous and moderate aerobic activity
and two days of muscle-strengthening activities. The moderate and
vigorous intensity definitions include a wide variety of physical
activities including sports. Participants were asked to circle one of
seven choices based on the following question, “Do you regularly
meet the following criteria set by the CDC? The seven sentences
that the participants chose from were as follows: Yes, I meet the
definition and have for MORE than 5 years (termination stage); Yes, I
meet the definition and have for MORE than 6 months (maintenance
stage); Yes, I meet the definition and have for between 0 and 6 months
(action stage); No, but I intend to start meeting the definition regularly
in the next 30 days and I currently am active (active preparation
stage); No, but I intend to start meeting the definition regularly in the
next 30 days though I am currently inactive besides daily walking
(non-active preparation stage); No, but I intend to start meeting the
definition regularly in the next 6 months (contemplation stage); No,
and I do NOT intend to start meeting the definition regularly in the
next 6 months (pre-contemplation stage).
Achievement goals
Achievement goals were assessed with a modification of
Stevenson and Lochbaum’s (2008) exercise specific 2 2 achievement goal measure that was adapted from Elliot and McGregor’s
(2001) measure. This instrument was designed to assess the four
achievement goal orientations in relation to intentional physical
activity. The instructions were “Please think about your thoughts
and feelings when engaging in, or thinking about engaging in
intentional physical activity.” Example questions were “it is
important to me to perform as well as I possibly can” (masteryapproach); “it is important for me to do well as compared to others”
(performance-approach); “I worry that I may not perform as well as
I possibly can” (mastery-avoidance); “I just want to avoid
performing worse than others” (performance-avoidance). Each
goal was represented using 3 statements per subscale for a total of
12 items. The questionnaire required participants to rate their
agreement with each statement on a scale from 1 (not at all true of
me) to 7 (very true of me). A higher score on any of the achievement
goal subscales indicated a stronger orientation toward that
achievement goal. Past research has displayed strong psychometric
properties (e.g., Stevenson & Lochbaum, 2008) with this measure.
For the current study, Cronbach alphas were .74 (masteryapproach), .86 (mastery-avoidance), .86 (performance-approach),
and .82 (performance-avoidance).
Procedure
After receiving institutional review board approval to conduct
the study, permission was granted from instructors of a variety of
academically based 1-h fitness courses to approach potential
participants. Participants were approached for study involvement
in the second week of classes so that the point at which the data
were collected would not influence participants’ exercise stage of
change assessment. Additionally, while it is highly unlikely that any
participant had not been “physically active” in his or her life prior to
the study, commencing the study in week two of the semester,
would enable all students to have at least some physical activity
experience in order to answer the 2 2 achievement goal exercise
questionnaire worded for the physical activity context. The primary
author or a research assistant informed potential participants of the
study’s purpose, that extra credit was not being offered for participation, and that no punishment would occur for refusing to
participate. Those who agreed to participate were handed the
exercise packet. There were very few exceptions for participation.
Data analysis
To test our first three hypotheses, several 2 (Sex: male, female)
by 6 (Stage: contemplation, non-active preparation, active preparation, action, maintenance, long term maintenance) multivariate
analysis of variances (MANOVA) with the 2 2 achievement
goals as the dependent variables were conducted. Follow-up tests
were conducted with either univariate F-tests or the Ryane
GabrieleWelsch Range post hoc tests when appropriate. To test
HO4a/4b, identical MANOVA procedures were followed with
a computed difference score that measured the contrast between
Author's personal copy
M. Lochbaum et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
165
Table 2
Effect sizes for mastery-approach, mastery contrast, performance-approach, and performance contrast for significant post hoc tests for stage of physical activity main effects.
Variable/stage
Stage of physical activity
Maintenance
Performance-approach
Long-term M
Action
Mastery-approach
Long-term M
Maintenance
Action
Active preparation
Mastery contrast
Long-term M
Maintenance
Action
Active preparation
Performance contrast
Long-term M
Maintenance
Action
Active preparation
Action
Active
preparation
Non-active
preparation
Contemplation
.56
.81
.26
.69
.60
.90
.63
.61
.39
.96
.64
.62
.42
.37
.57
.37
.99
.79
.62
.42
.97
.77
.60
.38
.61
.98
.69
.60
.51
.89
.60
.51
.37
.43
Note. Effect sizes denote that the stage in the row was greater in the achievement goal variable compared to the other stages (see column headings) in the corresponding row.
the approach and avoidance goals (i.e., performance approachavoidance contrast and mastery approach-avoidance contrast).
Following past research recommendations (e.g., Elliot et al., 2006;
Stoeber & Crombie, 2010; Stoeber et al., 2009), all goals were first
standardized prior to the contrast calculation (performance
contrast ¼ zperformance-approach zperformance-avoidance;
mastery contrast ¼ zmastery-approach zmastery-avoidance).
Using standardized scores gives all goals equal weight in the
contrast calculation. Last, effect sizes (Hedges, 1981) were calculated to determine the meaningfulness of statistically (p < .05)
significant follow-up test differences. Cohen’s (1988) interpretation
guidelines for effect sizes were followed such that an effect of .2
was consider small, .5 medium, and .8 large.
These significant main effects were superseded by the significant (p < .01) sex by physical activity stage interaction, Wilks’
Lambda ¼ .94, F(20, 2617.76) ¼ 2.23. The follow-up univariate
F-tests for the significant interaction revealed that the interaction
occurred for the performance-approach, F(5, 7921) ¼ 6.99, p < .01,
and performance-avoidance goals, F(5, 7921) ¼ 9.69, p < .01.
Follow-up tests and visual inspection of the mean scores (see Fig. 1)
suggested that the significant interaction was a result of female
performance-approach scores declining from the action to the
maintenance stage and then increasing to the long-term maintenance stage while the male performance-approach scores differed
only from the non-active preparation stage to the rest of the stages.
Results
MANOVA results for HO1-3
The MANOVA results revealed significant (p < .001) main effects
for sex, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .85, F(20, 2617.76) ¼ 6.65, and physical
activity stage, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .96, F(4, 789) ¼ 8.19, on the
achievement goals. Across stages, females were significantly
(p .02) lower in the mastery-approach goal, F(1, 792) ¼ 5.37,
ES ¼ .27, and higher in the mastery, F(1, 792) ¼ 7.17, ES ¼ .17, and
performance-avoidance goals F(1, 792) ¼ 7.67, ES ¼ .18, compared
to their male counterparts. Concerning the main effect for physical
activity stage on achievement goals, univariate F-tests (p < .001)
revealed that the differences potentially existed for both performance goals. The RyaneGabrieleWelsch Range post hoc tests
(effect sizes found in Table 2) for the performance-approach goals
revealed that the long-term maintenance group endorsed this goal
significantly and meaningfully more than all of other groups except
the action group. Moreover, the action group endorsed the
performance-approach goal more than the non-active preparation
group. For the mastery-approach goal the RyaneGabrieleWelsch
Range post hoc tests (effect sizes found in Table 2) revealed that
the long-term maintenance group significantly and meaningfully
endorsed this goal more than the active preparation, non-active
preparation and contemplation groups. The maintenance, action,
and active preparation groups significantly endorsed the masteryapproach goal more than the non-active preparation and the
contemplation group.
Fig. 1. The interaction of sex and physical activity stage for the performance-approach
goal. Note that * indicates (p < .05) difference between males and females at the active
preparation stage (ES ¼ .39) and the maintenance stage (ES ¼ .65); within a sex the
different letters (A, B for males; X, Y for females) indicate significant differences
(p < .05); Y to X effect sizes are 1.49, 1.21, 1.14, .71 and 1.12 from contemplation to
maintenance; and the B’s to A effect sizes are .46, .68, .70, and .64 from action to longterm maintenance.
Author's personal copy
166
M. Lochbaum et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
The performance-avoidance goal interaction (see Fig. 2) was
a result of female scores being significantly higher in the long-term
maintenance stage compared to those of the males as well as the
male performance-avoidance scores gradual decline across all of
the physical activity stages.
preparation and contemplation groups; and (4) the two preparation groups differed with the active preparation group scoring
higher in the performance contrast.
MANOVA results for HO4a, 4b
The main purpose governing the present investigation was to
examine whether approach-avoidance achievement goals differed
across a number of physical activity stages based on the transtheoretical model of behavior change (Prochaska & DiClemente,
1983). It was hypothesized that differences would exist among
the non-exercising stages to the long-term maintenance stage in
that participants would endorse both approach goals more (HO1)
and both avoidance goals less (HO2). Two secondary purposes were
also closely examined. The first secondary purpose was to test
whether females endorsed both avoidance goals more than their
male counterparts (HO3). We also explored the possibility of the
performance (HO4a) and mastery (HO4b) goal contrasts being
useful in understanding exercise stage, as the performance goal
contrast has been valuable in better understanding sport performance (Elliot et al., 2006; Stoeber & Crombie, 2010; Stoeber et al.,
2009). Given the importance of the mastery-approach goal to
self-reported physical activity research (Lochbaum et al., 2009;
Skjesol & Halvari, 2005; Wang et al., 2007), it was logical to
examine this contrast as well. By and large, the results supported
our four hypotheses. In addition, unique findings emerged such as
the significant gender by stage interactions for both performance
goals as well as meaningful differences between the two preparation stages, active and non-active, as well as differences amongst
the other physical activity stages and the two preparation stages.
Historically, the dichotomous goal approach has been conceptually identical to the performance- and mastery-approach goals as
both the task and ego goals have always been positively valenced
(Elliot, 1997, 1999). In the sport, exercise, and physical activity
literature however, a premium has always been placed on the
benefits of the task or mastery goal while casting doubt on the
motivationally adaptive benefits of the ego or performance referenced goal (Roberts et al., 2007). The present research strongly
supports the importance of the bifurcation of the performance goal
into a positively valenced approach dimension and a negatively
valenced avoidance dimension. Though some researchers have
called the split unnecessary (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001),
Elliot and Moller (2003) and Linnenbrink (2005) have contended
that this division is necessary as the performance-approach goal
has theoretically positive and motivationally beneficial effects,
while the performance-avoidance goal has negative and motivationally detrimental effects. We assert that given the social nature
of physical activity pursuits (e.g., health clubs, recreation centers,
team sports) that it is very likely that both types of performance
goals naturally exist in these public settings. Consistent with Elliot
and Moller (2003) and Linnenbrink’s (2005) reasoning, we found
that the performance-approach goal was beneficial to long term
exercise as reported by participants in the present investigation.
The motives for exercise and physical activity literature provide
an explanation for the importance of the performance-approach
goal results and possibly the performance-avoidance results.
Quindry, Yount, O’Bryant, and Rudisill (2011) examined exercise
motives across adolescence to old age (age range 13e84) with the
Exercise Motivation Inventory-2 (EMI-2) questionnaire (Markland
& Ingledew, 1997). Their results clearly pointed to adolescents
(defined as <19 years of age in the study) and young adults (defined
as between 20 and 34 years of age) endorsing interpersonal
motives of social recognition, affiliation, and competition for
physical activity pursuits compared to middle, young, and old
adults. These interpersonal motives are clearly in the domain of
The MANOVA results revealed significant (p < .001) main effects
for sex, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .96, F(2, 791) ¼ 15.95, and physical
activity stage, Wilks’ Lambda ¼ .87, F(10, 1582) ¼ 10.81. Females
were significantly (p < .001) lower in the performance contrast,
F(1, 792) ¼ 27.74, ES ¼ .33, and the mastery contrast,
F(1, 792) ¼ 14.87, ES ¼ .45, compared to their male counterparts.
Concerning the stage of physical activity main effect, univariate
F-tests (p < .001) revealed that the differences potentially existed for
both contrasts [mastery contrast, F(5, 792) ¼ 15.51; performance
contrast, F(5, 792) ¼ 14.02]. The RyaneGabrieleWelsch Range post
hoc tests for the mastery contrast revealed the following (see Table 2
for effect size values): (1) the long-term maintenance group endorsed
this goal significantly more than all of the other groups, except the
maintenance group; (2) the maintenance group endorsed the
mastery contrast more than the preparation and the contemplation
groups; (3) the action group endorsed the mastery contrast more
than the non-active preparation and contemplation groups; (4) and
the two preparation groups differed with the active-preparation
group scoring higher in the mastery contrast more so than the nonactive preparation group.
For the performance contrast the RyaneGabrieleWelsch Range
post hoc tests revealed the following (again the effect sizes for these
significant results are found in Table 2): (1) the long-term maintenance group endorsed this goal significantly more than all of
other groups except the maintenance group; (2) the maintenance
group endorsed the performance contrast goal more than the nonactive preparation and contemplation groups; (3) the action group
endorsed the performance contrast more than the non-active
Fig. 2. The interaction of sex and physical activity stage for the performance-avoidance
goal. Note that * indicates (p < .01) difference between males and females at the longterm maintenance stage with an ES difference of 1.16 between males and females; the
ES difference between B and A is .65 and p < .01. Similar letters indicate significant
differences were not present (i.e., A to AB or AB to B).
Discussion
Author's personal copy
M. Lochbaum et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
performance goals reported among participants in the latter exercise stages in this investigation. These findings are consistent with
those of Kilpatrick, Herbert, and Bartholomew (2005) who using
the EMI-2 reported that male undergraduate students endorsed
competition and social recognition (i.e., performance goals) more
so than their female counterparts. Of further interest, the male
pattern of performance-approach goal endorsement, as seen in
Fig. 1, demonstrated significant differences from the non-active to
the active preparation stage. Though purely speculative, the active
preparation stage could represent competitive males that play
intramural sports or other such competitive contests typically
found on university campuses. For the sampled females, the
performance-approach goal was characteristic of the long-term
maintenance stage more so than any of the other stages. The
appetitive nature of the approach goals appear conducive to selfinitiated physical activity. This appetitive nature process allows
for personal comparisons to others whether publically at a recreation center or to the instructors and participants found in targeted
home based activity programs via DVD’s and web sites.
We also found an interaction between sex and stage on the
performance-avoidance goal as well as a small and significant
difference in the avoidance goal between females and males. The
interaction finding, as was the performance-approach interaction,
was unique to the physical activity literature. Historically (see Stein &
Bailey, 1973), sex differences in avoidance motivation have been
hypothesized to be the result of societal sex role definitions that
impact parental socialization and rearing patterns. In particular,
females have traditionally been encouraged to pursue noncompetitive, mastery based experiences rather than male-oriented
competitive endeavors. Differences in exercise motives such as
appearance could also explain the sex difference in the performanceavoidance goal. This possible explanation is consistent with findings
reported by Kilpatrick et al. (2005). The authors reported that female
college students reported ill-health avoidance significantly and very
meaningfully (ES ¼ .91) more than their male college counterparts.
Lochbaum, Stevenson, Hilario, Surles, and Havenar (2008) have the
only published data with the approach goals (task and ego) and
exercise stages. Although these data were with female participants
only, they support the current results in that the ego goal was not
a meaningful discriminating variable in the measured stages. The
stages measured by Lochbaum et al. (2008) were pre-contemplation,
contemplation, preparation, action and maintenance. The sex by
physical activity stage interactions of the present investigation
highlights the importance of measuring the long-term maintenance
stage as these females endorsed the performance-avoidance goal
significantly and very meaningfully more so when compared to the
other physical activity stages.
Up to this point, the discussion has focused on the performance
goal findings. With regard to the mastery goals, the overall pattern
of findings was supportive of hypotheses for the mastery-approach
goal, the mastery goal contrast, and the sex difference found for the
mastery-avoidance goal. Consistent with the mastery-approach
relationship with self-reported leisure time physical activity
(Lochbaum et al., 2009; Skjesol & Halvari, 2005; Wang et al., 2007),
this goal was characteristics of the more advanced exercise stages
of action, maintenance, and long-term maintenance. College
students in Kilpatrick et al. (2005) investigation rated positive
health, enjoyment, and challenge as important motives. These
motives clearly define aspects of a mastery-approach mindset.
Surprisingly, in the present study, the mastery-avoidance goal was
nearly consistent across all exercise stages for both sexes; overall
the females significantly endorsed this goal as hypothesized,
although the effect was small.
In regards to hypothesis four, we predicted that the contrast score
would increase (performance-approach > performance-avoidance)
167
across the physical activity stages (HO4a), and that a mastery
contrast score would be more characteristic of the advanced exercise
stages (HO4b). As stated previously, the use of goal contrasts has
been limited to the performance contrast in the sport psychology
literature (Elliot et al., 2006; Stoeber & Crombie, 2010; Stoeber et al.,
2009). The present results strongly supported our hypotheses suggesting that both the performance and mastery goal contrast could
be valuable in understanding adult exercise patterns more so than
examining each goal independently. Specifically, for both the
mastery and performance goal contrasts, differences were found
with the participants in the long-term maintenance and maintenance groups endorsing both contrasts the most. The contrast mean
differences demonstrated an important change across the stages
from negative (avoidance goal > approach goal) in the nonexercising stages to positive (approach goal > avoidance goal) in
the exercising stages. The gender differences were meaningful in
that the contrast score was greater in the males. Though the gender
by stage interactions were not significant, an examination of the
mean performance contrast scores suggest that females in the action
and maintenance stages were lower in the performance contrast
score compared to males in the same stages and contributed to the
overall differences more so than the other stages.
Limitations and future directions
Taken together, the findings support the importance of
approach-avoidance achievement goals in the leisure time physical
activity context. The unique findings in the present study and the
large sample notwithstanding, there are limitations that warrant
mention. A cross-sectional design governed the present investigation, and therefore does not allow for causal claims that involvement in physical activity changes achievement goals or that
achievement goals are the reason for differing levels and commitment to physical activity. In addition, the cross-sectional design
does not allow for an understanding of within-person behavioral
change processes. Thus, future investigations that determine the
stability of the achievement goal profiles and gender interactions
with regards to leisure time physical activity would be beneficial in
substantiating the importance of the reported findings. Though the
sample of college students was appropriate to answer the questions
posed, samples across the lifespan would add to a better understanding of achievement goal profiles. For instance, motives for
exercise have been found to change over the lifespan from interpersonal motives (e.g., social affiliation) to intrapersonal ones (e.g.,
personal improvement; Quindry et al., 2011). Thus, it could be that
the mastery goals and goal contrasts are more important for
consistent planned physical activity in middle to old age,
a suggestion warranting further empirical examination. Last, selfreported stage of physical activity may suffer from bias. It is
possible that participants might have overestimated their current
exercise stage. These potential limitations aside, findings suggest
the benefit of promoting both performance and mastery approach
goals in encouraging exercise involvement. Findings also highlight
the need to consider gender when promoting particular goal
orientations for increasing physical involvement. Last, strong
support for the use of goal contrasts as well as re-examining the
traditional preparation stage into two distinct sub stages are warranted in future research.
References
Bauman, A. E., Sallis, J. F., Dzewaltowski, D. A., & Owen, N. (2002). Toward a better
understanding of the influences on physical activity. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), 5e14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)
00469-5.
Author's personal copy
168
M. Lochbaum et al. / Psychology of Sport and Exercise 14 (2013) 161e168
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010). Behavioral risk factor
surveillance system summary data quality report. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Conroy, D. E., & Elliot, A. J. (2004). Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport:
addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 17,
271e285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1061580042000191642.
Courneya, K. S. (1995). Understanding readiness for regular physical activity in older
individuals: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Health Psychology,
14, 80e87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.14.1.80.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 41, 1040e1048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.95.2.256.
Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to
achievement motivation: a hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. In P. Pintrich, & M. Maehr (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 10 (pp. 143e179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement
goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169e189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep3403_3.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72, 218e232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218.
Elliot, A. J., Cury, F., Fryer, J. W., & Huguet, P. (2006). Achievement goals, selfhandicapping, and performance attainment: a mediation analysis. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 28, 344e361.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals
and intrinsic motivation: a mediational analysis. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 70, 461e475. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal framework. Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 80, 501e519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//00223514.80.3.501.
Elliot, A. J., & Moller, A. C. (2003). Performance-approach goals: good or bad
forms of regulation? International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 339e356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.003.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and hierarchical model
of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139e156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009057102306.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality:
approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 82, 804e818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.804.
Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect
size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107e128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1164588.
Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Bartholomew, J. (2005). College students’ motivation for
physical activity: differentiating men’s and women’s motives for sport participation and exercise. Journal of American College Health, 54, 87e94.
King, A. C., Stokols, D., Talen, E., Brassington, G. S., & Killingsworth, R. (2002).
Theoretical approaches to the promotion of physical activity: forging a transdisciplinary paradigm. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), 15e25.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00470-1.
Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: the use of
multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of
Educational
Psychology,
97,
197e213.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00220663.97.2.197.
Lochbaum, M. R., Rhodes, R., Stevenson, S. J., Stevens, T., Surles, J., & Wang, J. C. K.
(2010). Does gender moderate the exercising personality? An examination of
continuous and stage-based exercise. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 15, 50e60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13548500903443449.
Lochbaum, M. R., Stevenson, S. J., & Hilario, D. (2009). Achievement goals, thoughts
about intense physical activity, and exerted effort: a mediational analysis.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 32, 53e68.
Lochbaum, M. R., Stevenson, S., Hilario, D., Surles, J., & Havenar, J. (2008).
Achievement goal profiles for female exercise participants. International Journal
of Fitness, 4, 39e48.
Marcus, B. H., Shelby, J. S., Niaura, R. S., & Rossi, D. B. (1992). The stages and
processes of exercise adoption and maintenance in a worksite sample. Health
Psychology, 11, 386e395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.11.6.386.
Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). The measurement of exercise motives:
factorial validity and invariance across gender of a revised exercise motivations
inventory. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 361e376. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.2044-8287.1997.tb00549.x.
Markus, H., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. (1996). Culture and “basic” psychological
principles. In E. T. Higgins, & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of
basic principles (pp. 857e913). New York: Guilford.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: good
for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93, 77e86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.77.
Moreno, J. A., Gonzales-Cutre, D., Sicilia, A., & Spray, C. M. (2010). Motivation in the
exercise setting: integrating constructs from the approach-avoidance achievement goal framework and self-determination theory. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 11, 542e550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.06.003.
Morris, R. L., & Kavussanu, M. (2008). Antecedents of approach-avoidance goals in
sport. Journal of Sport Sciences, 26, 465e476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02640410701579388.
Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Nien, C. L., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Antecedents and consequences of approach
and avoidance achievement goals: a test of gender invariance. Psychology
of
Sport
and
Exercise,
9,
352e372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.psychsport.2007.05.002.
Nishida, Y., Suzuki, H., Wang, D. H., & Kira, S. (2004). Psychological correlates of
physical activity and exercise in Japanese male employees. International Journal
of Sport and Health Science, 2, 15e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.5432/ijshs.2.136.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change in
smoking: towards an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 51, 390e395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of
health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38e48.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38.
Quindry, J. C., Yount, D., O’Bryant, H., & Rudisill, M. E. (2011). Exercise engagement is
differentially motivated by age-dependent factors. American Journal of Health
Behavior, 35, 334e345.
Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Conroy, D. E. (2007). The dynamics of motivation in
sport: The influence of achievement goals on motivation processes. In
G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed.). (pp.
3e30) New York: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118270011.ch1.
Skjesol, K., & Halvari, H. (2005). Motivational climate, achievement goals, perceived
sport competence, and involvement in physical activity: structure and mediator
models. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 497e523. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/
PMS.1002.497-523.
Stein, A., & Bailey, M. (1973). The socialization of achievement orientation in
females. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 345e366, doi: 10.1037h0035261.
Stevenson, S. J., & Lochbaum, M. R. (2008). Understanding exercise motivation:
examining the revised social-cognitive model of achievement motivation.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 31, 389e412.
Stoeber, J., & Crombie, R. (2010). Achievement goals and championship performance: predicting absolute performance and qualification of success.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 513e521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.psychsport.2010.07.007.
Stoeber, J., Uphill, M. A., & Hotham, S. (2009). Predicting race performance in
triathlon: the role of perfectionism, achievement goals, and personal goal
setting. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 211e245.
Wang, C. K. J., Biddle, J. H., & Elliot, A. J. (2007). The 2 2 achievement goal
framework in a physical education context. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8,
147e168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.08.012.
Wang, C. K. J., Liu, W. C., Lochbaum, M. R., & Stevenson, S. J. (2009). Sport ability
beliefs, 2 2 achievement goals, and intrinsic motivation: the moderating role
of perceived competence in sport and exercise. Research Quarterly for Exercise &
Sport, 80, 303e312. http://dx.doi.org/10.5641/027013609X13087704028679.
Warburton, D. E. R., Nichol, C. W., & Bredin, S. S. D. (2006). Health benefits
of physical activity: the evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 174,
801e809. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.051351.
Weinstein, N. D., Lyon, J. E., Sandman, P. M., & Cuite, C. L. (1988). Experimental
evidence for stages of health behavior change: the precaution adoption
process model applied to home radon testing. Health Psychology, 17, 445e453.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.17.5.445.