THE IMPACT OF SELF-DETERMINED MOTIVATION AND PERFECTIONISM ON EXERCISE DEPENDENCE IN EXPERIENCED MALE ADULT WEIGHTLIFTERS

LUKE I. WILKIN BA (Hons)

A REPORT PRESENTED IN THE FACULTY OF HEALTH AND LIFE SCIENCES, COVENTRY UNIVERSITY, TOWARDS THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN PSYCHOLOGY

August 2012

0

THE IMPACT OF SELF-DETERMINEDMOTIVATION AND PERFECTIONISM ON

EXERCISE DEPENDENCE IN EXPERIENCEDMALE ADULT WEIGHTLIFTERS

LUKE I. WILKIN BA (Hons)

COVENTRY UNIVERSITY

1

Acknowledgements

First of all I would like to thank the staff Coventry University for

their help and support which has surpassed my expectations.

Secondly, my supervisor Magdalena Marczak has been fantastic and has

provided me with guidance that has greatly improved my work. I feel

strongly that the input of all the staff I have worked with this

year has improved both my overall academic understanding and my

research report. Finally, I would like to thank my family and

friends for their motivational and emotional support that has

spurred me on towards completion of this course when the going got

tough.

2

Dedicated to my niece Rylee and nephew Jonah.

Abstract

Physical exercise is often used as a means to sustain and improve

physical and psychological wellbeing. However, excessive exercise

can become detrimental to one’s health. Utilising the Exercise

Dependence Scale [EDS], Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale*

[FMPS*] and the Sport Motivation Scale-6 [SMS-6] as measurement

tools. The current study assessed the ability of perfectionism and

self-determined motivation to predict exercise dependence group

classification using a multinomial logistic regression. Model-1

(including perfectionism and self-determined motivation) did not

significantly predict exercise dependence group classification (p =

0.262). The prevalence rate for the at-risk group for exercise

dependence was 10.1%, which falls within the range found in previous

research. The results suggest that symptomatic and at-risk for

exercise dependence individuals can vary on levels of perfectionism

and self-determined motivation. Further research should assess

different sporting activities using the same measures as the current

study and examine the impact of directed activities in order to

reduce exercise dependence symptoms in weightlifters.

3

OR

Exercise dependence is a maladaptive behaviour with negative

connotations for physical and psychological well being. It is

important to understand the correlates of such a disorder to aid its

treatment and prevention. This study assessed the ability of

perfectionism (Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale* [FMPS*])

and self-determined motivation (Sport Motivation Scale-6 [SMS-6]) to

exercise dependence (Exercise Dependence Scale [EDS]) group

classification. The prevalence rate for the at-risk group for

exercise dependence was 10.1%, which falls within the range found in

previous research. A multinomial logistic regression found Model-1

(including perfectionism and self-determined motivation) did not

significantly predict exercise dependence group classification (p =

0.262).. The results suggest that symptomatic and at-risk for

exercise dependence individuals can vary on levels of perfectionism

and self-determined motivation. Further research should assess

different sporting activities using the same measures as the current

study and examine the impact of directed activities in order to

reduce exercise dependence symptoms in weightlifters.

Table of Contents

Page numberTitle Pages

4

Acknowledgements 1

Abstract 2

Contents 3

1. Introduction 4

2. Review of Literature 6

2.1 Exercise Dependence

6

2.2 Perfectionism

8

2.3 Self-Determined Motivation

10

3. Hypothesis 13

4. Methodology 13

4.1 Design 13

4.2 Participants

13

4.3 Measures 14

4.4 Procedure 15

4.5 Data Analysis

15

5. Results 17

6. Discussion 29

7. References 36

8. Appendix 41

8.1 Gatekeeper Approval Letter

415

8.2 Ethical Approval Form 42

8.3 Informed Consent Form 43

8.4 Exercise Dependence Scale-21 (EDS)

44

8.5 Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale* (FMPS*)

45

8.6 Sport Motivation Scale-6 (SMS-6)

46

8.7 Draft Dissertation Feedback

47

Introduction

Physical exercise is used by many people as an integral part of a

healthy lifestyle to sustain and improve well being. There are many

health related benefits of regular exercise participation (Biddle

and Mutrie, 2001); aiding the prevention of type 2 diabetes, obesity

(Warburton et al., 2006), reducing anxiety and depression (Smits et

al., 2008) and improve cardio-vascular health (Brene et al., 2007).

However, there can become a point where exercise develops into a

compulsive disorder, at which point the benefits gained from regular

exercise may be lost and the development of negative health effects

may occur.

An over-reliance on exercise is known as exercise dependence (ED),

defined as “craving for leisure-time physical activity that results

in uncontrollable excessive exercise behaviour and that manifests in

6

physiological and psychological symptoms” (Hausenblas and Symons

Downs, 2002a: 90). Common symptoms of excessive exercise include

athlete burnout (Cresswell and Ekland, 2003), injuries (Cumella,

2005), exhaustion (Raedeke, 1997) and withdrawal symptoms - when

unable to exercise (e.g. depression, irritability and anxiety)

(Allegre, Souville, Therme, and Griffiths, 2006).

There is great emphasis placed on increasing exercise participation

in an attempt to address the issues of obesity and depression,

amongst other ailments of sedentary individuals due to the effects

physical activity may have on an individual with regards to

combating such problems. Conversely, due to the maladaptive nature

of excessive exercise, it posits that research into the antecedents

of exercise dependence is of equal importance based on the

detrimental health effects that can ensue from overzealous exercise

engagement.

Researchers have put forward a variety of explanations in an attempt

to account for the development of exercise dependence; Physiological

factors (e.g. Tolerance [Hausenblas and Symons-Downs, 2002a],

withdrawal [Glasser, 1976; Thaxton, 1982] and the “thermogenic

regulation hypothesis” [de Vries, 1981]). Psychological factors

(e.g. Personality traits [Carron, Hausenblas and Estabrooks, 2003],

7

the “cognitive appraisal hypothesis” [Szabo, 1995] and the “affect

regulation hypothesis” [Hamer and Karageorhis, 2007]). The

personality trait explanation has received vast academic interest

based upon the premise that exercise dependant individuals exhibit

certain personality characteristics that either predispose an

individual to or occur as a result of exercise dependence. Many

personality characteristics have been linked to exercise dependence.

In light of the current study, one personality trait that has been

linked to exercise dependence is perfectionism (Hausenblas and

Giacobbi, 2004). Perfectionism entails the setting of excessively

high standards for performance which collude with over-critical self

evaluations of that performance (Frost, Marten, Lahart and

Rosenblate, 1990).

Motivation is another area in psychology that has been used to

ascertain why certain individuals become exercise dependence.

Motivation itself plays a substantial role in determining an

individual’s exercise behaviour i.e. the amount of exercise they

participate in (Wilson et al., 2004), making it an obvious factor to

examine when looking for antecedents of both a lack of and excessive

exercise participation. Self-Determination Theory (Ryan and Deci,

2002) is one measure of motivation that has been adapted to the

sport context in previous research. Self-determined motivation (SDM)

8

is measured on a continuum varying in degree of self-determinedness.

Amotivation is the lowest self-determined aspect, representing an

individual who can no longer identify valid reasons for

participation in an activity. Conversely, intrinsic motivation is

the most self-determined category of motivation and describes when

an individual gains pleasure from active involvement in an activity

(Lonsdale, Hodge and Rose, 2008).

Both perfectionism and motivation are considered to be key

determinants of exercise dependence (Hausenblas and Giacobbi, 2004;

Ogles, Masters, and Richardson, 1995) and have been linked

previously in the sporting context (e.g. McArdle and Duda, 2004).

Moreover, researchers have discovered found links between

perfectionism and ED (e.g. Hagan and Hausenblas, 2003) and SDM and

ED (Edmunds, Ntoumanis and Duda, 2006). However, there has been

little research into how the groups of exercise dependence (i.e.

non-dependent asymptomatic, non-dependent symptomatic and at-risk

for exercise dependence) differ in terms of their motivation

(Edmunds, Ntoumanis and Duda, 2006) and levels of perfectionism.

Moreover, the fact that perfectionism and motivation are said to be

antecedents of exercise dependence suggests certain levels of these

factors could predispose or signify an individual to be at a greater

risk of becoming dependent on exercise. Previous research has

9

assessed the variables dually in the sporting domain, but no study

to date has assessed all three constructs at the same time or upon

the same population. A better understanding of what motivates people

to participate in exercise and their levels of perfectionism could

aid in the detection and treatment of individuals identified as

being at-risk for exercise dependence.

10

Review of Literature

It is generally accepted that there is an “optimal level” of regular

exercise where individuals can receive both physical and

psychological benefits from participation. The U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (2008) recommend 300 minutes a week of

moderate intensity or 150 vigorous intensity exercise in order to

best utilise to benefits from exercise, with a view maintaining

and/or improving well being (Warburton, Nicol and Bredin, 2006).

Individuals exercising at a greater frequency and/or intensity than

the ‘optimal level’ may incur negative consequences of such

excessive participation. In some cases, Exercise is used as a coping

strategy or to regain some control over one’s life (*) however

excessive exercise to combat a short term problem leads to a more

long term issue. Persons engaging in a behaviour that provides

pleasure or relief from distress within the self (i.e. stress,

anxiety etc.) coupled with a consistent inability to refrain from

such activity despite negative consequences signifies an addictive

behaviour (Goodman, 1990). This syndrome, otherwise known as

11

exercise dependence has been evident within the academic literature

since the 1970’s and interest in the area has increased dramatically

during the last decade.

Exercise Dependence

The landmark paper within the exercise dependence literature was

written by De Coverley Veale (1987). De Coverley Veale was the first

author to make the division between primary and secondary exercise

dependence. The distinguishing factor between the two is the

underlying reason for exercise participation. An individual

exercising for the enjoyment they receive from such participation,

where dieting or weight loss is used for performance enhancement

would be defined as primary ED. Here, a physical activity is an end

in itself (i.e. individuals are intrinsically motivated). On the

other hand, secondary ED individuals use exercise as a control

measure for an eating disorder, i.e. using exercise to control

weight i.e. calorie management and/or weight loss (American

Psychological Association [APA], 1994).

The main concern of early ED research was the use of poor research

techniques and unsound, invalidated self-report scales (Hausenblas

and Symons Downs, 2002b). The advancement of universal measures of

ED that were flexible, reliable and valid was paramount to develop a

better understanding of ED. The Exercise Dependence Scale [EDS],

12

developed Hausenblas and Symons Downs (2002b) is highly regarded as

a one of the best measures of ED and has been used in many studies

(Monok et al., 2012). The creation of a measurement tool that could

be utilised by various researchers allowed for comparisons across

both, different studies and populations. The EDS is based on the

DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence, consisting of 7 subscales;

tolerance, withdrawal, intention effects, loss of control, time,

conflict and continuance. The EDS comprehends that an individual can

be attributed to one of three categories based on the existence of

ED symptoms. Persons exhibiting no ED symptoms are classified as

‘nondependent-asymptomatic’. In comparison, the ‘nondependent-

symptomatic’ category encompasses individuals that exhibit some

symptoms of ED. Finally, individuals exhibiting high levels of ED

symptoms (high in 3 or more of the subscales) are categorised in the

‘at-risk for exercise dependence’ group (Downs, Hausenblas and Nigg,

2004).

A number of researchers have used to EDS as a measurement tool for

examining the prevalence rates of people at-risk for exercise

dependence. Hausenblas and Symons Downs (2002b) found the occurrence

of individuals at-risk for exercise dependence to be between 3.1%

and 13.4%, across 4 studies on university students. The authors

suggested the dispersion of scores was based on the changes made to

the EDS during its development within the 4 studies and the variety

13

of population’s assessed. Other studies have also found differing

prevalence rates of at-risk for exercise dependence individuals;

Edmunds, Ntoumanis and Duda (2006) 3.4%, Monok et al., (2012) 1.9%

and Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia (2012) 7%. Only one study to date has

used the EDS to access ED on a weightlifting population. In Hale et

al. (2010) study, 15.1% of the participants were classified as at-

risk for exercise dependence. Hale et al’s study criticised previous

research on ED, citing the use of college age participants as a

possible reason for the lower prevalence rates, Hale et al. examined

older/ more experienced as well as younger, less experienced

bodybuilder, power lifters and fitness lifters in their sample.

There is some debate whether weightlifters and bodybuilders exercise

dependence symptoms increase or are reduced with time. Moreover, do

weightlifters gain greater satisfaction over their body the longer

they have trained for (Szabo, 2000) or in fact do they feel they

need to continuously train in order to address body image concerns

(Hurst, Hale, Smith and Collins, 2000). Both Edmunds et al. (2006)

and Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia (2012) suggest that as a person

begins to gain the desired body shape and size they are more liable

to become exercise dependent

14

These findings suggest that exercise dependence symptoms would show

greater prevalence as a person got older. However, research has

posited that younger individuals show a greater propensity to be

classified as exercise dependent (Edmunds et al., 2006; Allegre,

Therme and Griffiths, 2007). There is vast societal pressure on

young people especially, to have the ‘perfect figure’. For women, a

slim, toned and slender looking body while men desire to be

athletic, lean and muscular (Gonzalez- Cutre and Sicilia, 2012). It

may seem of little surprise that exercise dependence symptoms may

being to foster from an earlier age based of the social demands

placed on young people today.

Other researchers have utilised a specific bodybuilding ED scale,

named the bodybuilding dependence Scale [BDS] (Smith, Hale and

Collins, 1998) to examine ED within a bodybuilding/ weightlifting

population. The BDS consists of 9 items assessing three subscales;

social dependence, training dependence and mastery dependence. Hurst

et al. (2000) found experienced bodybuilders (EXPBB) to be

significantly higher on all 3 subscales of the BDS than

inexperienced bodybuilders and weightlifters. Suggesting EXPBB

become dependent on the process of lifting weights as well as the

social/ personal aspects of lifting weights. Hale et al. (2010)

found Bodybuilders to be significantly higher on ED than power

15

lifters and fitness lifters. Furthermore, bodybuilders were found to

be significantly higher in the drive for muscularity (DM) than

fitness lifters. The results show that ED is linked to the DM and

that DM is more evident in young males which may lead to greater

exposure to the exercise dependence symptoms. The reduction of DM

with age is perhaps based around the muscular increases over time

from weight training, which aids the reduction of social physique

anxiety and body image concerns. This Adds to the suggestions that

older BB may in fact become addicted to the process of lifting

weight. It seems plausible to suggest that younger BB may become

preoccupied with the drive for muscularity and this may be an

influencing factor in early exercise dependence symptoms. A

suggestion somewhat supported by Hausenblas and Symons Downs’s

(2002b) study that found individuals classified as at-risk for

exercise dependence reported a significantly heavier ideal weight

than that of the two non-dependent groups who reported they ideally

wanted to lose weight. This finding regarding at-risk for ED

individuals striving to gain weight could be applied to the before

mentioned drive for muscularity in young weightlifters.

Due to the maladaptive nature of exercise dependence it is important

to understand the factors that contribute to the creation,

development and maintenance of its symptoms. A greater understanding

16

of possible causes of ED will allow for a more successful treatment

and prevention of such a disorder (Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia,

2012).

Perfectionism

Academics have posited a number of possible causes and correlates

for ED that either manifest themselves as predisposing traits or

develop as part of regular exercise and lead to ED. A number of

different personality traits have been positively linked to exercise

dependence; trait anxiety (Coen and Ogles, 1993), extroversion

(Yates, Leehey and Shisslak, 1983) and obsessive compulsiveness

(Spano, 2001). Negative correlations have also been found between

ED; Neuroticism (Hausenblas and Giacobbi, 2004) and self-esteem

(Rudy and Estok, 1987; Carron et al., 2003). Another personality

trait strongly linked to exercise dependence is perfectionism.

“Perfectionism has been described as a personality disposition

characterized by striving for flawlessness and setting excessively

high standards for performance accompanied by tendencies for overly

critical evaluations of one’s behaviour” (Stöber, Feast and Hayward,

2009: 1-4).

There are two well validated measurement tools for perfectionism.

Firstly, Hewitt and Flett (1991a) suggested perfectionism was

17

comprised of 3 parts within the Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale

(MPS); self-orientated, socially-prescribed and other-orientated.

Self-orientated perfectionism details the propensity of an

individual to set abnormally high performance standards and focusing

or poor elements of his or her performance. Socially-prescribed

perfectionism states others set high performance standards for an

individual, and will consequently be disappointed if they are not

fulfilled. Other-orientated perfectionism entails the setting of

excessively high performance criteria for others and a critical

evaluation of their performance.

The second measure of perfectionism is the Frost Multidimensional

Perfectionism Scale [FMPS] (Frost, Marten, Lahart and Rosenblate

(1990) which was revised by Stöber et al. (1998) to contain 4

instead of the original 6 subscales; Concerns over Mistakes and

Doubts (CMD), Parental Expectations and Criticism (PEC), Personal

Standards (PS), and Organization (O). CMD measures the tendency of

becoming overly concerned with and react badly too mistakes as well

as experiencing uncertainty over a performance. PEC encompasses the

individuals perceptions of parental expectations and the over

critical nature of their parents when assessing a performance. PS

measures an individual’s creation of high performance standards and

goals. O measures a person’s neatness (Hachon, 2010).

18

With reference to the nature of perfectionism it can be adaptive or

maladaptive personality trait depending on the existence of

unwarranted self-critical evaluation and disproportionate high

standards (Frost et al., 1990). Adaptive perfectionists are

characterised by the setting of high PS and a preference for O

(Hachon, 2010). However, adaptive perfectionists are driven to

achieve these performance standards but can accept they may have

personal limitations (Blatt, 1995). Conversely, maladaptive

perfectionists also have high PS but are overly concerned about

making mistakes and have no other desire than to avoid failure

(Blatt, 1995). Maladaptive perfectionism includes an over-awareness

in the differences between actual and expected high PS with little

leeway for mistakes (Coen and Ogles, 1993). Adaptive perfectionism

refers to more positive influence of the personality trait “compared

to CMD but not always as adaptive as an absence of perfectionism”

(Mouratidis and Michou, 2011: 356). PS are considered to be more

adaptive in nature as opposed to CMD, and have shown to improve

performance (Stoll, Lau and Stöber, 2008) and reduce burnout

(Lemyre, Hall and Roberts, 2008). The striving to satisfy high PS

can lead to motivational benefits, as been demonstrated in both an

educational (Stöber and Rambow, 2007) and sports setting (Ommundsen

et al., 2005).

19

In relation to ED, a positive relationship has been fond with

perfectionism in three studies. Coen and Ogles (1993) found

obligatory runners to be significantly higher on perfectionism than

their non-obligatory counterparts. Hausenblas and Symons Downs

(2002b) stated the at-risk for exercise dependence group scored

significantly higher on perfectionism than both of the non-dependent

ED groups. Hagan and Hausenblas, 2003) found the high ED group

reported significantly higher levels of perfectionism than the low

ED group.

Although these studies provide evidence for a relationship between

high exercise dependence symptoms and high levels of perfectionism,

none of the papers used a multidimensional measure of perfectionism

or the finalised Exercise dependence scale.

Self-Determined Motivation

Another variable, linked to exercise dependence is motivation. A

person’s level of motivation determines the initiation, maintenance

and completion of exercises (Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia, 2012)

Furthermore, motivation has been described as one of the key

antecedents of exercise dependence (Ogles, Masters and Richardson,

1995). It so forth posits that a better understanding of the types

and nature of person’s motivation to participate in exercise can

lead to a greater understanding of ED and aid the development of

20

preventative strategies. Self-determination theory (SDT) devised by

Deci and Ryan (2000) is one theory of motivation that has been

applied within the sporting domain and has been correlated with

exercise behaviour (Lonsdale et al., 2008), athlete burnout

(Lonsdale, Hodge and Rose, 2009) and coping strategies (Mouratidis

and Michou, 2011).

Self-determination theory states that humans have three basic

psychological needs (adapted to exercise), Competence i.e. ability

to be effective in a given sport, Autonomy i.e. volition and choice

and Relatedness i.e. connections to others (Deci and Ryan, 2000).

“The extent to which these needs are satisfied determines the degree

to which an athlete’s behaviour is regulated by processes that are

congruent with the individual’s sense of self, known as self-

determined motivation” (Deci and Ryan, 1985, in Lonsdale et al.,

2009: 786). Satisfying these psychological demands leads to optimal

well-being (e.g. subjective vitality [Ryan and Frederick, 1997]),

where as failure leads to representations of ill-being (e.g. Burnout

[Perreault *et al., 2007]).

In accordance with SDT theory, human motivation can be depicted upon

a continuum with varying degrees of self-determination (Deci and

Ryan, 1985). The level of self-determination diminishes throughout

21

the continuum from intrinsic motivation to extrinsic motivation to

Amotivation (figure 1).

Figure 1. Self-Determination Continuum (Lonsdale, Hodge and Rose, 2008: 324) Amotivati

on Extrinsic MotivationIntrinsicMotivation

  Controlled Motivation Autonomous Motivation  

 ExternalRegulation

Introjected

Regulation

IdentifiedRegulation

Integrated

Regulation

Low self-determination High self-determination

The most self-determined of the SDT continuum is intrinsic

motivation. Here motivation is derived from the pleasure and

satisfaction of participating in a given activity to pursue new

challenges in e.g. lifting weights for the feeling of being ‘pumped’

(Ryan and Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation exists when an

individual participates to achieve external goals and comprises of 2

super-ordinate parts; autonomous motivation (AM) and controlled

motivation (CM) and 4 sub-ordinate parts; Integrated Regulation,

Identified Regulation, Introjected Regulation and External

Regulation. Autonomous behaviours are freely determined and

originate within one’s self (Reeve, 2002) where as controlled

behaviours are derived from an external source and are non-

volitional in nature (Edmunds et al., 2006). When the needs of

competence, autonomy and relatedness are met, individuals become

22

autonomously motivated. Conversely, if the basic psychological needs

are not achieved then a person will exhibit controlled motivation

(Ryan and Deci, 2002). The most self-determined dimension of

extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation, which represents an

individual’s belief that certain behaviours are part of their

individual identity and conform to their personal values (Ryan and

Deci, 2000). The second part of autonomous motivation is identified

regulation, which accounts for an individual’s participation in

exercise to achieve goals that he or she finds morally important

(Lonsdale et al., 2009). Introjected regulation describes the need

for intrapersonal rewards such as pride and the avoidance self-

inflicted punishments such as guilt (Duncan et al., 2010). External

regulation is the least self-determined aspect of extrinsic

motivation and states that an individual wishes to obtain rewards/

avoid punishment to satisfy significant others such as parents or

coaches (Duncan et al., 2010). The final aspect of the SD continuum

is Amotivation, characterised by an individual that mat no longer

have the ability identify the reasons for participation in an given

activity (Lonsdale et al., 2009).

Despite the pivotal role of motivation in determining exercise

behaviour, to date only four studies to the authors knowledge have

directly assessed the relationship between SD motivation and the

23

three exercise dependence groups. Hamer, Karageorghis and

Vlachopoulos (2002) were the first authors to assess the

relationship between SD motivation and ED. Their results showed

introjected and identified regulation to be the only positive

predictors of high exercise dependence individuals, a finding that

was mirrored by Fortier and Farrell (2009). Edmunds et al. (2006)

also found introjected regulation approached significance as a

positive predictor of strenuous exercise behaviour for symptomatic

individuals. Identified regulation was found to be a positive

predictor of strenuous exercise for asymptomatic individuals. In

addition, Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia (2012) established introjected

regulation to be a positive predictor of ED. Moreover, and somewhat

surprisingly external regulation and integrated regulation were also

found to be positive and significant predictors of ED in an ego-

involving climate (i.e. where a person’s ability is compared to that

of others). Although this study did not assess a weightlifting

population it seems reasonable to suggest that in sports (such as

weightlifting), where judgment is often made on a person’s body

size, shape and strength they may become addicted towards such an

activity in an effort to outdo others around them or to avoid

negative feelings about one’s self, which may create self doubt and

lower self-esteem.

24

There are clear links a between motivation and perfectionism

demonstrated in the study above. Other researchers have also

discovered a relationship between the two constructs. High personal

standards have been found to be positively correlated with both

autonomous and controlled motivation. The degree of SD depends on

the perception of the PS; whether they are seen as a challenge or as

a performance level norm to maintain self-worth (DiBartolo, Frost,

Chang, LaSota, and Grills, 2004). When PS are seen as a challenge,

they are more likely to manifest as an intrinsic motivator due to

the challenge-seeking nature of IM (Chatzisarantis and Hagger,

2007). Conversely, Personal standards that are seen as a

prerequisite to gain self-worth may manifest as a restraint of one’s

self-regulated behaviour and will therefore lead to presentation of

controlled motivation (Mouratidis and Michou, 2011). Other

researchers such as Stöber, Feast and Hayward (2009) found self-

orientated perfectionism (internal form) to be positively linked

with the more self-determined aspects of motivation and socially-

orientated perfectionism (external form) to be positively related

with the lesser self-determined aspects. Concerns over mistake are

likely to lead controlled motivation Gaudreau and Antl (2008). Due

to the internal stresses which evoke controlled forms of motivation.

Based on the impact of a critical approach towards making mistakes

and failing, athletes will often become and/ or remain controlled

25

motivated (DiBartolo et al., 2004). Other studies have used the

relationship between the two constructs to assess other variables

such as coping strategies (Mouratidis and Michou, 2011).

The papers outlined above provide supporting evidence for the use of

SDT in the assessment of exercise dependence. The current literature

review has shed light upon the three constructs however no research

to date has directly assessed them on the same population. There is

still a lack of research comparing the three groups of exercise

dependence (i.e. non-dependent asymptomatic, non-dependent

symptomatic and at-risk for exercise dependence) and how they differ

in terms of their motivation and perfectionism Edmonds et al.

(2006). As stated above motivation and personality traits play a

pivotal role in the development of ED symptoms. A study that

assesses the relationship and predictability of such antecedents of

ED would be beneficial in aiding the prevention and treatment of

such a psychological disorder.

The majority of research on ED has been undertaken on long distance

runners (e.g. Allegre et al., 2007), with only two studies to date

(Hurst, Hale, Smith and Collings, 2000; Hale, Roth, DeLong and

Briggs, 2010) having directly assessed exercise dependence on

weightlifters. For that reason, the primary aim of the current study

26

was to assess whether an individual’s level of perfectionism and

self-determined motivation could predict the group classification of

exercise dependence (i.e. non-dependent asymptomatic [low ED], non-

dependent symptomatic [moderate ED] and at-risk for exercise

dependence [high ED]). Secondly, further analysis will be undertaken

between participant’s scores of the three constructs with a view to

identifying any possible patterns between the variables and to

conflict or confer with previous research findings. Tests will also

be included to examine any mediating relationship that age and the

amount of hours a person spends weightlifting may have and affect on

their exercise dependence classification.

Hypothesis

Can exercise dependence group classification be determined/

predicted by an individual’s level of perfectionism and self-

determined motivation?

27

Methodology

Design

The current study adopted a non-experimental, quantitative approach.

A logistical regression design enabled the author to identify any

relationships between the two categorical, independent variables

(i.e. self-determined motivation and perfectionism) and the

categorical, dependent (i.e. exercise dependence). Specifically,

multinomial logistic regression was used to provide the estimated

predictability of an individual belonging to a specific population

(i.e. exercise dependence group) based on their scores on the two

independent/ predictor variables. The two independent (IV)/predictor

variables were perfectionism (three levels [used during data

analysis]: low, moderate and high) and self-determined motivation

(six levels: Amotivation, Extrinsic regulation, Introjected

regulation, Integrated regulation, Identified regulation and

Intrinsic motivation). The dependent (DV)/ outcome variable was

exercise dependence. (The three levels of exercise dependence are;

28

non-dependent asymptomatic, non-dependent symptomatic and at-risk

for exercise dependence).

Participants

A total of 69 experienced* male weightlifters (M = 23.86, SD =5.62)

participated in the current study. Ethical Approval (see appendix 1)

and gatekeeper approval (see appendix 2) were received prior to any

data collection being undertaken. An opportunity sampling method was

employed to recruit participants. Individuals were approached by the

researcher upon entry to the leisure centre and asked if they would

like to participant in the study once they had finished their

workout. All participants provided voluntary participation and

informed consent to partake in the current study. Informed consent

was obtained from each participant via the informed consent form

(see appendix 3). Participants were assigned to one of three groups

on the exercise dependence continuum (non-dependent asymptomatic,

non-dependent symptomatic, and at-risk for exercise dependence)

based on their score on the Exercise Dependence Scale (EDS).

* Experienced weightlifters are characterised as having a minimum of

12 months weightlifting participation.

Measures

29

The Exercise Dependence Scale [EDS] Hausenblas and Symons Downs, 2002) – was

used to measure participants exercise dependence symptoms. The 21-

item scale contains seven sub-categories based on the seven

criterions for which substance dependence is based (American

Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). Withdrawal effects (e.g., I

exercise to avoid feeling irritable), continuance (e.g. I exercise

when injured), tolerance (e.g. I continually increase my exercise

duration to achieve the desired effects. Benefits), lack of control

(e.g. I am unable to reduce how long I exercise), reduction is other

activities (e.g. I would rather exercise than spend time with my

family/ friends), time (e.g. I spend most of my free time

exercising), and intention effects (e.g. I exercise longer than I

plan). Participants provided responses to questions using a 6-point

Likert scale with 1 (never) and 6 (always) at the extremes. A higher

score indicates higher levels of exercise dependence symptoms.

Responses can be studied as an overall ED score and as individuals

subscale. A distinction between physiological and non-physiological

dependence can also be demonstrated based on scores from the

tolerance and withdrawal effects subscales (see appendix 4).

(to

The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale [FMPS] Stöber (1998) – was used to

measure participant’s levels of perfectionism. The original FMPS

30

(Frost et al., 1990) consists of 35 items with 6 dimensions:

Concerns over Mistakes (9-items) (, Doubts about Actions (4-

items) (, Parental Expectations (5-items) (

Parental Criticism (4-items) (, Personal Standards (7-

items) (, and Organisation (6-items) ( However,

Stöber’s (1998) revised model uses four dimensions: Concerns over

Mistakes and Doubts (CMD), Parental Expectations and Criticism

(PEC), Personal Standards (PS) and Organisation (O). Due to the

remit of the current study, the inclusion of PEC and organisation O

may have affect the face validity of the study as they are not

directly related to the weightlifting context under investigation.

Henceforth, the current study only assessed responses to CMD [13-

items] (e.g. I hate being less than the best at things), and PS [7-

items] (e.g. I have extremely high goals). A similar method has

previously been utilised in the sporting domain (Dunn et al., 2002;

Mouratidis and Michou, 2011). The correlation between CMD and PS was

found to be adequately reliable (. The modified questionnaire

will now be referred to as FMPS* (rather than FMPS, which is used to

identify the original scale). Responses were provided using a 7-

point Likert scale for which scores can be calculated for each

dimension as well as an aggregate score for perfectionism. Higher

scores signify higher levels of perfectionism (see appendix 5).

31

The Sport Motivation Scale-6 [SMS-6] (Mallett et al., 2007) – was used to

identify participant’s underlying reasons for exercise participation

(i.e. motivation). The SMS-6 consists of 24-items, which measures

self-determined motivation along a continuum. The original SMS

(Pelletier et al., 1995) outlined 7 self-determined categories

however the SMS-6 only has 6. Each of the 24 items was is response

to the question “Why do you practise your sport”, with 4 items for

each category; amotivation (e.g. I don’t know anymore; I have the

impression of being incapable of succeeding in this sport) (,

external regulation (e.g. Because it allows me to be well regarded

by people that I know) (, introjected regulation (e.g.

Because I must do sports to feel good about myself) (,

identified regulation (e.g. Because training hard will improve my

performance) (, integrated regulation (e.g. Because it is an

extension of me) (, and intrinsic motivation (e.g. For the

excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity)

(. Responses are given on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 (Does

not correspond at all) and 7 (corresponds exactly) at the extremes

(see appendix 6). (

Procedure

Before commencing the study, ethical approval was received by

Coventry University Ethics Committee (see appendix 1). Prior to any

32

data being collected, the manager of Trilogy Health and Fitness

Leisure Centres was contacted in order to gain approval to use its

members as participants in the study described above, gatekeeper

approval can be found in appendix 2. Gym members were approached

upon entry to the leisure centre, given a brief overview of the

study and were asked if they would like to participate in the study

once they had completed their workout. Each participant was screened

to ensure they met the entry criteria for the study (i.e.

Participants were required to be male, over 18 years of age and have

one year’s weightlifting experience as a minimum). Participants

meeting the criteria and wishing to take part were given a

questionnaire pack consisting of a participant information sheet

(PIS), informed consent form (IC), demographic sheet (DS) [age, sex,

hours spent weightlifting per week], EDS, FMPS*, SMS-6 and debrief

sheet. Participants were advised that the questionnaire pack would

take around 15 minutes to complete and were asked to read all of the

information presented to them carefully. Participants were taken to

a quiet room in the leisure centre and completed the entire

questionnaire pack. The researcher remained with the participant in

order to address any questions or difficulties they may encounter

regarding the completion of the questionnaire pack. The researcher

collected the IC, DS and questionnaires once completed. The

researcher then explained the purpose of the study in greater

33

detail, handed a debrief sheet to each participant and asked if they

had any further questions about the research project. Participants

were advised to keep their PIS and debrief sheet safe in case they

would like to withdraw their consent for participation in the study

or contact the researcher.

Data Analysis

All data returned to the author was collated and input into SPSS

statistics software for data analysis. Basic descriptive and

frequency analysis was undertaken. T-tests were used to compare

means of age and average hours spent weightlifting. Following this,

a Multinomial Logistic Regression (MLR) analysis was carried out in

order to assess the impact of the two independent/ predictor

variables upon the prediction model. A base line prediction was

made, to which the MLR test adds each predictor variable to assess

whether or not it improves the models ability to successfully

predict categorisation of an individual on the dependent/ outcome

variable of exercise dependence (i.e. non-dependent asymptomatic,

non-dependent symptomatic, and at-risk for exercise dependence).

Multinomial logistic regression does not make any assumptions of

normality, linearity, and homogeneity of variance for the

independent variables. The significance level was set at .05 for the

current study.

34

Results

All participants were male, ageing between 18 and 45 (M =23.85, SD =

5.62). The frequencies for each variable were calculated to show how

many individuals were found to be in each group (Table 1).

Table 1. Group populations for ED, SD motivation and PerfectionismNumber of

Participants

Scale Group(N

= ) %Exercise Dependence Scale Non-Dependent Asymptomatic 1 1.4( EDS) Non-Dependent Symptomatic 61 88.4

 At-Risk for Exercise Dependence 7 10.1

Frost Multidimensional Low 23 33.33Perfectionism Scale*  Moderate 23 33.33(FMPS*)  High 23 33.33Sport Motivation Scale-6 Amotivation 0 0 (SMS-6) External Regulation 3 4.3  Introjected Regulation 14 20.3  Identified Regulation 8 11.6  Integrated Regulation 18 26.1  Intrinsic Motivation 26 37.7Note: perfectionism groups created during data analysis (see below)

The majority of participants were classified as non-dependent

symptomatic (N = 61, 88.4%; M = 68.54, SD = 12.10) for exercise

dependence, followed by at-risk for exercise dependence (N = 7,

10.4%) M = 97.71, SD = 9.78 and non-dependent Asymptomatic (N = 1,

1.4%).

35

For ease of data interpretation, perfectionism total scores were

transformed from a continuous to a categorical scale. The newly

formed perfectionism groups (low, moderate and high) were calculated

using the best cut-points created using SPSS transform visual

binning. Three groups were found to be more reliable as they

provided less empty cases in the final output (3 groups, n = 21; 5

groups, n = 42) and an equal distribution of individuals to each

category compared to 5 groups. The results were as follows; Low

perfectionism (N = 23, 33.3%; M = 58.22, SD = 7.54), Moderate

perfectionism (N = 23, 33.3%; M = 76.10, SD = 4.35) and High

perfectionism (N = 23, 33.3%; M = 93.80, SD = 9.13).

In terms of self-determined motivation, Intrinsic motivation was

found to be the most common group amongst the current population (N

= 26, 37.7%), followed by integrated regulation (N =18, 26.1 %),

identified regulation (N =8, 11.6 %), introjected regulation (N =14,

20.3%), external regulation (N = 3, 4.3%). Finally, none of the 69

participants were found to belong to the amotivation category of

self-determined motivation.

Secondly, cross tabulations were conducted to assess whether any

relationship or pattern could be found between the three variables

based on the group populations (Tables 2, 3 and 4).

36

Table 2. Cross tabulations for ED and SD motivation groups for low perfectionism  

Exercise Dependence group (N = )

Self-DeterminedMotivation group

Non-Dependent

AsymptomaticNon-DependentSymptomatic

At-risk forExercise

DependenceTota

lExternal Regulation 0 0 0 0Introjected Regulation 0 3 0 3Identified Regulation 0 2 0 2Integrated Regulation 0 6 1 7Intrinsic Motivation 0 11 0 11Total 0 22 1 23

Table 3. Cross tabulations for ED and SD motivation groups for moderate perfectionism

Exercise Dependence group (N = )

Self-DeterminedMotivation group

Non-Dependent

Asymptomatic

Non-Dependent

Symptomatic

At-risk forExercise

DependenceTota

lExternal Regulation 0 1 0 1Introjected Regulation 1 4 0 5Identified Regulation 0 1 1 2Integrated Regulation 0 5 2 7Intrinsic Motivation 0 8 0 8Total 1 19 3 23

Table 4. Cross tabulations for ED and SD motivation groups for high perfectionism

Exercise Dependence group (N = )

Self-DeterminedMotivation group

Non-Dependent

AsymptomaticNon-DependentSymptomatic

At-risk forExerciseDependence

Total

External 0 1 1 2

37

RegulationIntrojected Regulation 0 6 0 6Identified Regulation 0 4 0 4Integrated Regulation 0 3 1 4Intrinsic Motivation 0 6 1 7Total 0 20 3 23

The at-risk for exercise dependence group is of particular interest

as 4 of the 7 individuals identified as at-risk for exercise

dependence were classified into the integrated regulation category

for SD motivation. These 4 individuals are spread across all three

groups for perfectionism. Moreover, only 1 of the 7 high exercise

dependence individuals was found to exhibit low perfectionism, with

the other 6 spread equally between the moderate and high

perfectionism groups.

Based on the findings of previous research, a prediction was made

for each Ed group with regards to the expected levels of

perfectionism and self-determined motivation individuals classified

within that group were likely to exhibit.

(1) Individuals classified as at-risk for exercise dependence will

score highly on perfectionism and the autonomous/ more self-

determined motivation categories (i.e. intrinsic motivation,

38

integrated regulation and identified regulation) as well as external

regulation. (2) Individuals classified as non-dependent symptomatic

will score high to moderate on perfectionism and be classified

within the high SD end of controlled motivation and both parts of

autonomous motivation (i.e. introjected regulation, identified

regulation and integrated motivation). (3) Individuals classified as

non-dependent asymptomatic for exercise dependence will score low to

moderate on perfectionism and classified mainly as identified

regulation for self-determined motivation.

Prediction 1 was partially correct for the at-risk for exercise

dependence group. Perfectionism was found to be scattered across the

three groups, with the majority of individuals classified as high or

moderate. All of the 7 individuals categorised in the high ED group

fell within the four of the five categories (intrinsic motivation,

integrated regulation, identified regulation and external

regulation. Prediction 2 was also somewhat incorrect. Non-dependent

symptomatic individuals were dispersed almost equally across the

three perfectionism groups. In terms of motivation, intrinsic

motivation was the most heavily populated category, also introjected

and integrated groups housed large amounts of individuals compared

to external and identified regulation. Prediction 3 was again

partially correct in terms of perfectionism, as the individual

39

identified with the low asymptomatic group yielded a moderate

perfectionisms total. Moreover, the individual was not correctly

predicted in terms of motivation (i.e. introjected rather than

identified regulation). The results for the non-dependent

asymptomatic category however should be disregarded as only one

individual populated this category, making generalisability of the

findings invalid.

A comparison of mean ages was undertaken to assess whether or not

age played a mediating role in exercise dependence classification.

The mean ages were analysed using a t-test. There were no scores for

the non-dependent asymptomatic group as only one individual was

identified as belonging to this group.

Table 5. Age differences for ED groups  

ED Group(N =)

Age ( M =)

Age (SD =)

Non-dependent asymptomatic 1 - -

Non-dependent symptomatic 61 23.79 5.2

At-risk for exercise dependence 7 21.43 2.57

Table 5 shows the individuals identified as at-risk for exercise

dependence were was significantly younger (M = 21.43, SD = 2.57)

than individuals in the non-dependent symptomatic group (M = 23.79,

SD = 5.20); t(66) = 2.00, p = 0.0248 (one-tailed).

40

The ability of perfectionism and self-determined motivation scores

to predict exercise dependence group classification was assessed

using a multinomial logistic regression (MLR). The relationship test

between the independent variables of self-determined motivation and

perfectionism and the dependent variable, exercise dependence was

based on the reduction in likelihood values for the model with

(model-1) and without the independent variables(model-0). The

difference in likelihood is described as a chi-square distribution.

The model containing the independent variables as predictors is

known as the model chi-square. The results of prediction model are

presented below.

Table 6. Model fitting information      

Model-2 Log

Likelihood Chi-square df sigIntercept Only 32.901Model 18.273 16.268 12 0.262

The distribution (table 6) shows that the probability of the model

chi-square (16.268) was 0.262, greater than the significance level

set at .05. Therefore, model-1 was underperforming in comparison to

model-0. Consequently, the hypothesis was rejected as this finding

provides no supporting evidence for the existence of a relationship

between the dependent variable (ED) and the combination of

41

independent variables (SD motivation and perfectionism) in terms of

a prediction model.

Below are the prediction statistics for model-1(with independent

variables). Classification accuracy compares the predicted group

membership based on model-1 to the actual, known group membership.

The correct predictions are highlighted in bold and are on the

diagonal axis.

Table 7. Classification of ED groups based on model-1Observed   Predicted (n = ) (%)

   

Non-depasymptomat

ic

Non-depsymptomati

cAt-riskfor ED % Correct

Non-dep asymptomatic 0 1 0 0.00%Non-dep symptomatic 0 61 0 100.00%At-risk for ED 0 7 0 0.00%Overall %   0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 88.40%

The model correctly predicted 88.4% of the exercise dependence

groups based on the model. The non-dependent symptomatic (n = 61)

group where correctly predicted (100%). Both the non-dependent

Asymptomatic group (n = 1) and at-risk for exercise dependent (n =

7) group were not correctly classified by the model (0%). To

further assess the usefulness of the model a comparison of chance

accuracy (correct prediction of group membership even when no

relationship between independent and dependent variables is found)

42

and classification accuracy from SPSS MLR output was undertaken.

Chance accuracy was found to be 98.98% compared to the SPSS MLR of

88.4% (see table 3.). This finding signifies that model-1 is not

helpful in predicting group categorisation.

To survey the usefulness of the two independent variables

separately, the likelihood ratio tests were extracted and examined

from the MLR output. These figures (table 8) are important to check

in order to evaluate whether one of the variables was in fact a

significant predictor of exercise dependent group classification but

was adversely affected by the other variable in the model-1

prediction total.

Table 8. Likelihood Ratio tests      

Effect-2 Log likelihood of

Reduced Model Chi-Square df Sig.Intercept 18.273 a

SDM 29.154 10.881 8 0.209PERF 21.962 3.689 4 0.450

a – The Intercept reduced model is equivalent to the final model as omitting the effect doesnot increase the degrees of freedom

Likelihood ratio tests demonstrated that neither perfectionism nor

self-determined motivation contributed to improving the original

prediction model (Intercept). A result which shows there is no

significant relationship between SD motivation and ED (p = 0.209) or

perfectionism (PERF) and ED (p = 0.450).

The findings presented in table 9 describe the relationship between

the IV categories and the DV. The parameter estimates show whether

or not each category on the two independent variables can

43

significantly distinguish the non-dependent asymptomatic and

symptomatic groups in relation to the reference category; at-risk

for exercise dependence.

Table 9. Parameter estimates (1) Non-dependent asymptomatic vs. at-risk for ED    

ExerciseDependence groupa

VariableCategory B

Std.Error Wald

df Sig. Exp(B)

95%Confidence

Interval forExp(B)

Lower UpperNon-dependentasymptomatic

Intercept-33.682

6796.941 0 1 0.996

Low PERF 2.008 6762.981 0 1 1 7.45 0 .b

Moderate PERF 17.47 4714.72

1 0 1 0.997 38651060.9 0 .b

High PERF 0c . . 0 . . . .Extrinsic Reg

-1.916 0 . 1 . 0.147 0.147 0.147

IntrojectedReg

33.563

5963.951 0 1 0.996 3.77 0 .b

Identified Reg

-0.732

10298.52 0 1 1 0.481 0 .b

Integrated Reg

-2.009

8059.527 0 1 1 0.134 0 .b

Intrinsic Motive 0c . . 0 . . . .

a. The reference category is: at-risk exercise dependent.b. Floating point overflow occurred while computing this statistic. Its value is therefore setto system missing.c. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.p = <. 05                  

There are no significant findings for the parameter estimates for

the non dependent asymptomatic group. Due to the lack of individuals

populating the group (N = 1) and the fact that neither of the

independent variables were significant predictors of ED group

classification in the prediction model i.e. Model-1.

Table 10. Parameter estimates (2) Non-dependent symptomatic vs. at-risk for ED    Exercise Variable B Std. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) 95%

44

Dependence groupa Category Error

ConfidenceInterval for

Exp(B)Lower Upper

Non-dependentsymptomatic

Intercept 2.765 1.159 5.687 1 0.017

Low PERF 1.371 1.294 1.122 1 0.289 3.94 0.312 49.79

7Moderate PERF 0.148 0.975 0.023 1 0.88 1.159 0.171 7.836

High PERF 0c . . 0 . . . .Extrinsic Reg -2.12 1.622 1.709 1 0.19

1 0.12 0.005 2.883

IntrojectedReg

15.825

3405.72 0 1 0.99

67459422.28 0 .b

Identified Reg -1.09 1.502 0.527 1 0.46

8 0.336 0.018 6.379

Integrated Reg

-1.995 1.184 2.84 1 0.09

2 0.136 0.013 1.385

Intrinsic Motive 0c . . 0 . . . .

a. The reference category is: at-risk exercise dependent.b. Floating point overflow occurred while computing this statistic. Its value is therefore setto system missing.c. This parameter is set to zero because it is redundant.p = <. 05

The only significant finding within the parameter estimates output

was that of the intercept (model without IV’s), which could

significantly distinguish between individuals in the non-dependent

symptomatic and at-risk for exercise dependence groups (p=0.017),

providing further evidence that Model-1 is not a good prediction

model for classifying individuals into exercise dependence groups.

45

Discussion

The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of

perfectionism and self-determined motivation on exercise dependence.

Specifically, was it possible to predict which category of exercise

dependence an individual would classified into based on their levels

of perfectionism and self-determined motivation.

The current study found that Model-1 (model with independent

variables) was underperforming in comparison to Model-0 (model with

no independent variables). In other words, self-determination and

perfectionism were found not too significantly predict an

individual’s exercise dependence group classification (p = 0.262).

In light of the results discussed above, the research hypothesis was

rejected.

Note: Due to only 1 participate populating the non-dependent

asymptomatic group; the subsequent discussion will disregard all

findings surrounding this category as no generalisations can be

drawn from such results.

46

Exercise dependence

In the current study, 7 participants (10.1%) were categorised in the

at-risk for exercise dependence group and were all found to have a

physiological dependence toward exercise (i.e. evidence of tolerance

and withdrawal). The prevalence rate found in the current study fits

in line with those found across the ED literature; Monok et al.,

(2012) 1.9%; Edmunds et al., (2006) 3.4%; Symons Downs et al. (2004)

3.6%-5%; Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia (2012) 7%; Hausenblas and Symons

Downs (2002b) 3.1%-13.4%; and Hale et al. (2010) 15.1%.

Perhaps surprising is the lack of individuals categorised as non-

dependent asymptomatic in the current population (1.4%). Previous

research has found the percentage for this group to be much higher;

7.5% in Hale et al. (2010); 11.7-69.5% in Hausenblas and Symons

Downs (2002).

The contrast in prevalence rates from the current study and the

majority of previous research is attributed to the type of activity

that has been examined in the present study. The Hausenblas and

Symons Downs, (2002b) studies focused on college athletes who

participated in a variety of activities and as noted, found a range

of at-risk prevalence rates. This adds weight to the belief that the

47

activity has a bearing on the development of ED. Gonzalez-Cutre and

Sicilia 2012) suggest the type of activity plays an important role

in the development of ED symptoms. Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia (in

press) found individuals participating in semi-directed activities

(instructor plans and supervises weight training program) and free

activities (person trains alone e.g. free weight or fitness

training) exhibited higher levels of exercise dependence compared to

people participating in directed tasks (instructor present to

monitor activity e.g. aerobics and indoor cycling) .

All participants used in the current study were participating in

either semi-directed activities (training program given to them

during their induction) or free activities (using their own weight

training program) which may explain the increase seen for

symptomatic and at-risk prevalence rates and the extremely low

population of the asymptomatic group. The main premise of

weightlifting participation is to improve ones physique and in order

to judge ones progress, comparisons are constantly made. This ego-

involving climate and an obsession with how others physiques compare

to your own are the perfect environment for exercise dependence

symptoms to thrive.

48

It was originally believed that ED symptoms would increase with age,

Hale et al. (2010) suggested the higher prevalence rate found within

their study was due to the fact that they had assessed ‘older adult

weightlifters’ as opposed to ‘college-ages lifters’ in Hausenblas

and Symons Downs (2002b). However, findings within this study

contradict such a belief as the symptomatic group was found to be

significantly older the at-risk for exercise dependence group. There

are a number of factors that are closely related to exercise

dependence; especially in weightlifters are in young lifters more

so. These include a greater drive for muscularity, higher social

physique anxiety and peer pressure. Media sources also put pressure

on young men to have an athletic, lean and muscular appearance and

for women to be slim, toned and slender (Gonzalez- Cutre and

Sicilia, 2012).

In pursuit of this ideal physique, persons exhibiting high ED

symptoms will participate in more frequent bouts of exercise and at

a greater intensity than non-dependent individuals (Hagan and

Hausenblas, 2003). It is of little surprise that individuals

identified as at-risk for exercise dependence individuals spent on

average more hours weightlifting every week than non-dependent

individuals.

Perfectionism

49

In terms of perfectionism, at-risk and symptomatic individuals were

predicted to exhibit moderate to high and asymptomatic individuals

to exhibit low to moderate perfectionism levels. These predictions

however, were only partially correct as individuals categorised as

at-risk for ED were found to score predominantly moderate to high on

perfectionism with a group mean off 86 which was higher than that of

the total participants mean of 76. A rather surprising result was

that 1 at-risk individual was was found to be low on perfectionism.

Although in terms of applying the results to the wider population

based on the fact that 1 individual scored low of perfectionism is

unjust, it offers an alternative view to that found in other

research that states that at-risk for ED individuals are

characterised by solely high levels of perfectionism. For non-

dependent symptomatic individuals, perfectionism categorisation was

split almost equally between the low, moderate and high groups;

however the symptomatic group mean was 74.93, slightly below that of

the population mean. This suggests that individuals showing symptoms

of ED may not necessarily be driven by high perfectionist tendencies

but may in fact be directed by other factors that may determine

their level of ED.

It is possible to suggest that the high number of individuals in the

symptomatic category and moderate levels of perfectionism are

50

because individuals participating in weightlifting are doing so for

a variety of different reasons (as found in the scattering across

the 5 populated groups of SD motivation). Although, everyone may

have aspirations for the ‘perfect’ physique, many people are aware

of their personal limitations so instead seek to improve their

physical and psychological well being without being overly concerned

of meeting these distorted images of the faultless body, often

portrayed.

Self-determined motivation

As Deci and Ryan (1985) outline, self-determined motivation is

measured along a continuum with 6 categories varying in self-

determinedness. Amotivation, being the least self-determined aspect

of the continuum is linked to behavioural disengagement and negative

psychological outcomes (Ryan and Deci, 2000). It was therefore

unsurprising that no participants were categorised as amotivated

from the current population. A weightlifter exhibiting amotivation

would be likely to cease participation in favour of a different

activity or give up completely. Intrinsic motivation has been linked

to persistent task engagement and improvements of one’s

psychological well-being (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Consequently it was

found that the most self-determined aspects, intrinsic motivation

(37.7%) and integrated regulation (26.1%). were the two most

51

populated categories was found to be the most populated category and

Integrated regulation. The two upper echelons of self-determined

motivation contain almost two thirds of the current population,

findings that correspond with Li’s (1999) research stating ‘more

frequent exercisers’ exhibit higher levels of intrinsic motivation

and autonomous, extrinsic motivation than ‘less frequent

exercisers’. Extrinsic regulation was found to be the lowest of the

populated SD groups (4.3%). Suggesting that participants in the

current study are generally motivated by more self-determined/

internal reasons rather than external reasons such as the

appeasement of significant others or other goals outside the

activity itself (Deci, 1971).

With relation to exercise dependence, 4 of the 7 (57.14%)

individuals categorised as at-risk for exercise dependence were

categorised in the integrated regulation SD group. Integrated

regulation details how exercise becomes an integral part of an

individual’s identity and has only been found as a positive

predictor of high ED in one study to date (Gonzalez-Cutre and

Sicilia, 2012). With this said, it seems viable to suggest the

integrated regulation could be seen as a strong positive predictor

for high ED symptoms in activities that support an ego-involving

climate, such as weightlifting. The other three individuals

52

identified as at-risk for ED were categorised into intrinsic

motivation, identified regulation and external regulation with one

in each group. The four groups mentioned above have all been found

to positively predict at-risk for ED individuals in previous

research (Hamer et al, 2002; Edmunds et al, 2006; Fortier* and

Farrell, 2009; Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia, 2012). However,

contradictory to previous research none of the individual’s

identified as at-risk for exercise dependence were categorised as

introjected regulated. Hamer et al. (2002), Edmunds et al. (2006),

Fortier and Farrell (2009) and Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia, (2012)

all found introjected regulation to significantly predict high ED

symptoms. Persons guided by introjected regulation would participate

in weightlifting because of feelings of guilt or about from not

doing so (Edmunds et al., 2006).

In a motivational sense, a belief that weightlifting is a part of

who you are as a person and the importance participating in

weightlifting has with regards to improving ones physique may play a

larger role in determining exercise behaviour. It would be unwise to

suggest that feelings of guilt from missing training sessions do not

reside within at-risk for ED and or some symptomatic individuals.

Feelings of guilt from missing a weight training session (i.e.

withdrawal) it would be easy for an individual to stop weightlifting

53

if they lost enthusiasm for the activity. With this said, it may not

seem so unexpected that 6 of the 7 at-risk individuals were

classified in the top 3 SD aspects of the continuum as intrinsic

motivation (most SD form) has been positively linked to increased

exercise behaviour (Edmunds et al., 2006)

Limitations and Future Research

There are a number of limitations and issues with the current study

that the author wishes to address. Firstly, although the sample size

for this study (N = 69) was adequate for its purpose as a research

project, the utilisation of a much larger sample would of been

greatly beneficial. It would of allowed for greater generalisability

of the findings in terms of the prevalence rates of each ED group.

It would of helped to support or refute the findings discovered in

this study that do not mirror those found in previous research such

as the low prevalence rate of the asymptomatic group. Furthermore,

if more people would have been identified within the asymptomatic

group if would of allowed this group to be included in data analysis

and the discussion sections, due to only one person being in their

group it provided the author with no viable findings.

54

Secondly, the sample used in the current study was of adequate size

for the purpose of the research project although a larger sample

would have beneficial sought after if time would have permitted.

Increasing the number of participants would have perhaps allowed for

better inter group comparisons and may have reduced the

categorisation disparity as it may have added more cases to the

asymptomatic group which would of allowed the author to use the

group during the data analysis. Previous research suggest many more

people should of been found to populate the non-dependent

asymptomatic group however, as noted earlier activities where an

ego-involving climate is apparent may differ in terms of the ratio

between the three ED groups. A larger sample size in future research

would aid the generalisability of such findings. Furthermore,

mediating factors such as hours spent weightlifting per week and age

could provide more significant findings if in fact, they have a

bearing on ED symptoms

With regards to the scoring of the FMPS*, it was unclear whether to

use a continuous or categorical scale to categorise people in terms

of perfectionism. For ease of data interpretation scale was graded

using a categorical scale with three groups (low, moderate and high

perfectionism). The groups were created using SPSS visual binning,

after the data had been interpreted. This created the groups with an

55

equal amount of people in each group for perfectionism. However, in

hindsight it may have yielded more interesting findings had these

boundaries been created prior to the data input stage. This was

however not a simple task as creating the cut points could severely

affect the results if put in the wrong place. The author of the

original scale Dr. Stöber was contacted regarding the best way to

calculate the scale however the information provided did not shed

light on this issue. Further research assessing perfectionism should

seek to address this issue as it would be beneficial for assessing

the construct in the sporting domain.

Due to nature of the current study (i.e. regression), it is not

possible to infer causality from the results. Future research should

seek to utilise a longitudinal design in order to assess whether

variables such as perfectionism and motivation are a cause or an

affect derived from ED. Longitudinal studies provide many problems

for researchers such as high dropout rates as well as time and

monetary constraints, which is why such studies are yet to

undertaken. Furthermore, studies adopting a mixed design (i.e.

qualitative and quantitative) would be beneficial to gain a better

understanding of other factors that may directly relate to ED and

with the use of qualitative research, could offer up new avenues for

researchers to test experimentally. Although the current ED research

56

has examined a variety of different populations it would be

advantageous to compare results across different sporting activities

using the same measurement scales in order to confirm or refute the

suggestions that the type of activity a person participates in can

influence the existence of ED.

In conclusion, no significant findings were discovered during this

research project. Perfectionism and self-determination were not

significant predictors of exercise dependence group classification.

This is not to say that they are not influencing factors of such a

maladaptive behaviour but suggest exercise dependence is a much more

complex phenomena as cannot be individuals cannot be categorised in

a certain group for based on their scores of perfectionism and self-

determined motivation and even for the at-risk group, individual

varied between all 3 groups of perfectionism and 4 groups of self-

determined motivation

This study has found higher prevalence rates for the at-risk group

than in all but one study and the highest population rate for the

symptomatic group of any study that has utilised the EDS as a

measurement tool. These findings may be influenced by both the type

of activity (i.e. weightlifting) and the fact that all participants

in the current study were participating in semi-directed or free

57

activities that have little or no supervision, which have been

synonymous of higher levels of ED (Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia, in

Press). The use of personal trainers could benefit both the

symptomatic and at-risk for ED groups as it would allow them to

restructure their exercise programs and regain control over the

amount of time, the intensity and frequency they lift weights lift,

as these are key areas that are characteristic of an individual

exhibiting exercise dependence symptoms. Furthermore, personal

trainer input would allow for people to participate in directed

activities (as opposed to their current semi-directed and/of free

activities) which have been linked to lower levels of ED symptoms

(Gonzalez-Cutre and Sicilia, in Press).

References

Allegre, B., Therme, P., and Griffiths, M. D. (2007) ‘Individualfactors and the context of physical activity in exercise dependence:A prospective study of “ultra-marathoners”’ International Journal of MentalHealth and Addiction 5, 233–243

American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and statistical manual ofmental disorders (4th ed). Washington, DC: American PsychiatricAssociation

Bamber, D. J., Cockerill, I., and Carroll, D. (2000) ‘Thepsychological status of exercise dependence’. British Journal of SportsMedicine 34, 125–132

Biddle, J. H., and Mutrie, N. (2001) Psychology of physical activity:Determinants, well-being and interventions. London & New York: Routledge

Blatt, S. J. (1995). ‘The destructiveness of perfectionism:Implications for the treatment of depression’. American Psychologist 50,1003–1020

58

Brene, S., Bjornebekk, A., Aberg, E., Mathe, A. A., Olson, L., andWerme, M. (2007) ‘Running is rewarding and antidepressive’ Physiologyand Behavior 92, 136–140

Carron, A.V., Hausenblas, A.H., and Estabrooks, P.A. (2003) ThePsychology of Physical Activity. McGraw-Hill, New York

Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., and Hagger, M. S. (2007) ‘Mindfulness andthe Intention-Behavior Relationship Within the Theory of PlannedBehavior’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 33, 663 -676

Coen, S. P., and Ogles, B. M. (1993) ‘Psychological characteristicsof the obligatory runner: a critical examination of the anorexiaanalogue hypothesis’. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 15, 338–354

Cresswell, S. L., and Eklund, R. C. (2003) ‘The athlete burnoutsyndrome: A practitioner’s guide’ New Zealand Journal of Sports Medicine 31,4–9.

Cumella, E. J. (2005) ‘The heavy weight of exercise addiction’Behavioral Health Management 25/ 26 (31) *

Deci, E. L. (1971) ‘Effects of externally mediated rewards onintrinsic motivation’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology18, 105-115

Deci, E.L., and Ryan, R.M. (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination inhuman behavior New York, NY: Plenum Press

Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000) ‘The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ ofgoal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior’Psychological Inquiry 11, 227–268

de Coverley Veale, D. M. W. (1995) ‘Does primary exercise dependencereally exist?’ in Exercise addiction: motivation for participation in sport andexercise. ed. by Annett, J., Cripps, B., and Steinberg, H. Leicester,UK: British Psychological Society, 1-5

De Vries, H. A. (1981) ‘Tranquilizer effect of exercise: A criticalreview’ The Physician and Sports Medicine 9(11), 47–53

DiBartolo, P.M., Frost, R.O., Chang, P., LaSota, M., and Grills,A.E. (2004) ‘Shedding light on the relationship between personalstandards and psychopathology: The Case of contingent self-worth’.Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy 22, 241-254

59

Downs, D. S., Hausenblas, H. A., and Nigg, C. R. (2004) ‘Factorialvalidity and psychometric examination of the exercise dependencescale-revised’ Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 8(4), 183–201

Duncan, L. R., Hall. C. R., Wilson, P. M., Jenny, O. (2010)‘Exercise motivation: a cross-sectional analysis examining itsrelationships with frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise’International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7 (7), 1-9

Dunn, J.G.H., Causgrove Dunn, J., and Syrotuik, D. G. (2002)‘Relationship between Multidimensional Perfectionism and GoalOrientations in Sport’. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 24, 376-395

Edmunds, J. K., Ntoumanis, N., and Duda, J. L. (2006) ‘A test ofself-determination theory in the exercise domain’. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology 36, 2240–2265

Fortier, M. S., and Farrell, R. J. (2009) ‘Comparing self-determination and body image between excessive and healthyexercisers’ Hellenic Journal of Psychology 6, 223-243

Frost, R. O., Marten, P. A., Lahart, C., and Rosenblate, R. (1990)‘The dimensions of perfectionism’. Cognitive Therapy and Research 14, 449–478

Garner, D. M. (1991) Eating Disorder Inventory--2 manual. Odessa, FL:Psychological Assessment Resources

Gaudreau, P., and Antl, S. (2008) ‘Athletes’ broad dimensions ofdispositional perfectionism: examining changes in life satisfactionand the mediating role of sport-related motivation and coping’.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology 30, 356-382

Glasser, W. (1976) Positive Addiction. New York, Harper & Row

Godin, G., Jobin, J., and Bouillon, J. (1986) ‘Assessment of leisuretime exercise behavior by self-report: A concurrent validity study’Canadian Journal of Public Health 77, 359-361

Goodman, A. (1990) ‘Addiction: Definition and implications’ BritishJournal of Addiction 85 (11), 1403–1408

Hachon, T. A., (2010) ‘The relations between perfectionism andachievement goals’ Personality and Individual differences 49, 885-890

60

Hagan, A. L., and Hausenblas, H. A., (2003) ‘’The relationshipbetween exercise dependence and perfectionism’ American Journal of HealthStudies 18, 133–137.

Hale, B. D., Roth, A. D., DeLong, R. E. and Briggs, M. S. (2010)‘Exercise dependence and the drive for muscularity in malebodybuilders, power lifters and fitness lifters’ Body Image 7, 234–239

Hall, H. K., Kerr, A. W., Kozub, S. A., and Finnie, S. B. (2007)‘Motivational antecedents of obligatory exercise: The influence ofachievement goals and perfectionism’. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8(3), 297-316

Hamer, M., Karageorghis, C. I., and Vlachopoulos, S. P. (2002) ‘Motives of exercise participation as predictors of exercise dependence among endurance athletes’ Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 42, 233–238

Hamer, M., and Karageorghis, C. I. (2007) ‘Psychobiologicalmechanisms of exercise dependence’ Sports Medicine 37 (6), 477–484

Hausenblas, H. A., and Symons Downs, D. (2002a) ‘Exercisedependence: A systematic review’. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 3, 89–123

Hausenblas, H. A., and Symons Downs, D. (2002b) ‘How much is toomuch? The development and validation of the Exercise DependenceScale’. Psychology and Health: An International Journal 17,387–404

Hausenblas, H., and Giacobbi, P. (2004) ‘Relationship betweenexercise dependent symptoms and personality’. Personality and IndividualDifferences 36, 1265–1273

Hurst, R., Hale, B., Smith, D., and Collins, D. (2000) ‘Exercisedependence, social physique anxiety, and social support inexperienced and inexperienced bodybuilders and weightlifters’ BritishJournal of Sports Medicine 34 (6), 431–435

Lemyre, P. N., Hall, H. K., and Roberts, G. C. (2008) ‘A socialcognitive approach to burnout in elite athletes’. Scandinavian Journal ofMedicine & Science in Sports 18, 221-234.

61

Li, F. (1999) ‘The exercise motivation scale: Its multifacetedstructure and construct validity’. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology 11,97-115

Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., and Rose, E. A. (2008) ‘The develpoment ofthe behavioral regulation in sport questionnaire (BRSQ): instrumentdevelopment and initial validity evidence’. Journal of Sport & ExercisePsychology 30, 323-355

Lonsdale, C., Hodge, K., and Rose, E. (2009) ‘Athlete burnout inelite sport: A self-determinationPerspective’ Journal of Sports Sciences 27, 785–795

Mallett, C., Kawabata, M., Newcomebe, P., Otero-Forero, A., andJackson, S. (2007) ‘Sport motivation scale-6 (SMS-6): A revised six-factor sport motivation scale’. Psychology of Sport and Exercise 8, 600–614

McArdle, S., and Duda, J. L. (2004) ‘Exploring social-contextualcorrelates of perfectionism in adolescents: a multivariateperfectionism’. Cognitive Therapy and Research 28, 765-788

Mullan, E., Markland, D., and Ingledew, D. K. (1997) ‘A gradedconceptualization of self-determination in the regulation ofexercise behaviour: Development of a measure using confirmatoryfactor analytic procedures’ Personality and Individual Differences 23, 745 – 752

Monok, K., Berczik, K., Urban, R., Szabo, A., Griffiths, M. D.,Farkas, J., Magi, A. Eisinger, A., Kurimay, T., Kokonye, G., Kun,B., Paksi and Demetrovics, Z. (2012) ‘ Psychometric properties andconcurrent validity of two exercise addiction measures: A populationwide study’ Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 1-8

Ogles,B. M., Masters, K. S., and Richardson,S. A. (1995) ‘Obligatoryrunning and gender: An analysis of participation motives andtraining habits’. International Journal of Sports Psychology 26, 233–248

Ommundsen, Roberts, Lemyre, and Miller (2005) ‘Peer relationships inadolescent competitive soccer: Associations to perceivedmotivational climate, achievement goals and perfectionism’. Journal ofSports Sciences 23, 977–989.

Pargman, D., and Baker. M. C., (1980) ‘Running high: Enkephalin indicted’. Journal of Drug Issues 10, 341-349

62

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., Tuson, K. M.,Brie` re, N. M., and Blais, M. R. (1995) ‘Toward a new measure ofintrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation insports: The sport motivation scale (SMS)’. Journal of Sport and ExercisePsychology 17, 35–53

Perreault, S., Gaudreau, P., Lapointe, M.-C., and Lacroix, C. (2007)‘Does it take three to tango? Psychological need satisfaction andathlete burnout’ International Journal of Sport Psychology 38, 437–450

Raedeke, T. D. (1997) ‘Is athlete burnout more than just stress? Asport commitment perspective’ Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19,396–417.

Reeve, J. (2002) ‘Self-determination theory applied to educational settings’. in Handbook of self-determination research. ed. by Deci, E. L., and Ryan., R. M. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 183–203

Rudy, E.B., and Estok, P.J. (1989) ‘Measurement and significance ofnegative addiction in runners’ Western Journal of Nursing Research 5, 325–336

Ryan, R. M., and Frederick, C. M. (1997) ‘On energy, personality,and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection ofwellbeing’ Journal of Personality 65, 529–565

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E.L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory andthe facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, andwell-being’ American Psychologist 55, 68-78

Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2002) ‘An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective’. inHandbook of self-determination research. ed. by Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M.Rochester, NY: University of Rochester, 3-33

Smith, D. K., Hale, B. D., and Collins, D. J. (1998) ‘Measurement ofexercise dependence in bodybuilders’ Journal of Sport Medicine and PhysicalFitness 38, 66–74

Smits, J. A. J., Berry, A. C., Rosenfield, D., Powers, M. B., Behar,and Otto, M. W. (2008) ‘Reducing anxiety sensitivity with exercise’Depression and Anxiety 25, 689–699

63

Spano, L. (2001) ‘The relationship between exercise and anxiety,obsessive-compulsiveness, and narcissism’ Personality and IndividualDifferences 30, 87-93

Stöber, J. (1998) ‘The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scalerevisited: More perfect with four (instead of six) dimensions’.Personality and Individual Differences 24, 481-491

Stöber, J., and Otto, K. (2006) ‘Positive conceptions ofperfectionism: Approaches, evidence, challenges’. Personality and SocialPsychology Review 10, 295-319

Stöber, J., and Rambow, A. (2007) ‘Perfectionism in adolescentschool students: relations with motivation, achievement, and well-being’. Personality and Individual Differences 42, 1379-1389

Stöber, J., Feast, A. F., and Hayward, J. A. (2009) ‘Self-orientatedand socially prescribed perfectionism: Differential relationshipswith intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and test anxiety’ Personalityand Individual Differences 47, 425-428

Stoll, O., Lau, A., and Stöber, J. (2008) ‘Perfectionism andperformance in a new basketball training task: does striving forperfection enhance or undermine performance?’. Psychology of Sport andExercise 9, 620-629

Symons Downs, D., Hausenblas, H., and Nigg, C. (2004) ‘Factorialvalidity and psychometric examination of the exercise dependencescale—revised’. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 84 (4),183–201

Szabo, A. (1995) ‘The impact of exercise deprivation on wellbeing ofhabitual exercisers’. Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 27, 68–75

Szabo, A., Frenkl, R., and Caputo, A. (1997) ‘Relationships betweenaddiction to running, commitment to running and deprivation fromrunning: A study on the internet’. in European Yearbook of SportPsychology . ed. Seiler, R. Augustin: FEPSAC . 130-147

Szabo, A. (2010) Addiction to exercise: A symptom or a disorder? New York, NY:Nova Science Publishers

64

Thaxton, L. (1982) ‘Physiological and psychological effects ofshort-term exercise addiction on habitual runners’ Journal of SportPsychology 4, 73-80

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). 2008 physicalactivity guidelines for Americans. Downloaded from.http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf (09-06-2012).

Warburton D. E. R., Nicol, C.W., and Bredin, S. S. D. (2006) ‘Healthbenefits of physical activity: The evidence’ Canadian Medical AssociationJournal 174(6), 801–809

Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Fraser, S. N., and Murray, T. C.(2004) ‘Relationships between exercise regulations and motivationalconsequences in university students’. Research Quarterly for Exercise andSport 75(1), 81-91

Yates, A., Leehey, K., and Shisslak, C. M. (1983) ‘Running – ananalogue of anorexia?’ New England Journal of Medicine 308 (5), 251–255

Appendix 1: Ethics Review Feedback Form REGISTRY RESEARCH UNIT

Name of applicant: Luke Wilkin.......

Faculty/School/Department: [Health and Life Sciences] HLS Psychology

Research project title: THE IMPACT OF SELF-DETERMINED MOTIVATION AND PERFECTIONISM ON EXERCISE DEPENDENCE IN EXPERIENCED MALE ADULT WEIGHTLIFTERS

65

Comments by the reviewer

1. Evaluation of the ethics of the proposal:

Good proposal

2. Evaluation of the participant information sheet and consent form:

Please check grammar on PIS and debrief e.g.

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between exercise dependence, perfectionism and motivation. Specifically,to assess whether a person’s levels of perfectionism and self-determined motivation could predict exercise dependence group classification

Change grammatical error in PIS and debriefProvide relevant helpline and/or website for exercise dependenceon debrief formSubject to gatekeeper permission being gained.No need to resubmit - supervisor can sign off to say conditions have been met.

3. Recommendation:(Please indicate as appropriate and advise on any conditions. If there any conditions, the applicant will be required to resubmit his/her application and this will be sent to the same reviewer).

Approved - no conditions attached

X Approved with minor conditions (no need to re-submit)

Conditional upon the following – please use additional sheets if necessary (please re-submit application)

Rejected for the following reason(s) – please use other sideif necessary

Not required

66

Name of reviewer: Anonymous..................................

Date: 19/12/2011.............................................

Appendix 2: Gate Keeper Approval Letter

Luke, Sorry I have not responded to your request. I am nervous about letting you approach members, as I am not keen to disturb them whilst training and give them any reason to reconsider their membership, If I'm honest as well I cannotsee how this research would benefit Trilogy. However I am prepared to support you where I can. For Trilogy to allow you to proceed with this research you would need to confirm that it would take no longer than a week(& confirm dates), I would also stipulate that the research was completed only week days between 6.45am - 4.30pm and weekends, ensuring that you avoided the peak gym hours in the evening. Unfortunately Trilogy could not support you advertising the research, simply because we have limited advertising space & too much to advertise already - I would ask that you promoted the questionnaire verbally yourself when conducting the research. Also I would advise that if you did not stick to the above stipulations, or if there was any complaint or negative comments from members, I would have to ask you to stop the research. I apologise if I sound restrictive, but I need to put the interest of the members first. Please confirm a date you would like to work to. When you start you will need to speak with the Duty Manager and Gym Instructor on every visit and confirm you are in the building and what you are doing.

67

 If you have any questions please come back to me.

John FletcherBusiness Development Manager07766 725 823www.nleisure.co.uk 

Appendix 3: Informed Consent Form

THE IMPACT OF SELF-DETERMINED MOTIVATION AND PERFECTIONISM ONEXERCISE DEPENDENCE IN EXPERIENCED MALE ADULT WEIGHTLIFTERS

Regular exercise can lead to a variety of physical andpsychological benefits. However, an over-reliance on exercisecan lead to a loss of these benefits and to the development ofnegative health effects. It is therefore important to look atvariables that can influence the likelihood of ahealthy/regular exercise, who reaps the health benefits fromexercise, becoming an individual who is exercise dependent andis exposed to the negative psycho-somatic problems associatedwith excessive exercising.

Please initial

1. I confirm that I have read and understood the participant information sheet (insert version number) for the above study and have had the opportunity to ask questions

68

Participant

2. I understand that my participation is voluntary andthat I am free to withdraw at anytime without giving areason

3. I understand that all the information I provide will be treated in confidence

4. I understand that I also have the right to change my mind about participating in the study for a short period after the study has concluded (insert deadline here)

5. I agree to take part in the research project

Participant: Name Signature

Date

Researcher: Name Signature

Date

Demographic Questions

Age:

Sex:

Average number of hours spent weightlifting per week(last 3 months):

Appendix 4: Exercise Dependence Scale-21 (Hausenblas and Symons Downs, 2002)

69

Using the scale provided below, please complete the following questions ashonestly as possible. The questions refer to current exercise beliefs andbehaviours that have occurred in the past 3 months. Please place your

answer in the blank space provided after each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 6 Never Sometimes Always

1. I exercise to avoid feeling irritable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. I exercise despite recurring physical problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6

3. I continually increase my exercise intensity to achievethe desired effects/benefits. 1 2 3 4 5 6

4. I am unable to reduce how long I exercise. 1 2 3 4 5 6

5. I would rather exercise than spend time with family/friends.1 2 3 4 5 6

6. I spend a lot of time exercising. 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. I exercise longer than I intend. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8. I exercise to avoid feeling anxious. 1 2 3 4 5 6

9. I exercise when injured. 1 2 3 4 5 6

10. I continually increase my exercise frequency to achieve the desired effects/benefits. 1 2 3 4 5 6

11. I am unable to reduce how often I exercise. 1 2 3 4 5 6

12. I think about exercise when I should be concentrating onschool/work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

70

StronglyagreeAgreeDisagr

ee

13. I spend most of my free time exercising. 1 2 3 4 5 6

14. I exercise longer than I expect. 1 2 3 4 5 6

15. I exercise to avoid feeling tense. 1 2 3 4 5 6

16. I exercise despite persistent physical problems.1 2 3 4 5 6

17. I continually increase my exercise duration to achieve thedesired effects/benefits. 1 2 3 4 5 6

18. I am unable to reduce how intense I exercise. 1 2 3 4 5 6

19. I choose to exercise so that I can get out of spending time with family/friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6

20. A great deal of my time is spent exercising. 1 2 3 4 5 6

21. I exercise longer than I plan. 1 23 4 5 6Appendix 5: The Frost Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (FMPS)

Stöber (1998)

Please select which best reflects your opinion using the ratingscale below.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. If I fail at work/school, I am a failure as a person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I should be upset if I make a mistake. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

71

AgreeSomewhat

Disagreesomewhat

Stronglydisagree

Undecide

3. I expect higher performance in my daily tasks than most people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Even when I do something very carefully, I often feel that it is notquite right. 1 23 4 5 6 7

5. If someone does a task at work/school better than I, then I feel like

I failed the whole task. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. It is important to me that I am thoroughly competent in everything

I do. 1 2 34 5 6 7

.7. If I fail partly, it is as bad as being a complete failure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. If I do not set the highest standards for myself, I am likely to endup a second-rate person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. It takes me a long time to do something "right." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I hate being less than the best at things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. I set higher goals than most people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. People will probably think less of me if I make a mistake. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. I have extremely high goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. If I do not as well as other people, it means I am an inferior humanbeing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

72

15. I tend to get behind in my work because I repeat things overand over. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. I am very good at focusing my efforts on attaining a goal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. If I do not do well all the time, people will not respectme. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. Other people seem to accept lower standards than I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. The fewer mistakes I make, the more people will like me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. I usually have doubts about the simple everyday things I do. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Appendix 6: Sport Motivation Scale-6Mallett, Kawabata, Newcombe, Otero-Foreroand Jackson, (2007)

Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent each ofthe following items corresponds to one of the reasons for

which you are presently practising your sport.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Why do you practice your sport?

1. For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. Because it’s part of the way in which I’ve chosen to live my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. Because it is a good way to learn lots of things which could be usefulto me in other areas of my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. Because it allows me to be well regarded by people that I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

73

Does notCorrespondat all

Corresponds

Corresponds

Corresponds

Corresponds

5. I don’t know anymore; I have the impression of being incapable ofsucceeding in this sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. Because I feel a lot of personal satisfaction while mastering certaindifficult training techniques 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. Because it is absolutely necessary to do sports if one wants to be inShape 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Because it is one of the best ways I have chosen to develop otheraspects of my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. Because it is an extension of me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Because I must do sports to feel good about myself 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

11. For the prestige of being an athlete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. I don’t know if I want to continue to invest my time and effort asmuch in my sport anymore 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

13. Because participation in my sport is consistent with my deepestPrinciples 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

14. For the satisfaction I experience while I am perfecting my abilities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. Because it is one of the best ways to maintain good relationshipswith my friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. Because I would feel bad if I was not taking time to do it1 2 3 4 5 6 7

74

17. It is not clear to me anymore; I don’t really think my place is in sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. For the pleasure of discovering new performance strategies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. For the material and/or social benefits of being an athlete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. Because training hard will improve my performance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

21. Because participation in my sport is an integral part of my life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. I don’t seem to be enjoying my sport as much as I previously did 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. Because I must do sports regularly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. To show others how good I am at my sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

75

Abstract There is nothing for me to comment in your abstract as there isn’t one (it should be relatively brief about why you explored this topicwhat you’ve done (results) and why this is important). The acknowledgements section is optional. You have contents page, I would make the introduction more concise and expand on the lit review in the table of contents so that it includes some of the information you’ve put in the introduction when you talk about exercise dependence, personality and so on.), similar to the way you’ve done it with Methodology.

Introduction

A nice opening paragraph. I would recommend using other subheadings in this section, which capture the content that follows and will addclarity – I make some suggestions in due course. Your introduction is a bit too long and it contains information that should go to the lit review part (example p. 5 line 19-24 when you talk about what groups individuals can be attributed to. This isn’t needed in the introduction but rather in the lit review section under a subheadingof exercise dependence) to give it more clarity. The whole section of what the lit review will do is not needed at all (p. 6 lines 25 –30).

When you start the sentence with ‘As noted earlier, p.6 line 31) yourefer to all the information you have included in the introduction. This information should be just here followed by what the rest of lit review on ED. You describe in details Hagan & Hausenblas (2003) study when all you need is their results and a link to what you wantto do. You also provide a lot of information of what kind of scales have been developed which is unnecessary as your research is not on developing yet another scale but on predictors of ED. Very similar when you describe Hurst et al research and Hale et al research– all

76

this details is not needed just the results and a link to why their results are important to what you want to measure.

Once you finish describing ED you can make a subheading for personality and talk about the traits (so take some of the information from your introduction and put it in here followed by what you have on p. 9 line 9 - perfectionism). Again similar thing with Hausenblas and Symons Downs (2002b) research as commented above. Once you finish with perfectionism you make another subheading on motivation (these are just a suggestions – the call isyour of course).

When you talk about the aims of the study, as well as throughout thedifferent part of the whole document you need to be consistent with the tense you are using (example p. 12 line 26 – 31). When you talkabout hypothesis you can’t state whether something will be successful or not. You can though elaborate on this in the sense that according to the literature this is what you expect.

Method You need to include: Design – whether it’s qualitative or quantitative to start with. Then you can talk about the analysis youdid and your variables – you say that ‘Due to the nature of the research project an alpha level was set at .05.’ – I think you mean the significance level? It’s usually set at this level so you don’thave to include an explanation for that.. Participants (you don’t need to specify which leisure centre the participants came from, theinclusion criteria should be in your procedure section), Materials used/measures – (this is fine but you need to add Cronbach alpha foreach of the scale), Procedure talk about it the way so it enable exact replication of the ‘testing procedure’ and not necessarily your ‘ethics procedure’. In fact, the only ethics document you ‘must’ include and refer to is the one from the committee (Appendix).

Results All the information you’ve put on p. 16 should be put in the tables and then described and interpreted below the tables. At this moment I’m not sure what I am looking at as some of the information you’ve put there is duplicated.

Discussion

Obviously you need to write this part.

General Comments

Just check that the format of your dissertation is entirely in accordance with the guidelines in the Module Guide on the M48PY Module Web. In this guide, there is also useful information on otherissues that you should take a look at prior to final submission e.g.what to include in a title page. There are some punctuation and paragraphing errors and sometimes a lack of clarity – read your dissertation carefully and make any necessary changes. I have not checked all references in depth, but even at a glance I have noticed

77

some errors – make sure you follow ‘Harvard style’ throughout.

Appendix 7: Dissertation Draft Feedback Sheet. Student Name: LW

78