محتویات هدف، انگیزش، رضایت نیاز روانی، رفاه و فعالیت بدنی: آزمون نظریه حق تعیین سرنوشت بیش از 6 ماه

Abstract Objectives This investigation examined how Goal Contents Theory, Organismic Integration Theory, and Basic Psychological Needs Theory collectively explain well-being and behavioral outcomes related to physical activity over 6 months. Specifically we examined a model whereby changes in relative intrinsic goal contents → changes in motivation → changes in psychological need satisfaction → well-being and physical activity. Methods and design Participants were 203 adults from the general population (68.00% female; Mage = 32.57 years, SD = 15.73). Two identical questionnaire packages containing assessments of goal contents, motivational regulations, basic psychological need satisfaction, indicators of well-being and physical activity behavior, separated by six months were given to participants. Residualized change scores were analyzed with path analysis. Results Results supported the hypothesized sequence of SDT. Changes in psychological need satisfaction mediated the relationship between changes in autonomous motivation and well-being. A more complex pattern of results emerged for the indirect effects of motivation and psychological need satisfaction between relative intrinsic goals → well-being. Changes in competence satisfaction mediated the relationship between autonomous motivation and physical activity behavior. Moreover, changes in autonomous motivation through competence satisfaction mediated the relationship between relative intrinsic goals and physical activity. Conclusions Findings support a model based on 3 mini-theories of SDT and suggest that psychological need fulfillment during physical activity could be a key mechanism that facilitates increased well-being and behavior. Findings also highlight the importance of examining competence, autonomy, and relatedness independently (rather than as a composite).

Introduction With mounting evidence supporting the link between physical activity and well-being (Fox, 1999), researchers have now turned their attention towards understanding the mechanisms that facilitate participation in physical activity and increased well-being (e.g., Sebire et al., 2009 and Sebire et al., 2011). Based on results of their meta-analysis, Ng et al. (2012) suggest that Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2002) holds promise for understanding health behaviors and motivational processes related to well-being and health outcomes. SDT is a macro-level framework consisting of 5 mini theories that explain select aspects of human motivation, behavior, and personal well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2002; Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). While the majority of researchers using SDT to study physical activity have focused almost exclusively on Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) and/or Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), emerging research has examined the utility of a third mini-theory in physical activity settings, namely Goal Contents Theory (GCT; Sebire et al., 2009 and Sebire et al., 2011). The purpose of this investigation is to test a model using 3 of SDT's mini-theories. More specifically, GCT, OIT, and BPNT were used to understand if changes in relative intrinsic goals → changes in motivation → changes in psychological need satisfaction → changes in well-being and physical activity behavior. Indirect effects through motivation and psychological need satisfaction were also examined. Basic psychological needs theory Within BPNT, Ryan and Deci (2002) postulate that humans have three fundamental psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness that when fulfilled, lead to increased well-being. Competence is characterized by feelings of effectiveness while engaging in optimally challenging tasks (Ryan & Deci). Autonomy is characterized by feelings of personal agency and volition (or self-governance), and relatedness is characterized by feelings of a meaningful connection or belonging with important others (Ryan & Deci). Finally, Deci and Ryan (2011) hypothesize that psychological need satisfaction predicts behavioral engagement because their satisfaction provides energy and direction to continue engaging in the behavior. Using BPNT, researchers (Adie et al., 2012, Gunnell et al., 2011, Mack et al., 2012, Reinboth and Duda, 2006 and Sylvester et al., 2012) have demonstrated that psychological need satisfaction links with well-being outcomes in physical activity contexts in a manner largely consistent with Deci and Ryan's (2002) contentions. Organismic integration theory Ryan and Deci (2002) theorize that motivation ranges along a continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation. Motivation can be classified as autonomous or controlled based on the degree of self-determination that is present. Controlled motivation reflects motivation that is less self-determined in nature and consists of External regulation (i.e., activities controlled by external prompts or cues to action) and Introjected regulation (i.e., activities controlled by self-imposed contingencies or intrapsychic pressure). Autonomous motivation is more self-determined than controlled motivation and is comprised of the following regulations: (a) Identified (i.e., activity is personally valued), (b) Integrated (i.e., activities assimilated with self), and (c) Intrinsic (i.e., activity that is engaged in for no separable consequences other than behavioral engagement itself). To the extent that the behavior is regulated by autonomous motivation, the individual will experience optimal outcomes such as persistent behavior, health, and well-being ( Deci & Ryan, 2000). Psychological needs are differentiated from motivational regulations because they represent a universal and innate requirement, rather than a desire ( Ryan & Deci, 2002). Researchers using OIT have demonstrated that more self-determined motivational regulations are positively associated with physical activity ( McDonough and Crocker, 2007, Wilson et al., 2004 and Wilson et al., 2012), well-being ( McDonough & Crocker, 2007), and psychological need satisfaction ( McDonough and Crocker, 2007 and Wilson and Rogers, 2008). Goal contents theory GCT was developed to understand how the content of a goal can lead to differential outcomes affecting well-being and behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In an effort to differentiate goal contents from motivational regulations proposed within OIT, Deci and Ryan (2000) proposed that a goal focuses on ‘what’ a person is expecting to obtain as a function of behavioral participation (e.g., I exercise to improve my health) whereas a motivational regulation focuses on the reason ‘why’ a person undertakes the behavior (e.g., because my doctor told me to). Intrinsic goal contents such as for health and personal growth are more likely to lead an individual to satisfy psychological needs ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Vansteenkiste et al., 2010). Conversely, extrinsic goal contents such as image and recognition are pursued for external contingencies such as self-worth, and are less likely to lead to psychological need fulfillment ( Deci & Ryan, 2000). The content of goals is also important for predicting behavior and well-being; with intrinsic goal contents being associated with positive outcomes such as self-determined motivation ( Gillison et al., 2006, Ingledew and Markland, 2009 and Sebire et al., 2011), psychological need fulfillment ( Sebire et al., 2009 and Thøgersen-Ntoumani et al., 2010), well-being ( Gillison et al., 2006 and Sebire et al., 2009), and exercise ( Sebire et al., 2011). Putting the mini-theories together: justification for the research Although support for SDT's mini-theories has been found in physical activity contexts, evidence is limited based on the use of only 1 or 2 mini-theories being considered simultaneously (Gillison et al., 2006 and Sebire et al., 2011). Examining each mini-theory independently precludes conclusions regarding how all variables combine together to produce effects on well-being and behavior. Therefore, the justification for this research is threefold. First, Ingledew and Markland (2008) articulated an argument for the role that goal contents have on facilitating either autonomous or controlled motivation, and in turn, the differential impact these constructs have on behavior and cognitive outcomes. With the accumulation of evidence supporting the sequence of goal contents → motivation → well-being and behavior (Gillison et al., 2006, Ingledew and Markland, 2009 and Sebire et al., 2009), Sebire et al. (2011) called for researchers to directly examine psychological need satisfaction within the complex model of SDT rather than assume their role (Ingledew & Markland, 2009). Although Sebire et al. (2009) found that psychological need satisfaction serves as a mediator between relative intrinsic goals and well-being outcomes, motivation was not included in the model. Moreover, Sebire et al.'s (2009) examined a composite need satisfaction variable despite the hypothesized unique contribution of each psychological need (Deci & Ryan, 2000). This investigation extends previous research because it will systematically examine where psychological need satisfaction fits as an explanatory process within the framework of SDT. A second justification for the study is that researchers examining BPNT and OIT have typically examined a sequence in which psychological need satisfaction predicts motivation. Yet, to date, we are unaware of published research that has examined motivation as a potential antecedent to psychological need satisfaction. Using SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2002), and based on contentions outlined by Vallerand (1997) in the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation, several investigators have tested a model whereby motivational regulations mediate the relationship between psychological needs and behavioral or affective outcomes (Edmunds et al., 2006, McDonough and Crocker, 2007, Milyavskaya and Koestner, 2011 and Ng et al., 2012). Across multiple domains, Milyavskaya and Koestner (2011) found only partial support for the mediating role of motivational regulations and these authors acknowledged that psychological need satisfaction may not require a mechanism to increase well-being. This speculation was consistent with assertions made by Deci and Ryan (2000) who stated that “fluctuations in need fulfillment will directly predict fluctuations in well-being” (p. 243). Specifying psychological needs as an antecedent of motivational regulations (e.g., Ng et al., 2012) implies that psychological needs have an indirect relationship with well-being outcomes, a hypothesis that is consistent with the internalization component of OIT, yet not wholly consistent with BPNT. As such, the current investigation will test a model wherein motivation precedes psychological need satisfaction. A third justification for the present research is that the bulk of SDT based investigations have been cross-sectional in design (Teixeira, Carraça, Markland, Silva, & Ryan, 2012). Although cross-sectional research is important, it represents at best a snap shot of the hypothesized dynamic processes linking various constructs embedded in SDT's nomological network (Deci & Ryan, 2002). A central tenet of SDT is that humans are active and growth oriented, with integration representing a dynamic process facilitated or forestalled by psychological need satisfaction or thwarting (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Because goals and motivation are hypothesized to change based on opportunities for psychological need satisfaction (or thwarting), an important avenue for research is to examine the impact of change in constructs embedded within SDT. Examining patterns of change contributes to the extant SDT literature because it will provide evidence of how changes in certain variables (e.g., psychological need satisfaction) effect changes in other variables (e.g., well-being). If evidence is found to support the sequence of SDT based on the 3 mini-theories tested herein, then researchers will gain insight into how changing one variable may precipitate changes in another key set of processes (or variables) set forth by Deci and Ryan (2002) within the SDT framework. Research question and hypothesis The purpose of this study was to examine a model based on SDT wherein changes in relative intrinsic goal contents → changes in motivation → changes in psychological need satisfaction → changes in well-being/physical activity behavior. Second, indirect effects through motivation and psychological need satisfaction were examined. Based on SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and previous research (Ingledew and Markland, 2009, Sebire et al., 2009 and Sebire et al., 2011), the following 5 hypotheses were forwarded: H1: Increases in relative intrinsic goal contents will positively predict changes in autonomous motivation and negatively predict changes in controlled motivation. H2: Increases in autonomous motivation will positively predict changes in psychological need satisfaction, whereas increases in controlled motivation will negatively predict changes in psychological need satisfaction. H3: Increases in psychological need fulfillment will predict increases well-being and physical activity. H4: Increases in psychological need fulfillment will (a) positively mediate the relationship between changes in autonomous motivation and well-being/physical activity, and (b) positively mediate the relationships between changes in relative intrinsic goal contents and well-being/physical activity through autonomous motivation. H5: Decreases in psychological need fulfillment will (a) negatively mediate the relationship between changes in controlled motivation and well-being/physical activity, and (b) negatively mediate the relationships between changes in relative intrinsic goal contents and well-being/physical activity through controlled motivation. Finally, because psychological need satisfaction fosters internalization (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and researchers have modeled and found support for satisfying psychological needs as antecedents to motivational regulations (McDonough and Crocker, 2007 and Wilson and Rogers, 2008), an alternative model was tested in which changes in relative intrinsic goal contents → psychological need satisfaction → motivation → well-being/physical activity behavior. The purpose of testing an alternative model was twofold: first, alternative model testing is an important step in theory testing (Kline, 2010) that helps circumvent confirmation bias (MacCallum & Austin, 2000). Second, as both models are theoretically plausible (Deci and Ryan, 2000 and Vallerand, 1997) it is important to test which model provides the best account of the data.

Conclusion This study examined a sequence of SDT in which changes in relative intrinsic goals → changes in motivation → changes in psychological need satisfaction → changes well-being and physical activity. Furthermore, a number of specific indirect effects were uncovered between changes in relative intrinsic goals → well-being and physical activity and between changes in autonomous motivation → well-being and physical activity. Taken together, results from this investigation point to various components of the SDT sequence that could be targeted in an effort to increase well-being and physical activity behavior. Health specialists attempting to increase physical activity should encourage intrinsic relative to extrinsic physical activity goals, encourage autonomous motivation and encourage individuals to engage in activity that makes them feel optimally challenged