Effects of An Intervention Based On Self-Determination Theory On Self-Reported Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/41579292
Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-

reported leisure-time physical activity participation
Article in Psychology and Health · January 2009

DOI: 10.1080/08870440701809533 · Source: PubMed
CITATIONS READS
428 6,791
2 authors:
Nikos L D Chatzisarantis Martin Hagger

Curtin University University of California, Merced
190 PUBLICATIONS 15,119 CITATIONS 576 PUBLICATIONS 24,971 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Floodwaters and Drowning View project
Developing an integrated model of young people's condom use in sub-Saharan Africa. View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Hagger on 04 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Planned behaviour and self-determination theory 1
1 Running head: PLANNED BEHAVIOUR AND SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
5 Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour:
6 A meta-analysis
9 Martin S. Hagger
10 University of Nottingham
11 Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis
12 National Institute of Education, Singapore
13
14
15
16 Author Note
17 Nikos L.D. Chatzisarantis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
18 University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, email: nikos.chatzisarantis@nie.edu.sg
19 Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to Martin S. Hagger,
20 School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD,
21 United Kingdom, email: martin.hagger@nottingham.ac.uk
22
1 Running head: PLANNED BEHAVIOUR AND SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
5 Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour:
6 A meta-analysis
9
1 Abstract
2 Purpose. A meta-analysis of studies integrating the theory of planned behaviour (TPB)
3 and self-determination theory (SDT) in health contexts is presented. The analysis aimed to
4 provide cumulative empirical support for a motivational sequence in which self-determined
5 motivation from SDT predicts the proximal predictors of intentions and behaviour from the
6 TPB.
7 Methods. A literature search identified 34 integrated studies providing 43 tests of effects
8 between TPB and SDT variables. Hunter and Schmidt’s (1994) methods of meta-analysis were
9 used to correct the effect sizes across the studies for statistical artifacts. Age (old vs. young),
10 publication status (published vs. unpublished), study design (correlational vs.
11 experimental/intervention), and behaviour type (physical activity vs. other health-related
12 behaviours) were evaluated as moderators of the effects. A path-analysis using the meta-
13 analytically derived correlations was conducted to examine the proposed motivational
14 sequence.
15 Results. Statistically-significant corrected correlations were evident among the perceived
16 autonomy support and self-determined motivation constructs from SDT and the attitude,
17 subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, intention, and health-related behaviour
18 constructs from the TPB. Only six of the 28 effect sizes were moderated by the proposed
19 moderators. Path analysis revealed that the significant effects of self-determined motivation on
20 intentions and behaviour were partially mediated by the proximal predictors from the TPB.
21 Conclusions. Evidence from this synthesis supported the theoretical integration and
22 proposed motivational sequence. Results are discussed with reference to the complimentary
23 aspects of the TPB and SDT and the need for integrated experimental or intervention studies on
24 a broader range of health behaviours.
25
1 Research into the antecedent factors and processes that underpin people’s motivation to
2 engage in health-related behaviour has been conducted from an array of different theoretical
3 perspectives (Conner & Norman, 2005; Johnston, 2005; Orbell, 2004). Prominent among these
4 theories is the planned behaviour (TPB, Ajzen, 1985), which was developed as a systematic
5 explanation of volitional behavioural engagement based on a set of belief-based perceptions,
6 the deliberative formation of intentions, and their enactment. This approach has been shown to
7 account for substantial variance in behaviour in a number of contexts (Armitage & Conner,
8 2001; Conner & Armitage, 1998). In contrast, organismic approaches to motivation have
9 focused on the contextual contingencies and dispositional orientations that give rise to
10 motivational states and subsequent behaviour. One such approach is self-determination theory
11 (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), a leading theory of human motivation that has been shown
12 to be efficacious in identifying the contingencies that affect motivation and behaviour in
13 numerous domains (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000).
14 While independent meta-analyses have shown both theories to be effective in accounting
15 for variation in health-related behaviour (e.g., Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, Smith, & Wang,
16 2003; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002b; Sheeran & Orbell, 1998), both have
17 shortcomings in terms of their predictive utility. SDT does not chart the exact process by which
18 motivational orientations are converted into intentions and behaviour and the TPB has
19 provided an effective basis for the explanation of variance in intentions and health-related
20 behaviour without identifying the origins of the antecedents of the behaviour (Chatzisarantis,
21 Hagger, & Smith, 2007).
22 In this article we propose that these two prominent social psychological theories can
23 serve to assist in overcoming these shortcomings by integrating their constructs and hypotheses
24 in a unified model of motivation to explain intentions and health-related behaviour. The basis
25 for integration is offered by Deci and Ryan (1985) and Vallerand (1997) who state that
26 motivational theories can offer explanations for the origins of social cognitive beliefs and
1 expectations outlined in models of intention like the TPB. It is proposed that individuals with a
2 self-determined motivational orientation towards a health-related behaviour will tend to form
3 attitudes and perceptions of control, two key determinants of intention from the TPB,
4 congruent with their motivational orientations (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2008b; Hagger et al.,
5 in press; Vallerand, 2007). Support for the proposed integrated model and motivational
6 sequence will be provided in a meta-analysis of the extant research on health-related
7 behaviours that has integrated the TPB and SDT.
8 Component Theories of the Integrated Model
9 Prior to outlining the rationale behind the theoretical integration, a brief explanation of
10 the hypotheses of each component theory is warranted. The TPB posits that an individual’s
11 intention is the most proximal predictor of health-related behaviour and mediates the effect of
12 three sets of belief-based perceptions on behaviour: attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived
13 behavioural control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1985). Attitudes are a person’s overall positive or negative
14 evaluation of the target behaviour. Subjective norms summarise a person’s expectation that
15 significant others want them to engage in the target behaviour. PBC comprises a person’s
16 overall judgment whether they have the ability and resources available to engage in the target
17 behaviour.
18 Self-determination theory (SDT) takes a different approach and focuses on the quality of
19 an individual’s motivation in a given context and the environmental factors that affect
20 motivation in that context (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Connell, 1989). Central to the theory is
21 the distinction between self-determined versus controlled types of motivation (Deci & Ryan,
22 2000). Individuals whose motivation is self-determined experience a sense of personal choice
23 and autonomy when behaving and feel their actions represent their true self. Those whose
24 motivation is not self-determined feel controlled, pressured, or coerced into behaving by
25 external forces. SDT research has shown that self-determined motives positively affect
1 behavioural engagement (Chatzisarantis et al., 2003) and that self-determined motivation can
2 be supported or thwarted by environmental contingencies, such as the support offered by
3 salient others (Hagger et al., 2007; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999).
4 Integrating the Theories
5 Recently, researchers have sought to integrate SDT and the TPB because these
6 approaches are deemed to provide complimentary explanations of the processes that underlie
7 motivated behaviour. (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2001; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury,
8 2002; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003; Wilson & Rodgers, 2004). Numerous authors have
9 proposed that organismic theories of motivation like SDT could potentially offer explanations
10 for the origins of constructs in social cognitive theories (Andersen, Chen, & Carter, 2000; Deci
11 & Ryan, 1985). The integration is based on the links between self-determined motivation and
12 the system of beliefs that underpin the proximal antecedents of intention: attitudes, subjective
13 norms, and PBC.
14 Ajzen (1985) proposed that attitudes and PBC comprise beliefs that a given health-related
15 behaviour will result in certain outcomes and that the behaviour is under control of the
16 individual. However, like many social cognitive theories, the TPB is not explicit in the reasons
17 that these beliefs are pursued (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For example, the theory does not make the
18 distinction between beliefs about outcomes that people choose to seek and are related to their
19 true sense of self (self-determined outcomes) and beliefs about outcomes that people feel
20 compelled to engage in out of a sense of obligation or duty (controlled outcomes). Some
21 beliefs about outcomes could be interpreted as either self-determined or controlled reasons for
22 participating in health-related behaviour (e.g., “I exercise in order to lose weight”). For some
23 people exercising to lose weight may be self-determined because they value being healthy and
24 view it as representative of their true self (self-determined). They are therefore likely to
25 actively seek opportunities to exercise to lose weight. For others losing weight may be to look
1 good for others, an external contingency (controlling). In such cases, they are not likely to
2 pursue exercise to lose weight or may even avoid it. Therefore, SDT offers an interpretation of
3 whether these beliefs about outcomes are interpreted as self-determined or controlling. The
4 theory suggests that motivation to engage in health-related behaviours for self-determined or
5 controlling reasons predisposes individuals to form beliefs congruent with these motives.
6 On this basis, self-determined motives are hypothesised to be a distal predictor of
7 attitudes and PBC. Attitudes and PBC are, in turn, proximal predictors of the formation of
8 intentions to engage in future health-related behaviour in accordance with the TPB. Therefore a
9 motivational sequence is proposed such that the effects of self-determined motivation on
10 intentions and health-related behaviour are mediated by the proximal determinants, namely,
11 attitudes and PBC (Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006).
12 The Present Study
13 The literature testing the proposed relations between variables from the TPB and SDT in
14 health contexts is substantial. We aimed to test whether there was consistency in the pattern of
15 the proposed relationships in the motivational sequence across these studies using meta-
16 analytic techniques. This is important as it will provide support for the proposed sequence
17 based on the available literature and resolve any inconsistencies attributable to methodological
18 artefacts such as sampling and measurement error.
19 We also propose to test the effectiveness of five key moderator variables in accounting
20 for additional variation in the effect sizes among the integrated model constructs: age, gender,
21 publication status, study design, and behaviour type. Previous meta-analyses have examined
22 these moderator variables in syntheses of research on the TPB and SDT separately
23 (Chatzisarantis et al., 2003; Hagger et al., 2002b; Sheeran & Orbell, 1998). Age and gender
24 will be examined as moderators to test the hypothesis that the proposed effects are universal.
25 Evidence for publication bias in the hypothesised effects among constructs in the current
1 integrated theoretical approach will be evaluated by including publication status as a
2 moderator. Study design was tested as a moderator to ensure that there was no variation in the
3 effects due to the adoption of an experimental or correlational design. Finally, the universality
4 hypothesis suggests that the proposed effects should be invariant across health behaviours and
5 a moderator analysis by behaviour type seeks to provide evidence to support this.
6 In addition, the proposed motivational sequence can be tested empirically using the meta-
7 analytically derived effect sizes in a path analysis (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). This provides
8 corroborative evidence for the unique effects in the motivational sequence and also tests for
9 key mediation effects. Specifically, a meta-analytic path analysis model will be tested with
10 self-determined motivation from SDT set to predict the proximal predictors of intentions to
11 engage in health-related behaviour from the TPB, namely, attitudes, subjective norms, and
12 PBC. It is expected that self-determined motivation be strongly related to attitudes and PBC as
13 in previous studies (Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, & Karageorghis, 2002; Hagger,
14 Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002a). However, self-determined motivation is not expected to be
15 related to subjective norms because the latter is defined as controlling rather than self-
16 determined perceptions and this is supported by tests of this relationship have yielded small or
17 negative effects (Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Barkoukis, Wang, & Baranowski, 2005; Hagger,
18 Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003). Further, attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC
19 are expected to predict intentions in keeping with proposals from the TPB (Ajzen, 1985).
20 Attitudes and PBC are expected to mediate the effect of self-determined motivation on
21 intentions. Finally, intentions are proposed to mediate the effects of attitudes, subjective norms,
22 and PBC on health-related behaviour, in accordance with the TPB. The sequence is expected to
23 mediate the effects of self-determined motivation on health behaviour such that there is no
24 direct effect of self-determined motivation on behaviour (e.g., Hagger et al., 2003).

1 In addition, numerous studies integrating the TPB and SDT have included perceived
2 autonomy support as a variable that reflects whether the environment is perceived to support
3 self-determined motivation (e.g., Hagger et al., in press; Shen, McCaughtry, & Martin, 2007).
4 Therefore, perceived autonomy support will also be included as an independent predictor of
5 self-determined motivation. Finally, the proposed effects are expected to be independent of
6 past behaviour and we will control for past behaviour in the meta-analytic path analysis.
7 Method
8 Literature search
9 Research articles were located via an exhaustive search of electronic databases (e.g.,
10 Medline, PsychINFO, Psyarticles, ISI Web of Science), manual searches of key journals, and
11 the reference sections of review articles on SDT and the TPB to the end of July 20081. The aim
12 of the literature search was to establish a fully-inclusive database of integrated tests of effects
13 between constructs from the TPB and SDT and to ensure that all reasonable attempts had been
14 made to locate ‘fugitive literature’ (Rosenthal, 1994).
15 Inclusion criteria
16 Studies were included if they provided an empirical test of an effect size from the
17 integration of the TPB and SDT in health-related behaviour contexts. Studies therefore had to
18 include effect sizes from a measure of at least one construct from SDT and one from the TPB
19 or, its predecessor, the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In addition, studies
20 were required to contain sufficient statistical information such as zero-order correlation
21 coefficients in correlational studies or cell means, standard deviations, F-ratios, or effect size
22 statistics (e.g., Cohen’s d) in experimental or intervention studies to calculate an effect size.
23 One of the challenges of meta-analytic syntheses of studies is establishing equivalence
24 among the measures used in tests of the desired effect size. In the present analysis, only a small
1 subset of measures was used to tap the TPB and self-determination theory constructs across
2 studies. This made identifying studies that had tested specific effects relatively unambiguous.
3 The TPB constructs were exclusively measured using items derived directly or indirectly from
4 the guidelines proposed by Ajzen (2003). SDT constructs were invariably derived from
5 variants of the perceived locus of causality scales or the relative autonomy index or self-
6 determination index, which are reweighted aggregates of the self-determined and non-self-
7 determined motivational constructs from the perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Connell,
8 1989)2. Experimental or intervention studies based on the theories used conventional methods
9 to manipulate key variables such as self-determined motivation using autonomy support (e.g.,
10 Reeve et al., 1999).
11 The literature search yielded 34 studies that met the search criteria. The majority of the
12 studies were correlational in design with a small proportion reporting experimental or
13 intervention designs based on SDT and reporting effects on TPB constructs like intention (e.g.,
14 Chatzisarantis et al., 2007, Study 3; Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, in press). There were no
15 studies that had manipulated TPB variables and examined the effects on SDT constructs.
16 Studies that integrated the two theories and but did not target a health-related behaviour were
17 excluded (e.g., Lin, 2007; Phillips, Abraham, & Bond, 2003). There were 43 independent tests
18 of effect sizes among the constructs from both theories. The highest number of tests of an
19 individual effect was 38 for the association between self-determined motivation and intention.
20 Meta-analytic strategy
21 We used Hunter and Schmidt’s (1994) methods for meta-analysis to correct the effect
22 sizes for statistical artifacts. Statistical theorists have advocated the adoption of such random
23 effects models for meta-analysis as these are optimal in permitting the generalization of
24 corrected effect sizes to the population (Field, 2001; Hagger, 2006; Hunter & Schmidt, 2000).
25 We corrected for two statistical artifacts in the present study: sampling error and measurement
1 error. The effect size of choice was the zero-order correlation coefficient as it was the most
2 frequently adopted metric. Studies reporting other metrics were converted into correlation
3 coefficients using Hunter and Schmidt’s (1994) algorithms. We corrected for measurement
4 error using the reliability statistics, usually Cronbach alpha coefficients, of the constructs used
5 in each effect size calculation. Where reliability statistics were unavailable, measurement error
6 was inferred from available attenuation statistics using a formula supplied by Stauffer (1996).
7 The analysis produces a ‘bare bones’ correlation coefficient (r+) representing the mean
8 average effect size corrected for sampling error only and a fully-corrected correlation
9 coefficient (r++) which is the mean average effect size corrected for both sampling and
10 measurement error. 95% confidence intervals (CI95) reflecting the distribution about the mean
11 effect size are used to test the statistical significance of the average corrected effect size. If the
12 CI95 does not include the value of zero, then it is likely that the effect exists in the population
13 (Hunter & Schmidt, 1994). The analysis also yields 90% credibility intervals (CI90)
14 representing the distribution about the average corrected correlation using the residual standard
15 deviation and provides an estimation of the distribution of the effect size in the population.
16 This is used to evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs i.e. the hypothesis that
17 population effect size is significantly different from unity. We also computed the ‘fail safe’
18 sample size (NFS) which represents the number of studies with null findings required reduce the
19 effect size to a trivial value, in this case resulting in the confidence intervals including the
20 value of zero (Rosenberg, 2005). If the number of ‘null finding’ tests of an effect is sufficiently
21 large the researcher can be confident that the chances of such a number of studies existing is
22 improbable. Finally, the percentage variance in the effect sizes across studies attributed to the
23 corrected artifacts relative to the overall variance in the effect size is given. Hunter and
24 Schmidt (1994) advocate a 75% cutoff criterion for an effect size to be considered
25 ‘homogenous’, that is, the vast majority of the variance in the effect across studies can be
1 accounted for by the statistical artifacts. Should the value fall below this criterion it is likely
2 that there is substantial variance in the effect size unattributed to methodological artifacts and
3 suggestive of variations attributable to other extraneous or ‘moderator’ variables.
4 Coding of Moderators
5 We anticipated that five key factors would moderate the proposed effects based on
6 previous research (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Hagger et al., 2002b): age of participants (old vs.
7 young), gender, publication status (published vs. unpublished), and study design (correlational
8 vs. experimental/intervention), and behaviour type (physical activity vs. other health-related
9 behaviours). The influence of moderator variables was evaluated by segregating studies on the
10 basis of the moderator variable and conducting separate meta-analyses for each moderator
11 group. The moderator was considered effective if the average corrected effect sizes calculated
12 in each moderator group were significantly different as evidenced by the CI95. Moderation was
13 further supported if the moderator resulted in a narrowing of the credibility intervals and an
14 increase in the variance accounted for by statistical artifacts.
15 We used the criteria offered by previous studies to define age moderator groups of studies
16 for older (over 18 years) and younger (under 18 years) samples (Hagger et al., 2002b; Sheeran
17 & Orbell, 1998). As only four studies reported effect sizes for exclusively female samples and
18 none tested effects in an exclusively male comparison group of participants a moderator
19 analyses by gender was not possible. While the number of unpublished studies was relatively
20 small (n = 4), it still permitted an evaluation of publication bias as a moderator variable. To test
21 the moderation of the effect sizes across studies by study design, we classified studies into
22 those that had used experimental or intervention designs to manipulate one or more of the TPB
23 or SDT variables and examined their effects on the remaining variables. Finally, although the
24 vast majority of the studies were conducted with physical activity as the focal behaviour, four
25 studies conducted analyses on other health-related behaviours, namely dieting (Hagger &
1 Chatzisarantis, 2008a; Hagger et al., 2006), breast feeding (Wells, Thompson, & Kloeblen-
2 Tarver, 2002), and condom use (Rentzelas & Hagger, 2008), so we were therefore able to
3 compare results the effect sizes across moderator groups of physical activity and other health-
4 related behaviours.
5 Testing the Integrated Model
6 The corrected correlations derived from the meta-analysis were used as an input matrix
7 for a path analysis to test the hypotheses of the proposed model integrating the TPB and SDT
8 (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). As the model was based on correlations from different subsets of
9 studies there was variation in the sample sizes used to compute the corrected averaged
10 correlations for each effect. In order to reduce bias caused by the variation in sample sizes
11 across studies we opted for the most conservative strategy proposed by other researchers and
12 used the smallest sample size (Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon, 2003; Viswesvaran & Ones,
13 1995). The goodness-of-fit of the model was evaluated relative to a fully independent (totally
14 free) model. Goodness-of-fit was established using multiple criteria the Comparative Fit Index
15 (CFI) and Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), which should exceed .95 for a well-fitting model
16 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the
17 Standardized Root Mean Squared Residuals (SRMSR), which should be close to .05 and .08
18 respectively for a well-fitting model (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
19 Results
20 Summary of Studies
21 Summary statistics for the studies included in the analysis are provided in Table 1. The
22 table provides all pertinent information germane to the analysis including the coding used to
23 conduct the moderator analyses.
24 Zero-Order Analysis
1 The averaged correlation coefficients corrected for artifacts of sampling and
2 measurement error for the relationships among the TPB and SDT constructs from this sample
3 of studies are provided in Table 2. The 95% confidence intervals indicated that all of the
4 corrected correlations were significantly different from zero. The 90% credibility intervals
5 indicated that the majority of the effects exhibited discriminant validity. The only exceptions
6 were the credibility intervals for the intention-past behaviour and behaviour-past behaviour
7 correlations that included the value of 1.00. This finding was not surprising given the strong
8 prediction of the study variables and future behaviour by past behaviour. However, although it
9 is important to control for the effect of past behaviour in social cognitive models, its effect
10 merely represents the effects of unmeasured constructs rather than effects of meaningful
11 psychological variables (Ajzen, 2002; Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Overall, these findings
12 provide confirmation that the tested effects were representative of a true effect in the
13 population. Furthermore, the ‘fail safe’ sample size (NFS) values all exceeded Rosenberg’s
14 (2005) recommended critical value of 5N + 10. The only exception was the NFS for the effect
15 between perceived autonomy support and PBC, and although the CI95 value did not include the
16 value of zero, a relatively small number of null findings would overturn the significant effect.
17 Moderator Analyses
18 Moderator analyses were conducted in cases where there were more than three studies in
19 a moderator group. A summary of the average corrected effect sizes that were significantly
20 different across the moderator groups is provided in Table 3. Turning first to age as a
21 moderator, only the self-determination-PBC relationship was significantly different across
22 younger (r++ = .59) and older samples (r++ = .39). It seems that younger samples equate self-
23 determined motivation with perceived control more strongly than older samples. In terms of
24 the moderation by behaviour type, significantly stronger effects were evident in studies with
25 physical activity as the target behaviour relative to studies with other health-related behaviours
1 as the target for the attitude-PBC (physical activity, r++ = .57; other health-related behaviours
2 r++ = .30), and PBC-behaviour (r++ = .41; .13) relationships. Conversely, the effects were
3 significantly stronger in studies with other health-related behaviours as the target behaviour
4 relative to studies with physical activity as the target for the attitude-past behaviour (physical
5 activity, r++ = .39; other health-related behaviours r++ = .70) and intention-past behaviour (r++ =
6 .52; .89) relationships. The self-determined motivation-intention relationship (correlational r++
7 = .53; experimental/intervention r++ = .32) was significantly stronger in studies adopting a
8 correlational design compared to those adopting experimental or intervention designs. It seems
9 that correlational designs tend to result in an overestimation of this effect size, although,
10 importantly, adopting an experimental or intervention design does not attenuate the proposed
11 effect to a trivial value. Finally, none of the effects were significantly moderated by publication
12 status.
13 Path Analysis
14 The meta-analytically derived corrected correlation matrix was used test the pattern of
15 relationships as stipulated by the proposed motivational sequence. The corrected averaged
16 correlations were used as an input matrix for a path analytic model that stipulated a priori the
17 proposed pattern of relationships in the sequence. The model was estimated using the EQS
18 structural equation modelling computer software using a maximum likelihood method (Bentler,
19 2004). The path model exhibited acceptable goodness-of-fit with the data according to the
20 multiple criteria adopted (CFI = .98; NNFI = .98; SRMSR = .03; RMSEA = .08). Beta
21 coefficients from the meta-analytic path analysis are provided in Figure 1. Overall, the model
22 accounted for 64.6% and 59.2% of the variance in intentions and behaviour respectively.
23 In terms of specific effects in the model, there was a statistically-significant effect of
24 perceived autonomy support on self-determined motivation ( = .31, p < .01). Self-determined
25 motivation predicted attitudes ( = .44, p < .01) and PBC ( = .38, p < .01) in accordance with
1 the hypothesised integrated model. There was also a significant, positive relationship between
2 self-determined motivation and subjective norms ( = .14, p < .01) which was incongruent with
3 hypotheses. Attitudes ( = .37, p < .01), subjective norms ( = .06, p < .01), and PBC ( = .23,
4 p < .01) significantly predicted intentions and intentions significantly predicted behaviour ( =
5 .29, p < .01) in accordance with the TPB. There was a significant direct effect for self-
6 determined motivation on intention ( = .10, p < .01), but the size of the effect was small
7 relative to the indirect effect of self-determined motivation on intention ( = .27, p < .01).
8 Together, these effects yielded a significant total effect of self-determined motivation on
9 intention ( = .37, p < .01). There were also a significant indirect effect of self-determined
10 motivation on behaviour mediated by the motivational sequence ( = .10, p < .01), but no
11 significant direct effect3. Importantly, these were the attenuated effects after controlling for
12 past behaviour. Therefore, although past behaviour significantly predicted all of the constructs
13 in the model, it did not reduce the effects to trivial values and suggests that the motivation
14 variables in the integrated model had motivational and behavioural relevance4.
15 Discussion
16 The aim of the present study was to provide a cumulative synthesis of findings from
17 studies that have integrated two leading theories of motivation in health contexts: the theory of
18 planned behaviour (TPB) and self-determination theory (SDT). A comprehensive literature
19 search of quantitative tests of at least one effect between constructs from the TPB and SDT
20 yielded 34 studies with 43 independent tests of effects. Methods of meta-analysis proposed by
21 Hunter and Schmidt (1994) were used to produce averaged correlation coefficients among
22 constructs from the studies corrected for the methodological artifacts of sampling and
23 measurement error. All correlations were significant and only two did not exhibit discriminant
24 validity. We tested the influence of five possible moderators of the effects: age, gender,
25 publication status, study design, and behaviour type. Age significantly moderated the self-
1 determined motivation-PBC relation, behaviour type significantly moderated the attitude-PBC,
2 attitude-past behaviour, intention-past behaviour, and PBC-behaviour relationships, and study
3 design moderated the self-determined motivation-intention relationship.
4 The hypothesized pattern of relations or ‘motivational sequence’ among the TPB and
5 SDT constructs were tested using path analysis with the meta-analytically derived correlation
6 coefficients as an input matrix. As expected, perceived autonomy support was a significant
7 predictor of self-determined motivation. Self-determined motivation significantly predicted
8 intentions to engage in health-related behaviour mediated by attitudes and perceived
9 behavioural control (PBC). Contrary to hypotheses, subjective norms was also positively
10 related to self-determined motivation which led to a significant albeit small mediated path of
11 self-determined motivation on intention through this variable. Intention mediated the effect of
12 attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC on behaviour. There was a significant indirect effect of
13 self-determined motivation on behaviour with no direct effect. Finally, the proposed pattern of
14 effects was supported when controlling for past behaviour.
15 Support for Theoretical Integration
16 The present synthesis provides support for integrated motivational approaches adopting
17 the TPB and SDT to explain health-related behaviour. The pattern of effects in the path
18 analysis support those found in individual tests of the relations among constructs of the two
19 theories and the significant mediation effects that provide insight into the possible processes
20 involved. A key effect is the prediction self-determined motivation by perceived autonomy
21 support. Perceived autonomy support serves as a proxy of social events that support self-
22 determined motivation (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Reeve et al., 1999). The
23 perception of these autonomy-supportive behaviours are, not surprisingly, influential in
24 fostering self-determined motivation in health-related behaviours (Hagger et al., 2007). This is
25 important as it suggests that an autonomy-supportive environment is likely an effective means
26 to promote self-determined motivation in health contexts (Chatzisarantis & Hagger, in press).

1 Promoting self-determined motivation is clearly an important endeavour as the evidence
2 in the present integrated model shows that self-determined motivation is linked to the proximal
3 antecedents of intentional behaviour. Results from the path analysis indicated that self-
4 determined motivation has a significant effect on the proximal predictors of intention,
5 particularly attitudes and PBC, and has a significant indirect effect on intentions via the
6 mediation of these predictors. Theoretically, this lends support to SDT in that self-determined
7 motives towards health behaviour is related to individuals reporting attitudes and perceptions
8 of control that are consistent with those self-determined motives. Previous theorists have
9 supported such relations. For example, Vallerand (2007) explicitly suggests that self-
10 determined motivation will predict cognitive beliefs regarding the target behaviour.
11 Although we included both direct and indirect effects of self-determined motivation on
12 intentions and health-related behaviour there were no significant direct effects found. This was
13 as expected and congruent with previous research (e.g., Hagger et al., 2003; Pihu, Hein, Koka,
14 & Hagger, in press; Shen et al., 2007). Previous studies have reported direct effects of self-
15 determined motivation on intentions and behaviour (e.g., Chatzisarantis et al., 2002; Hagger et
16 al., 2005; Hagger et al., in press) and it has been suggested that such effects indicate the more
17 impulsive, less deliberative processes by which self-determined motives predict intention
18 formation and enactment (Hagger et al., 2006). However, present results suggest that such
19 effects are comparatively unsubstantial compared with indirect effects. This indicates that the
20 process by which self-determined motivation affects intention formation and behavioural
21 engagement is one that is reflective rather than impulsive (Strack & Deutsch, 2004).
22 One finding that was contrary to hypotheses was the significant and positive effect of
23 self-determined motivation on subjective norms, and effect that was hypothesised to be zero or
24 even negative. This is because subjective norms are defined as social pressures to engage in
25 future behaviour and therefore reflect more controlling, externally-referenced beliefs about
26 engaging in future health behaviour. However, subjective norms may, on the surface, reflect
1 beliefs about the controlling nature of others, but these ‘others’ are generally specified as
2 ‘significant others’ in measures of the construct. Research in SDT has suggested that people
3 will tend to conform to the wishes of significant others because although they may appear
4 outwardly controlling, if the referent is a significant other, then the person is likely to have
5 internalised their demands as supportive of their self-determined motivation (Iyengar &
6 Lepper, 1999). In other words, the person perceives the significant other as acting in their best
7 interests and supporting their autonomy. As a consequence, the variable may reflect both
8 controlling and internalised aspects of social beliefs on future health behaviour engagement.
9 This may account for the inconsistent findings for this relationship in the literature (Hagger et
10 al., 2005; Hagger et al., 2003). Future studies should make the distinction between perceived
11 pressure from different referents at the beliefs level as recommended by Ajzen (1985) and
12 relate them to self-determined motivation. This would test the hypothesis that self-determined
13 motivation would be positively related to beliefs about salient referents’ social influence while
14 a negative relationship would be expected for beliefs about non-salient referents’ influence.
15 Importance of Moderators
16 In the present study, this was relevant as none of the effect sizes could be considered
17 homogenous according to the Hunter and Schmidt (1994) 75% rule indicating the presence of
18 moderators. The moderation analyses produced some interesting contrasts. For example, the
19 relationship between self-determined motivation and PBC was significantly stronger in studies
20 with younger samples. This may be due to the fact that younger people have a less-
21 differentiated view of self-determined motivation and may equate it more with competence
22 than older samples, as evidenced by developmental tests of self-determined motivation (Otis,
23 Grouzet, & Pelletier, 2005). Behaviour type also moderated a number of effects most notably
24 the attitude-PBC and PBC-behaviour relationships. This may be because the behaviours
25 included in the other health-related behaviours sample (e.g., dieting and condom use) are
1 behaviours for which there is a strong social component compared with physical activity which
2 has stronger attitudinal and control components (Hagger et al., 2006; Sheeran & Orbell, 1998).
3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
4 A limitation of studies integrating these theories is its heavy bias towards cross-sectional
5 and prospective designs and a disproportionate focus on physical activity as the target
6 behaviour. Current studies using this integrative approach have adopted valid and reliable
7 measurement instruments (e.g., Hagger et al., 2007; Markland & Tobin, 2004) with large,
8 representative samples and appropriate prospective designs to avoid confounding artifacts like
9 common method variance (e.g., Hagger et al., 2003). However, the majority of the studies
10 included in the analysis were correlational in design, which prevents the inference of causality
11 (Weinstein, 2007). Furthermore, although we have articulated a theory to account for the
12 proposed sequence of effects in the integration of the SDT and TPB, there are likely to be
13 alternative models that exhibit good fit with the data, although such models would need
14 theoretical justification to illustrate their plausibility. On the issue of causality, the moderator
15 analyses using study design as a moderator provided some preliminary evidence that findings
16 from the few experimental or intervention designs included in the present study were largely
17 consistent with those of the correlational studies. Not only does this suggest that the method
18 adopted, on the whole, does not result in a drastic attenuation of the effect sizes in the proposed
19 integrated theory, but it also provides some preliminary evidence of the causal nature of the
20 hypothesised relationships in the theory. However, there is a need for further research to bolster
21 support for the integrative approach advocated here by adopting experimental or randomised
22 controlled intervention designs to manipulate SDT constructs and examining their influence on
23 TPB variables (e.g., Chatzisarantis & Hagger, in press). Such designs will permit researchers
24 integrating these theories to generate evidence that either corroborates or refutes the proposed
25 direction of causality among the variables.

1 A further limitation is that the evaluation of moderators was unable to resolve the
2 heterogeneity in the meta-analysed effect sizes. Therefore, the path analytic model was
3 estimated using effect sizes that may vary due to the influence of moderator variables. The
4 problem is exacerbated by a general difficulty in modelling such interactions in analyses based
5 on structural equations as this is known to produce biased estimates (Viswesvaran & Ones,
6 1995). These difficulties also apply to individual studies and there is a need for future research
7 to test moderation effects of the effects in mediation models (Harris & Hagger, 2007).
8 We have indicated in the current analysis of the probable presence of moderator variables
9 and tested a limited set based on previous research to ensure that our analysis was informative
10 as possible and to identify directions for future research. However, the potential for moderators
11 to affect the true nature of the effects proposed by path analysis is a real limitation and has
12 been acknowledged in previous studies adopting the same approach (Carr et al., 2003; Colquitt
13 & LePine, 2000; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007). Although we have provided some evidence based
14 on the confidence intervals of the meta-analysed correlations that the heterogeneity has little
15 effect on the overall pattern of results, this does not resolve the problem that some paths in the
16 model may be moderated by extraneous variables. More research studies integrating these
17 theories may permit future path analytic meta-analyses to be conducted separately across sets
18 of studies by moderator subgroups using a multi-group procedure (Edwards & Lambert, 2007;
19 Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992), although given the relative dearth of
20 studies conducting analyses on moderator groups, this will be unlikely in the very near future.
21 Finally, we were only able to locate three studies integrating the TPB and SDT on health-
22 related behaviours other than health-related physical activity. Although type of health-related
23 behaviour did not serve to moderate the proposed relations among the effects in the present
24 analysis, future research needs to examine these effects in a wider range of health behaviour
25 domains to further corroborate the consistency of these effects.

References
* Denotes studies included in meta-analysis

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J.
Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidelberg:
Springer.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Residual effects of past on later behavior: Habituation and reasoned action
perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 107-122.
Ajzen, I. (2003). Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological
considerations. Retrieved April 14, 2003, from University of Massachusetts,
Department of Psychology Web site: http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen: University
of Massachusetts.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
*Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., & Girgolas, G. (2007). Investigating the relationships among
motivation, negotiation, and alpine skiing participation. Journal of Leisure Research,
39, 648-667.
Andersen, S. M., Chen, S., & Carter, C. (2000). Fundamental human needs: Making social
cognition relevant. Psychological Inquiry, 4, 269-275.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-
analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational
basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS structural equations modeling software (Version 6.1) [Computer
Software]. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Biddle, S. J. H., Cury, F., Goudas, M., Sarrazin, P., Famose, J. P., & Durand, M. (1995).
Development of scales to measure perceived physical education class climate: A cross-
national project. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 341-358.
*Biddle, S. J. H., Soos, I., & Chatzisarantis, N. (1999). Predicting physical activity intentions
using goal perspectives and self-determination theory approaches. European
Psychologist, 4, 83-89.
*Brickell, T., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Pretty, G. M. (2006). Autonomy and control:
Augmenting the validity of the Theory of Planned Behaviour in predicting exercise
Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 51-63.
Briere, N., Vallerand, R. J., Blais, N., & Pelletier, L. (1995). Development and validation of a
measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale
(SMS). International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 465-489.
Carr, J. Z., Schmidt, A. M., Ford, J. K., & DeShon, R. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A
meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and
individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605-619.
*Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (in press). Effects of an intervention based on Self-
Determination Theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation.
Psychology and Health.
*Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., Biddle, S. J. H., & Karageorghis, C. (2002). The
cognitive processes by which perceived locus of causality predicts participation in
physical activity. Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 685-699.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., Biddle, S. J. H., Smith, B., & Wang, J. C. K. (2003). A
meta-analysis of perceived locus of causality in exercise, sport, and physical education
contexts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 25, 284-306.
*Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., & Smith, B. (2007). Influences of perceived
autonomy support on physical activity within the theory of planned behavior. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 934-954.
*Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hagger, M. S., Smith, B., & Sage, L. D. (2006). The influences of
intrinsic motivation on execution of social behaviour within the theory of planned
behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 229-237.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensfold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Colquitt, J. A., & LePine, J. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A
meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,
678-707.
Conner, M., & Armitage, C. J. (1998). Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior: A review
and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429-1464.
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2005). Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice with
social cognition models. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The
self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
*Edmunds, J. K., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2007). Adherence and well-being in
overweight and obese patients referred to an exercise prescription scheme: A self-
determination theory perspective. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 722-740.
*Edmunds, J. K., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. D. (in press). Testing a self-determination
theory based teaching style in the exercise domain. European Journal of Social
Psychology.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,
12(1), 1-22.
Field, A. P. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of
fixed- and random- effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6, 161-180.
Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the
community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 10, 141-146.
*Goudas, M., Biddle, S. J. H., & Fox, K. R. (1994). Perceived locus of causality, goal
orientations, and perceived competence in school physical education classes. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 453-563.
Goudas, M., Dermitzaki, I., & Bagiatis, K. (2001). Motivation in physical education is
correlated with participation in sport after school. Psychological Reports, 88, 491-496.
Hagger, M. S. (2006). Meta-analysis in sport and exercise research: Review, recent
developments, and recommendations. European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 103-115.
*Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2008a). Influence of impulsivity in the theory of
planned behaviour and self-determination theory for dieting behaviours. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2008b). Self-determination theory and the
psychology of exercise. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 79-
103.
*Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Barkoukis, V., Wang, C. K. J., & Baranowski, J.
(2005). Perceived autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical
activity: A cross-cultural evaluation of the trans-contextual model. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 97, 376-390.
*Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002a). The influence of
autonomous and controlling motives on physical activity intentions within the Theory
of Planned Behaviour. British Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 283-297.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002b). A meta-analytic review of
the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: Predictive
validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 24, 3-32.
*Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Culverhouse, T., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2003). The
processes by which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes
leisure-time physical activity intentions and behavior: A trans-contextual model.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 784–795.
*Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need
satisfaction to intentional behavior: Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral
contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 131-138.
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hein, V., Pihu, M., Soós, I., & Karsai, I. (2007). The
perceived autonomy support scale for exercise settings (PASSES): Development,
validity, and cross-cultural invariance in young people. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 8, 632-653.
*Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Hein, V., Pihu, M., Soós, I., Karsai, I., Lintunen, T.,
& Leemans, S. (in press). Teacher, peer, and parent autonomy support in physical
education and leisure-time physical activity: A trans-contextual model of motivation in
four cultures. Psychology and Health.
Harris, J., & Hagger, M. S. (2007). Do basic psychological needs moderate relationships within
the theory of planned behavior? Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 12, 43-64.
Hom, P. W., Caranikas-Walker, F., Prussia, G. E., & Griffeth, R. W. (1992). A meta-analytical
structural equations analysis of a model of employee turnover. Journal of Applied
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. (1994). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models:
Implications for cumulative research knowledge in psychology. International Journal
of Selection and Assessment, 8, 275-292.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective
on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 349-366.
Johnston, M. (2005). Means and meanings in health psychology. European Health
Psychologist, 1, 6-8.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing
intentions. Journal of Information Science, 33, 135-149.
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise
Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise
*Martin Ginis, K. A., Jung, M. E., Brawley, L. R., Latimer, A. E., Hicks, A. L., Shields, C. A.,
& McCartney, N. (2006). The effects of physical activity enjoyment on sedentary older
adults' physical activity attitudes and intentions Journal of Applied Biobehavioral
Research, 11, 29-43.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the intrinsic
motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.
*McLachlan, S., & Hagger, M. S. (2008). Implicit and explicit reasons for participating in
physical activity. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded conceptualisation of self-
determination in the regulation of exercise behaviour: Development of a measure using
confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 745-752.
*Ntoumanis, N. (2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in
physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 225-242.
*Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A prospective study of participation in optional school physical
education based on self-determination theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,
444-453.
Orbell, S. (2004). Intention-behaviour relations: A self-regulation perspective. In G. Haddock
& G. R. O. Maio (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on the psychology of attitudes (pp.
145-168). London: Psychology Press.
Otis, N., Grouzet, F. M. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational change in an
academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97,
170-183.
Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple
processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124,
54-74.
*Palmeira, A. L., Teixeira, P. J., Branco, T. L., Martins, S. S., Minderico, C. S., Barata, J. T., et
al. (2007). Predicting short-term weight loss using four leading health behavior change
theories. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 4, 14.
*Papacharisis, V., Simou, K., & Goudas, M. (2003). The relationship between intrinsic
motivation and intention towards exercise. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 45,
377-386.
Phillips, P., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2003). Personality, cognition, and university students'
examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 435-448.
*Pihu, M., Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (in press). How students’ perceptions of
teacher’s autonomy-supportive behaviours affect physical activity behaviour: An
application of trans-contextual model. European Journal of Sport Science.
Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy-supportive teachers: How they teach and
motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 537-548.
*Rentzelas, P., & Hagger, M. S. (2008). Influence of independence and interdependence as
moderators of relationships in the theory of planned behaviour. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Rosenberg, M. S. (2005). The file-drawer problem revisited: A general weighted method for
calculating fail-safe numbers in meta-analysis. Evolution 59, 464-468.
Rosenthal, M. C. (1994). The fugitive literature. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The
Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 85-94). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
*Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R. J., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L. G., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and
dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model:
Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management,
44(1), 90-103.
Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1998). Do intentions predict condom use? Meta-analysis and
examination of six moderator variables. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 231-
250.
*Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., & Martin, J. (2007). The influence of self-determination in
physical education on leisure-time physical activity behavior Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport, 78, 328-338.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
*Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A model of contextual motivation in
physical education: Using constructs from self-determination and achievement goal
theories to predict physical activity intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
97-110.
Stauffer, J. M. (1996). A Graphical User Interface psychometric meta-analysis program for
DOS Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 675-677.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220-247.
*Thøgersen-Ntoumani, E. C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). The role of self-determined motivation
in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions and physical self-
evaluations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 393-404.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Towards a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In
M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271-359). New
York: Academic Press.
Vallerand, R. J. (2007). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for sport and
physical activity. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.), Intrinsic Motivation
and Self-Determination in Exercise and Sport (pp. 255-279). Champaign, Il: Human
Kinetics.
*Vierling, K. K., Standage, M., & Treasure, D. C. (2007). Predicting attitudes and physical
activity in an "at-risk" minority youth sample: A test of self-determination theory.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 795-817.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-
analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865-886.
*Vlachopoulos, S., Karageorghis, C., & Terry, P. C. (2000). Motivation profiles in sport: A
self-determination theory perspective. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71,
387-397.
*Wallhead, T. L., & Hagger, M. S. (2008). The trans-contextual model in Caucasian and
American Indian school children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wyoming,
Laramie, WY.
Washburn, R. A., Smith, K. W., Jette, A. M., & Janney, C. A. (1993). The Physical Activity
Scale for the Elderly (PASE): Development and evaluation. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 46, 153-162.
Weinstein, N. D. (2007). Misleading tests of health behavior theories. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 33, 1-10.
*Wells, K. J., Thompson, N. J., & Kloeblen-Tarver, A. S. (2002). Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation and intention to breast-feed. American Journal of Health Behavior, 26, 111-
120.
Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Kouides, R., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Presenting the facts about
smoking to adolescents: The effects of an autonomy supportive style. Archives of
Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 959-964.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical
students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social
*Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2004). The relationship between perceived autonomy
support, exercise regulations and behavioral intentions in women. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 5, 229-242.
*Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Blanchard, C. M., & Gessell, J. (2003). The relationship
between psychological needs, self-determined motivation, exercise attitudes, and
physical fitness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2373-2392.
Footnote
1
Lists of all databases searched, keywords used in the searches, and journals and review
articles consulted are available from the first author on request.

2
Ryan and Connell’s (1989) perceived locus of causality scale measures four types of
motivation, each varying in the degree of self-determination on a continuum ranging from high
to low self-determination, known as the perceived locus of causality (PLOC). Most self-
determined is intrinsic motivation, which is the prototypical form of autonomous motivation
representing behavioural engagement for no external contingency or reinforcement. There are
three forms of extrinsic motivation, which vary in the degree to which they are self-determined
or controlled: identified regulation is a highly autonomous form of motivation representing
motivation to engage in a behaviour because it services goals that are intrinsic and salient to the
self, introjected regulation is a less autonomous form of motivation reflecting behavioural
engagement due to perceived internal pressures like avoiding shame or guilt or gaining
contingent self-worth or pride and external regulation is the prototypical form of extrinsic
motivation, and therefore the least self-determined, reflecting engaging in behaviours due to
external reinforcement such as obtaining a reward or avoiding punishment. In the present
study, we used either unidimensional measures of self-determined motivation, the weighted
self-determination index based on the PLOC or individual self-determined scales from the
perceived locus of causality index to as equivalent measures of self-determined motivation.
There were insufficient studies to explore individual tests of the individual perceived locus of
causality subscales with TPB variables. In cases where studies did not report the reweighted
self-determination index but reported effect sizes between the two most self-determined forms
of motivation from the PLOC, namely, intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, and the
TPB variables, we used the arithmetic average value of the two effect sizes in our analysis.
3
In all analyses testing for significant indirect effects the following criteria proposed by
Baron and Kenny (1986) were met: (1) significant correlations between the dependent variable
and the independent (predictor) variable(s); (2) significant correlations between the mediator
and the independent variable(s); (3) a significant unique effect of the mediator on the
dependent variable when it is included alongside the independent variable(s) in a multivariate
test of these relationships; and (4) the significant effect of independent variable on the
dependent is attenuated or extinguished when the mediator is included as an independent
predictor of the dependent variable. The tests of indirect effects are equivalent to the Sobel
(1982) test.
4
The path analysis was conducted on a matrix of meta-analysed correlations that included
considerable variance across studies unaccounted for by the methodological artifacts for which
the effect sizes were corrected. This suggested the presence of moderator variables.
Viswesvaren and Ones (1995) cite this as one drawback of using meta-analysed effect sizes
using path analyses. One solution they offer is to test the relative contribution of the
heterogeneity makes to the pattern of relations in the model and the overall goodness-of-fit of
the model. They proposed that the fit of the model estimated using the mean corrected
correlation coefficients be compared with the same model estimated using the upper bound and
lower bound confidence intervals (CI95) of the corrected correlations using multi-group path
analyses. We therefore estimated both these models in the present meta-analysis. We first
estimated a baseline multi-group model in which the tenability of the pattern of relationships
was tested between the model based on the mean corrected correlation matrix and models
based on the upper and lower bound CI95 values. We subsequently estimated a constrained
multi-group model in which equality constraint equations were specified to test the invariance
of the specified paths among the model variables across models based on the upper and lower
bound confidence intervals of the corrected correlations and the model based on the mean
corrected correlations. Results indicated that the effect of the heterogeneity as represented by
the confidence intervals of the effect sizes did not produce substantial deviations in the CFI and
NNFI fit indexes according to the criteria specified by Cheung and Rensvold (2002) of a
difference in the indexes of less than .01. This provides some evidence that heterogeneity in the
relations does not contribute substantially to variations in the pattern of effects specified in the
model based on the mean correlations.

Table 1.
Characteristics of Studies Included in Meta-Analysis of Theory of Planned Behaviour and Self-Determination Theory
Study Health Sample(s)1 Mean Age of TPB Constructs SDT Constructs Measured2 Study Design Behaviour Past
Behaviour Sample (SD) Measured Measure Behaviour
Measure
Alexandris, Physical 220 (92 females, 128 males) Range: 18-40 Intention SMS Correlational, single — —
Kouthouris, & Grouios activity adults years [B] Intrinsic (know), wave [A]
(2007) [A] [A] Intrinsic (accomplishment),
Intrinsic (stimulation),
Identified,
Introjection,
External
Biddle, Soos, & Physical 723 high school pupils Range: 12-16 Intention PLOC Correlational, single — —
Chatzisarantis (1999) activity years [A] Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] [A] Identified,
Introjection,
External
Brickell, Physical 163 (99 females, 63 males) 23.15 (6.05) All Autonomous and controlling intentions Correlational, Self-report – —
Chatzisarantis, & activity University students and staff Range: 18-44 prospective – 2 weeks LTEQ
Pretty (2006) [A] [A] [B] [A]
Chatzisarantis & Physical 215 (109 females, 106 males) 14.84 (0.48) All PLOC Intervention based on Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger (in press) [A] activity high school pupils Intrinsic, SDT – baseline and 5- LTEQ 1 item
[A] Identified, week follow-up
Introjection, measures [B]
External;
Perceived autonomy support (LCQ)
Chatzisarantis, Physical 168 (83 females, 85 males) 13.53 (0.05) Intention, PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, Biddle, & activity high school pupils [A] Attitude, Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Karageorghis (2002) [A] PBC Identified, [A]
[A] Introjection,
External
Chatzisarantis, Physical 177 (107 females, 69 males) School pupils: All Perceived autonomy support (HCCQ) Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, & Smith activity high school pupils and 13.95 (0.61); prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
(2007) (study 1) [A] [A] University students University [A]
students 18.98
(2.63) [U]
Chatzisarantis, Physical 165 (79 females, 86 males) 14.56 (0.77) All Perceived autonomy support (HCCQ) Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, & Smith activity high school pupils [A] prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
(2007) (study 2) [A] [A] [A]
Chatzisarantis, Physical 79 (39 females, 40 males) high 14.53 (0.70) Intention, Perceived autonomy support (HCCQ) (dependent Experimental, 1-way — —
Hagger, & Smith activity school pupils [A] Attitudes measure) factorial design
(2007) (study 3) [A] [A] (dependent (autonomy-support
measures) and control) [B]
Table 1 Continues
Study Health Sample(s)1 Mean Age of TPB Constructs SDT Constructs Measured Study Design Behaviour Past
Measure
Chatzisarantis, Physical 460 (254 females, 206 males) School pupils: All Intrinsic motivation (BREQ) Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, Smith, & activity high school pupils, University 14.25 (1.04); prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Sage (2006) [A] [A] students and adults University [A]
students 19.52
(1.44); adults
34.33 (1.14)
[U]
Edmunds, Ntoumanis, Physical 49 (41 females, 8 males) obese 44.98 (14.61) Intention PLOC (BREQ-2) Behavioural Self-report – —
& Duda (2007)[A] activity or overweight volunteers [B] Intrinsic, intervention design in LTEQ
[A] Identified, obese and overweight
Introjection, people with 1- and 3-
External; month follow-ups [B]
Perceived autonomy support (adapted HCCQ)
Edmunds, Ntoumanis, Physical 56 female University students Control group: Intention PLOC (BREQ-2) SDT intervention with Exercise —
& Duda (in press) [A] activity and staff (31 in control group, 21.26 (3.80) Intrinsic, 5- and 9-week follow- class
[A] 25 in SDT group) Range: 18-53; Identified, ups [B] attendance
SDT group: Introjection,
21.36 (6.71) External
Range: 18-38
[B]
Goudas, Dermitzaki, Physical 247 (103 females, 144 males) 15.30 [A] Attitude IMI Correlational, single Self-report —
& Bagiatis (2001) [A] activity high school pupils (outcome Enjoyment/interest wave [A] sports
[A] expectancies/ Effort/importance participation
outcome Competence
evaluation) Tension/Pressure
Hagger & Dieting 153 (115 females, 53 males) 23.60 (10.21) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis (2008a) [B] University students and staff [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 4 weeks 2 items 2 items
[B] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Hagger, Physical 1088 (537 females, 551 males) Range 12-14 All PLOC Correlational, single — —
Chatzisarantis, & activity high school pupils years [A] Intrinsic, wave [A]
Biddle, (2002a) [A] [A] Identified,
Introjection,
External
Hagger, Physical 551 (298 females, 253 males); British: 14.68 All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis, activity British sample 222 (118 (1.47); Greek: Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Barkoukis, Wang, & [A] females, 104 males); Greek 13.99 (0.80); Identified, [A]
Baranowski (2005) sample 93 (57 females, 36 Polish: 16.28 Introjection,
[A] males); Polish sample 103 (56 (1.12); External;
females, 47 males); Singaporean: Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
Singaporean sample 133 (67 13.32 (0.47)
females, 66 males) high school [A]
pupils
Table 1 Continues
Measure
Hagger, Physical 295 (163 females, 132 males) 14.50 (1.35) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis, activity high school pupils Range 13-16 Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Culverhouse, & Biddle [A] [A] Identified, [A]
(2003) [A] Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
Hagger, Physical 261 (166 females, 95 males) 24.93 (9.69) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – —
Chatzisarantis, & activity University students [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks 2-items
Harris (2006) (Sample [A] Identified, [A]
1) [A] Introjection,
External
Hagger, Dieting 250 (141 females, 109 males) 24.64 (6.39) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – —
Chatzisarantis, & [B] University students [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks 2 items
Harris (2006) (Sample Identified,
2) [A] Introjection,
External
Hagger, Physical 840 (460 females, 382 males); British: 13.19 All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis, Hein, activity British sample 210 (116 (1.12); Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Soós, Lintunen & [A] females, 94 males); Estonian Estonian: Identified, [A]
Leemans (in press) [A] sample 268 (151 females, 117 15.04 (0.91); Introjection,
males); Finnish sample 127 Finnish: 14.30 External;
(72 females, 55 males); (0.49); Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
Hungarian sample 235 (121 Hungarian:
females, 114 males) high 14.02 (0.99)
school pupils [A]
Martin Ginis, Jung, Physical 41 sedentary older adults (34 75.4 (5.40) [B] Intention Enjoyment Non-theory based Self-report – —
Brawley, Latimer, & activity females, 7 males) Attitude intervention using PASE
Hicks (2006) [A] [A] weight training and
activities of daily
living [A]
McLachlan & Hagger Physical 185 (129 females, 56 males) 30.83 (13.21) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
(2008) [B] activity adults [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 3 weeks 2 items 2 items
[A] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Ntoumanis (2001) [A] Physical 428 (218 females, 206 males, 14.84 (0.52) Intention PLOC Correlational – single — —
activity 4 non-respondent) high school Range 14-16 Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] pupils [A] Identified,
Introjection,
External;
Choice climate (PECCS)
Ntoumanis (2005) [A] Physical 302 (91 females, 211 males) 15.00 [A] Intention PLOC (SRQ) Correlational – single — —
activity high school pupils Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] Identified,
Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (LCQ)
Table 1 Continues
Measure
Palmeira, Teixeira, Physical 133 overweight and obese 38.30 (5.80) All IMI Intervention based on — —
Branco, Martins, activity community-based females [B] Enjoyment/interest social cognitive theory
Minderico, Barata, [A] Effort/importance – baseline measures
Serpa, & Sardinha Competence used in analysis [A]
(2007) [A] Tension/Pressure
Papacharisis, Simou, Physical 643 high school pupils 12.90 (1.20) Intention IMI Correlational – single — —
& Goudas (2003) [A] activity [A] Attitude Enjoyment/interest wave [A]
[A] PBC (barriers) Effort/importance
Competence
Tension/Pressure
Pihu, Hein, Koka, & Physical 399 (276 females, 123 males) 14.70 (1.40) Intention PLOC Correlational, Self-report – —
Hagger (in press) [A] activity high school pupils [A] Attitude Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ
[A] PBC Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External;
Perceived teacher feedback and learning styles
Rentzelas & Hagger Condom 84 (69 females, 15 males) 22.06 (3.92) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
(2008) [B] use [B] undergraduate and [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks 2 items 1 item
postgraduate students Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Sarrazin, Vallerand, Drop out 335 female handball players 14.07 (0.79) Intention SMS Correlational, Dropout —
Guillet, Pelletier, & from sport [A] Intrinsic to know, prospective – 21 from
Cury (2002) [A] activity Intrinsic accomplishment, months [A] handball
[A] Intrinsic stimulation,, programme
Identified,
Introjection,
External
Amotivation
Shen, McCaughtry, & Physical 653 high school pupils (335 12.4 All PLOC Correlational, Self-report - —
Martin (2007) [A] activity females, 318 males) Range 11-15 Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ
[A] [A] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External;
IMI
Competence
Standage, Duda, & Physical 328 high school pupils (138 13.56 (0.59) Intention SMS Correlational – single — —
Ntoumanis (2003) [A] activity females, 160 males) Range 12-14 Intrinsic (know), wave [A]
[A] [A] Intrinsic (accomplishment),
Intrinsic (stimulation),
Identified,
Introjection,
External
Amotivation
Table 1 Continues
Measure
Thøgerson-Ntoumani Physical 376 fitness clubs attendees 38.7 (10.9) Intention PLOC (BREQ) Correlational – single — —
& Ntoumanis (2007) activity (246 females, 121 males) Range 16-66 Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] [A] [B] Identified,
Introjection,
External
Vierling, Standage, & Physical 239 elementary school pupils 12.11 (1.21) Attitude PLOC Correlational, Pedometer —
Treasure (2007) [A] activity (119 females, 120 males) Range 9.81- Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks step counts
[A] 14.41 [A] Identified, [A] over 2 weeks
Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (adapted WCQ)
Vlachopoulos, Sport 1145 sports participants; Sample 1: Intention SMS Correlational – single — Regularity of
Karageorghis, & Terry participati Sample 1 590 (236 females, 23.35 (7.54) Attitude Intrinsic to know, wave [A] sports
(2000) [A] on [A] 353 males, 1 non-respondent); Range 18-32; Intrinsic accomplishment, participation
Sample 2 555 (250 females, Sample 2: Intrinsic stimulation,, – 1 item
305 males) 23.48 (6.56) Identified,
Range 18-30; Introjection,
[B] External
Amotivation
Wallhead & Hagger Physical 189 (95 females, 97 males) Caucasian: Intention PLOC Correlational, single — —
(2008) [B] activity high school pupils; Caucasian 11.13 (1.25); Attitude Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] sample 136 (67 females, 69 American PBC Identified,
males); American Indian Indian: 10.47 Subjective norm Introjection,
sample 56 (28 females, 28 (0.63) [A] (American External;
males) Indian sample Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
only)
Wells, Thompson, & Breast- 228 pregnant women from 23.00 Range Intention Intrinsic Motivation Correlational, single — 5-item
Kloeblen-Tarver feeding prenatal clinics 13-45 [U] Extrinsic Motivation wave [A] measure of
(2002) type and
duration of
breast feeding
Wilson & Rodgers Physical 232 female university students 20.86 (2.21) Intention PLOC (BREQ-2) Correlational – single — —
(2004) [A] activity and staff Range 17-31 Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] [B] Identified,
Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (adapted HCCQ)
Wilson, Rodgers, Physical 53 (44 females, 9 males) 41.75 (10.75) Attitude PLOC (BREQ) Non-theory based Self-report – —
Blanchard, & Gessell activity community volunteers [B] Intrinsic, exercise intervention LTEQ
(2003) [A] [A] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Note. [A] = Denotes studies coded for moderators as: published, physical activity behaviours, younger participants, and correlational design; [B] =
Denotes studies coded for moderators as: unpublished, other health behaviours, older participants, and experimental/intervention in design; LTEQ =
Leisure time exercise questionnaire (Godin & Shephard, 1985); TPB = Theory of planned behaviour; SDT = Self-determination theory; PLOC =
Perceived locus of causality; PBC = Perceived behavioural control; BREQ = Behavioural regulations in exercise questionnaire (Mullan, Markland, &
Ingledew, 1997); BREQ-2 = Behavioural regulations in exercise questionnaire-2 (Markland & Tobin, 2004); HCCQ = Health care climate
questionnaire (G.C. Williams, Cox, Kouides, & Deci, 1999); IMI = Intrinsic motivation inventory (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989); PASSES =
Perceived autonomy support scale for exercise settings (Hagger et al., 2007); PECCS = Physical education class climate scale (Biddle et al., 1995);
SRQ = Self-regulation questionnaire (Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994); LCQ = Learning climate questionnaire (G. C. Williams & Deci, 1996); SMS =
Sport Motivation Scale (Briere, Vallerand, Blais, & Pelletier, 1995); PASE = Physical activity scale for the elderly (Washburn, Smith, Jette, & Janney,
1993); WCQ = Work Climate Questionnaire (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004).
Table 1 Continues
Table 2.
Results of Meta-Analysis of Theory of Planned Behaviour and Self-Determination Theory
Components
Effect k N r+ a r++b CI95 CI90 SD SE NFS Varc
LB UB LB UB
Self-determined motivation— 18 4036 .32 .38 .32 .44 .20 .56 .11 .03 418 31.62
Perceived autonomy support
Intention
Attitude
Self-determined motivation— 18 4489 .19 .24 .15 .33 -.05 .54 .18 .05 170 17.21
Subjective norm
PBC
Behaviour
Past behaviour
Perceived autonomy support— 19 4139 .24 .28 .25 .32 .05 .51 .14 04 492 23.09
Intention
Perceived autonomy support— 15 2715 .29 .32 .24 .41 .10 .55 .14 .04 327 24.02
Attitude
Subjective norm
PBC
Behaviour
Past behaviour
Intention—Attitude 26 6662 .59 .70 .64 .75 .50 .90 .12 .03 5673 21.11
Intention—Subjective norm 21 5005 .33 .43 .33 .52 .09 .76 .20 .05 1184 14.14
Intention—PBC 24 5708 .51 .62 .53 .71 .27 .97 .22 .05 3011 9.04
Intention—Behaviour 27 5594 .52 .62 .54 .70 .28 .95 .21 .04 5347 10.72
Intention—Past behaviour 19 4171 .48 .57 .45 .70 .12 1.02 .27 .06 2413 5.99
Attitude—Subjective norm 20 4831 .32 .42 .31 .53 .04 .79 .23 .05 972 11.14
Attitude—PBC 23 5534 .45 .54 .47 .61 .29 .79 .15 .04 2295 16.48
Table 2 Continues
Effect k N r+ a r++b CI95 CI90 SD SE NFS Varc
LB UB LB UB
Attitude—Behaviour 24 4840 .37 .45 .38 .52 .21 .69 .15 .03 2222 22.08
Attitude—Past behaviour 18 3956 .34 .42 .30 .54 -.01 .84 .26 .06 895 8.54
Subjective norm—PBC 20 4831 .27 .37 .26 .47 .01 .72 .22 .05 598 13.68
Subjective norm—Behaviour 18 3610 .19 .25 .17 .33 .01 .49 .15 .04 342 28.86
Subjective norm—Past 15 2739 .27 .35 .25 .45 .07 .63 .17 .05 265 24.22
behaviour
PBC—Behaviour 22 4487 .30 .38 .29 .48 .03 .73 .21 .05 1248 13.61
PBC—Past behaviour 16 2907 .29 .37 .26 .48 .03 .72 .21 .06 493 15.14
Behaviour-past behaviour 17 3081 .57 .73 .61 .84 .35 1.10 .23 .06 2360 10.79
a
Note. Averaged correlation corrected for sampling error only; bAveraged correlation
corrected for sampling error and measurement error; cVariance accounted for by statistical
artifacts of sampling and measurement error. PBC = Perceived behavioural control; k =
Number of effect sizes contributing to averaged corrected correlation from the meta-analysis;
N = total sample size across studies contributing to correlation; CI95 = 95% confidence
intervals for averaged correlation corrected for sampling error only; CI90 = 90% confidence
interval for averaged correlation corrected for measurement error; LB = Lower bound of
confidence/credibility interval; UB = Upper bound of confidence/credibility interval; SD =
Standard deviation of averaged correlation corrected for sampling and measurement error; SE
= Standard error of averaged correlation corrected for sampling and measurement error; NFS =
Fail safe N.
Table 3.
Results of Moderator Analyses for Effects of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Self-Determination Theory Components
Moderator Effect k N r+ a r++b CI95 CI90 SD SE Varc
LB UB LB UB
Age Self-determined 15 4129 .48 .59 .51 .67 .34 .83 .14 .04 16.13
motivation—PBC
(7) (1228) (.33) (.39) (.29) (.48) (.22) (.54) (.09) (.05) (39.92)
Behaviour Attitude—PBC 20 5047 .47 .57 .50 .63 .33 .80 .14 .04 17.98
type
(3) (487) (.25) (.30) (.22) (.37) (.29) (.29) (.00) (.04) (100.00)
Attitude—Past behaviour 15 3534 .31 .39 .25 .52 -.02 .80 .25 .07 8.80
(3) (422) (.59) (.70) (.65) (.74) (.70) (.70) (.00) (.02) (100.00)
Intention—Past behaviour 16 3684 .45 .52 .39 .65 .08 .95 .26 .07 5.37
(3) (487) (.71) (.89) (.87) (.91) (.89) (.89) (.00) (.01) (100.00)
PBC—Behaviour 19 4000 .32 .41 .31 .51 .07 .75 .20 .05 14.09
(3) (487) (.10) (.13) (.01) (.24) (.05) (.20) (.05) (.06) (81.84)
Table 3 continues
Moderator Effect k N r+ a r++b CI95 CI90 SD SE Varc
LB UB LB UB
Study Self-determined 34 10385 .45 .53 .47 .58 .26 .79 .16 .03 11.85
design motivation—Intention
(4) (399) (.31) (.32) (.24) (.39) (.32) (.32) (.00) (.03) (100.00)
Note. Statistics for younger participants, physical activity behaviours, and correlational studies are shown without parentheses and statistics for
older participants, other health behaviours, and experimental/intervention studies are shown in parentheses. aAveraged correlation corrected for
sampling error only; bAveraged correlation corrected for sampling error and measurement error; cVariance accounted for by statistical artifacts of
sampling and measurement error. PBC = Perceived behavioural control; k = Number of effect sizes contributing to averaged corrected correlation
from the meta-analysis; N = total sample size across studies contributing to correlation; CI95 = 95% confidence intervals for averaged correlation
corrected for sampling error only; CI90 = 90% confidence interval for averaged correlation corrected for measurement error; LB = Lower bound
of confidence/credibility interval; UB = Upper bound of confidence/credibility interval; SD = Standard deviation of averaged correlation
corrected for sampling and measurement error; SE = Standard error of averaged correlation corrected for sampling and measurement error.
Figure caption
Figure 1. Meta-analytic path analysis of the proposed motivational sequence arising from the
integration of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Self-Determination Theory.
Note.
Coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. Only statistically significant paths
shown.
* p < .05 ** p < .01.

**
.55
**
.27
Attitude
.37**
**
.31** .44
** Perceived ** Self- ** ** **
Past .24 Autonomy .31 Determined .14 Subjective .06 .29
Intention Behavior
Behaviour Support Motivation Norm
** **
.27 .10
**
.38
Perceived .23**
Behavioral
.24**
Control
.27**
View publication stats

Effects of An Intervention Based On Self-Determination Theory On Self-Reported Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effects of An Intervention Based On Self-Determination Theory On Self-Reported Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-

Article in Psychology and Health · January 2009

Nikos L D Chatzisarantis Martin Hagger

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Floodwaters and Drowning View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1 Running head: PLANNED BEHAVIOUR AND SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

12 National Institute of Education, Singapore

17 Nikos L.D. Chatzisarantis, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological

18 University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, email: nikos.chatzisarantis@nie.edu.sg

19 Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to Martin S. Hagger,

20 School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD,

21 United Kingdom, email: martin.hagger@nottingham.ac.uk

1 Running head: PLANNED BEHAVIOUR AND SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

2 Purpose. A meta-analysis of studies integrating the theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

4 provide cumulative empirical support for a motivational sequence in which self-determined

7 Methods. A literature search identified 34 integrated studies providing 43 tests of effects

10 publication status (published vs. unpublished), study design (correlational vs.

11 experimental/intervention), and behaviour type (physical activity vs. other health-related

13 analytically derived correlations was conducted to examine the proposed motivational

15 Results. Statistically-significant corrected correlations were evident among the perceived

17 subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, intention, and health-related behaviour

24 a broader range of health behaviours.

5 explanation of volitional behavioural engagement based on a set of belief-based perceptions,

12 to be efficacious in identifying the contingencies that affect motivation and behaviour in

13 numerous domains (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000).

14 While independent meta-analyses have shown both theories to be effective in accounting

21 Hagger, & Smith, 2007).

2 self-determined motivational orientation towards a health-related behaviour will tend to form

6 sequence will be provided in a meta-analysis of the extant research on health-related

7 behaviours that has integrated the TPB and SDT.

8 Component Theories of the Integrated Model

22 2000). Individuals whose motivation is self-determined experience a sense of personal choice

24 motivation is not self-determined feel controlled, pressured, or coerced into behaving by

2 be supported or thwarted by environmental contingencies, such as the support offered by

4 Integrating the Theories

13 norms, and PBC.

20 compelled to engage in out of a sense of obligation or duty (controlled outcomes). Some

4 theory suggests that motivation to engage in health-related behaviours for self-determined or

6 On this basis, self-determined motives are hypothesised to be a distal predictor of

9 motivational sequence is proposed such that the effects of self-determined motivation on

11 attitudes and PBC (Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006).

12 The Present Study

18 artefacts such as sampling and measurement error.

1 integrated theoretical approach will be evaluated by including publication status as a

5 a moderator analysis by behaviour type seeks to provide evidence to support this.

13 in previous studies (Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, & Karageorghis, 2002; Hagger,

14 Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002a). However, self-determined motivation is not expected to be

24 direct effect of self-determined motivation on behaviour (e.g., Hagger et al., 2003).

4 Therefore, perceived autonomy support will also be included as an independent predictor of

5 self-determined motivation. Finally, the proposed effects are expected to be independent of

14 made to locate ‘fugitive literature’ (Rosenthal, 1994).

20 were required to contain sufficient statistical information such as zero-order correlation

22 statistics (e.g., Cohen’s d) in experimental or intervention studies to calculate an effect size.

23 One of the challenges of meta-analytic syntheses of studies is establishing equivalence

10 Reeve et al., 1999).

12 studies were correlational in design with a small proportion reporting experimental or

3 suggestive of variations attributable to other extraneous or ‘moderator’ variables.

14 increase in the variance accounted for by statistical artifacts.

18 none tested effects in an exclusively male comparison group of participants a moderator

5 Testing the Integrated Model