An investigation of the different motivations of marathon runners with varying degrees of experience.

Masters, Kevin S. ; Ogles, Benjamin M.

Many different theoretical perspectives acknowledge that the factors which motivate someone to initiate an activity are often different from the factors which motivate the individual to maintain or continue to engage in the behavior. Researchers in the area of exercise have been especially receptive to this position, in part because of the high drop out rate among those who begin an exercise program. Martin and Dubbert (1982) noted that between 50 and 70% of individuals who begin an exercise program drop out within 12 to 24 months. Dishman (1982, 1986) has similarly noted that about 40 to 50% drop out within the first 6 months. Lee and Owen (1986) have examined this problem from a number of perspectives, including the cognitive-behavioral and social psychological. They noted that behavior change is a process which occurs in a series of stages. Consequently, from a behavioral view, early reinforcement contingencies that influence behavior change may lose their effect as the individual moves from the acquisition to maintenance stage.

Along these lines, Shepherd (1985) has proposed that exercise programs be designed to initially maximize external reinforcement until the preliminary discomfort experienced by exercising individuals has subsided. Subsequently these exercisers will become motivated by internal rewards that are inherent in the exercise itself. Both Kasimatis, Langston and Clark (1992) and Sonstroem (1988) have reported other process models that rely more heavily on cognitive variables to explain exercise initiation and maintenance. What these approaches have in common is the position that the motivation for exercising changes throughout the individual's particular exercise history.

While theories that address the general topic of exercise have merit, Crandall (1980) has recommended that investigators concentrate their efforts on a particular activity since the motivating factors that are important in one activity may or may not be important in another. Individuals who engage in marathon running and weightlifting will, for example, differ in their reasons for participating and maintaining these activities. Thus, it seems prudent to follow Crandall's (1980) advice and investigate the reasons for initiating and maintaining behaviors within specific domains.

Previous investigators have explored the development of motives for participation with runners using retrospective self-report methods. For example, Carmack and Martens (1979) studied 250 non-marathon runners who were recruited at various locations and events throughout Illinois and Indiana. The subjects completed questionnaires that inquired about their reasons for running, outcomes of running, commitment to running, training practices, and demographics. The investigators found that serious runners tended to de-emphasize physical health as a reason for running, and instead, placed increasing emphasis on psychological reasons.

In another self-report, retrospective study Johnsgard (1985) asked a large sample of readers of a running magazine, and a second sample of runners over age 50 years why they began running and why they continue to run. He found that both groups indicated a shift toward psychological factors and away from fitness and weight control, although fitness remained the top ranked reason. Okwumabua, Meyers, and Santille (1987) recruited master runners (persons 40 years of age or older) from five 10 kilometer road races in the southern United States and from two 10 kilometer races in the southwest. They distributed a three part questionnaire and achieved a response rate of 42%. The instrument assessed demographic information and psychological aspects of running including cognitive strategies and reasons for beginning and continuing to run. They observed the now familiar shift from physiological to psychological reasons for running among the master runners in this sample.

Relatively few studies have addressed the motivation issue among marathon runners. Summers, Sargent, Levey and Murray (1982) examined motivational change with first time marathon runners participating in the Melbourne Marathon. These investigators sent a four part questionnaire by mail to 500 participants. They received 363 usable responses. Runners were asked about demographic information, training practices, attitudes toward running, reasons for attempting a second marathon, and cognitive strategies. Important for purposes of the present study is that they asked these subjects, after recently completing their first marathon, to list their reasons for attempting a second. By far the most significant reason was to run a faster time.

Barrell, Chamberlain, Evans, Holt and Mackean (1989) conducted in-depth interviews with 24 marathon runners and 17 of their spouses. They noted that becoming a committed marathon runner was a long process, one that was often slow and difficult. Important to this process was the evolution of motivation among the runners. For example, they noted that most of the runners cited keeping fit or staying healthy as reasons for their initial involvement in the sport. While these motives remained important among the highly committed runners, other factors such as achieving a sense of freedom, being challenged, winning, or attaining relaxation were also important sources of motivation for them. Both of the studies conducted with marathon runners have provided meaningful information, however, neither study included instruments with acceptable psychometric properties.

Since individuals often fail to adhere to even the most rudimentary exercise programs, marathon runners, in contrast to less serious exercisers, must endure extremely challenging circumstances during both training and competition, and thus provide a compelling model of exercise motivation and adherence. The purpose of this study was to document the motivation of marathon runners who varied in their marathon participation experience by utilizing an instrument with demonstrated psychometric properties rather than open-ended questions or untested measures. It was hypothesized that veteran marathon runners, more than their less experienced peers would derive their motivation to exercise more from psychological factors such as self-esteem, and coping with stress, and competition. Further, runners participating in their second or third marathon would be motivated primarily by the desire for personal achievement, i.e., to perform better. In keeping with the distinction between initiation and maintenance, it was hypothesized that first time marathon runners would have different motives than those who were more experienced. For the rookies it was anticipated that physical and health reasons would be more important than psychological or emotional factors, but their desire to achieve would be the most important factor.

Subjects were 472 marathon runners (80% male) who participated in one of three Midwestern marathons. They were divided into three groups based on their marathon experience: rookies (first marathon), mid-level (second or third marathon), and veterans (more than three marathons). The rookies (N = 95) ranged in age from 16 to 60 years (M = 32.9; SD = 8.7) and trained an average of 44.85 miles per week (SD = 20.49). The mid-level marathon runners ranged in age from 18 to 61 years (M = 35.7; SD = 8.63) and trained an average of 45.3 miles per week (SD = 13.59). Their previous best marathon finish times ranged from 2:54:00 to 5:36:59 with a median of 3:48:00. Finally, the veteran marathon runners had an age range of 20 to 63 years (M = 40.47; SD = 8.57) and trained an average of 51.77 miles per week (SD = 21.7). Their previous best marathon finish times ranged from 2:28:12 to 5:31:58 with a median of 3:27:00.

Procedure

Subjects were recruited during race registration the day prior to the marathon. They were asked to complete a demographic sheet containing training, performance, and experience variables, along with the Motivations of Marathoners Scales (MOMS; Masters, Ogles, & Jolton, 1993). The instruments were returned in a postage paid envelope. A response rate of 47% was obtained.

Motivations of Marathoners Scales (MOMS)

The MOMS was designed, based on research literature, to comprehensively assess reasons for marathon running (Masters, Ogles, & Jolton, 1993). It consists of 56 individual items that are organized into nine separate scales (listed in Table 1). The scales were further classified as belonging to one of the following general categories of motives: psychological (Self-esteem, Psychological Coping, Life Meaning), physical (Health Orientation, Weight Concern), social (Affiliation, Social Recognition), or achievement (Competition, Personal Goal Achievement). Subjects are asked to rate each item ranging from 1 ("not a reason") to 7 ("a very important reason") for training and running a marathon. Item scores are summed to produce scale scores.

Satisfactory psychometric data has been collected on the MOMS (Masters, Ogles, & Jolton, 1993). Alpha coefficients ranged from .80 to .93 demonstrating the internal consistency of the scales. Retest reliability, assessed by intraclass correlations over 3-4 months, was also acceptable (range from R = .71 to R= .90). Finally, evidence for the construct, factorial, and discriminant validity of the scales has been presented.

Results

A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with "experience"' as the independent variable and MOMS scores as the dependent variables was statistically significant, Wilks' Lambda = .90, F(18, 930) = 2.91, p [less than] .001. To further understand how these groups differed we examined the discriminant functions. The first function had an eigenvalue of .08, a canonical correlation of .27, and accounted for 65.8% of the variance. This function was significant; Wilks' Lambda = .89, [[Chi].sup.2] (18, N=472) = 52.52, p [less than] .001. The second function had an eigenvalue of .04, a canonical correlation of .20, and accounted for 34.2% of the variance. It was also significant; Wilks' Lambda = .96, [[Chi].sup.2] (8, N=472) = 18.17, p [less than] .05.

Inspection of the structure coefficients (Table 1) suggested that the first function reflected an affiliative dimension that was strongly oriented toward competition and recognition. Health orientation was also demonstrated to be important on this function. It was not characterized by an internal desire to perform better. The function was named "Marathon Identity". The second function reflected an intra-individual focus characterized by psychological effects of running and personal performance variables. This dimension was personal and not oriented toward other runners. It was named "Internal Focus."

Figure 1 depicts group centroids plotted as a function of experience level. As can be seen, the veterans scored significantly higher on Marathon Identity than did the mid-level or rookies. On Internal Focus it was the mid-level group scoring highest followed by the veterans with rookies last. Table 2 provides per item means and standard deviations for all groups on the MOMS.

Table 1

Discriminant Function Analysis

 Structure Coefficients
MOMS Scale Function 1 Function 2

Competition .64 .41
Affiliation .59 .05
Social Recognition .41 -.25
Health Orientation .41 .13
Weight Concern .31 -.18
Self-esteem .20 .12
Personal Goal Achievement .03 .51
Psychological Coping .16 .50
Life Meaning .28 .42
Table 2

Per item means and standard deviation on MOMS for each group

 Rookies Mid Exp. Veteran
MOMS Scale M SD M SD M SD

Competition 2.14 1.27 2.63 1.43 2.89 1.30
Affiliation 2.42 1.30 2.58 1.38 2.95 1.45
Social Recognition 2.95 1.51 2.82 1.41 3.24 1.56
Health Orientation 4.64 1.52 4.83 1.31 5.04 1.34
Weight Concern 4.01 1.81 3.91 1.74 4.27 1.70
Self-esteem 4.58 1.44 4.71 1.26 4.79 1.36
Personal Goal
Achievement 4.42 1.30 4.81 1.27 4.62 1.32
Psychological Coping 3.11 1.53 3.57 1.44 3.46 1.48
Life Meaning 2.90 1.56 3.31 1.39 3.32 1.51

Discussion

The results suggest that motivations characteristic of marathon runners differ as a function of their experience. The most experienced veterans group adopted a social identity as a marathon runner that included both competitive and health aspects. Contrary to predictions, they were motivated more by social and competitive reinforcements than by personal accomplishment or internal psychological rejuvenation. As expected, the mid-level experience group was primarily motivated by personal performance enhancement and psychological rewards, whereas marathon identity played a secondary role. They may have realized social benefits of marathon running but had not entirely adopted a marathon identity. The first time rookie runners were not characterized by either function. That is, they appeared less motivated by a marathon identity and, since they had not yet realized marathon goal accomplishment, they were apparently less concerned with performance improvement.

Veteran Marathon Runners

The veteran marathon runners were primarily motivated by variables concerned with social identity, recognition, affiliation, health, and competition, termed the "marathon identity". These individuals constitute a unique subset of experienced runners who are distinguished by their repeated participation in marathons and a unique set of motives for running. Since previous research has suggested that exercise motivation moves from extrinsic to intrinsic (Shepherd, 1985), and from physical to psychological motivation for runners (Carmack & Martens, 1979; Johnsgard, 1985; Okwumabua, Meyers & Santille, 1987), we were surprised by the external/social characteristics that motivated the veteran marathon runners.

In trying to understand the motivations of marathon runners, it seems that those who continue with the event focus on it as an important part of their personal and social identity and they desire recognition from others based on their marathon running. This finding is understandable when the time and effort involved in continued marathon participation are considered. Perseverance in a venture that requires this much involvement will certainly be enhanced by, and may even require, social reinforcement. Barrell et al. (1989) provide a detailed discussion on how marathon runners must work to make available the time necessary for training. They report that for many of these runners the cooperation of a number of individuals, including family and friends, is often necessary for them to be able to continue running marathons. In many cities of the U.S. there is a running culture where many of the same participants are involved in numerous events and get to know each other, sometimes even belonging to the same road running or track club. With this in mind, it was interesting to note that when we asked the runners to list how many marathon runners they knew personally we found that the veterans reported knowing an average of 19.52 as compared to 9.6 for the mid-level runners and 5.0 for the rookies. So it seems that those individuals who run many marathons depend to some extent on motivation generated from others in their social network who recognize them as marathon runners and support them in these efforts. Fellow marathon runners may also provide a crucial amount of affiliative or social support that also helps to sustain the activity.

The veterans were also competitive. Previous investigators (Barrell et al.; 1989; Masters & Lambert, 1989) have found that competitive motivation and marathon finish times are negatively correlated. That is, this suggests that those who are more skilled will also be more likely to persevere. In fact, within our sample the more experienced runners ran significantly faster than the other groups (p [less than] .001).

Mid-level Marathon Runners

The findings of this study largely agree with those of previous investigators when considering the motivation of the mid-level marathon runners. Both Johnsgard (1985) and Okwumabua, et al. (1987) found that more experienced runners were more motivated by psychological reasons than by physical benefits. Summers, et al. (1982), studying runners after they completed their first marathon, documented that reasons for running a second marathon were largely oriented around performance enhancement as well as psychological variables. These results agree with our findings pertaining to the mid-level marathoners. It was this group that was most motivated by a desire to perform better than they had previously and who derived the most psychological benefit from marathon running. Their focus was internal, centering on psychological beneficence and intrapersonal performance enhancement.

Rookie Marathon Runners

The discriminant analysis provided little information regarding the reasons why subjects attempt their first marathon since the rookies scored low on both discriminant functions. To acquire preliminary data on this question we examined the per item means on each scale (see Table 2). This suggested that health and weight concerns, self-esteem, and personal goal achievement may all be relevant to the motivational experience of first time marathon runners. These findings, particularly those pertaining to health, weight, and personal goal achievement, are what we expected based on previous research (Carmack & Martens, 1979; Clough, Shepherd, & Maughan, 1989; Johnsgard, 1985, 1989; Summers, et al., 1982; Summers, Machin, & Sargent, 1983) which has consistently identified these factors as being important for the initiation of exercise and marathon running. The importance of self-esteem may be unique to first time marathon runners and may be a distinguishing feature of their motivation as compared to other exercisers or runners of shorter distances.

Implications and Limitations

The pattern of results across the three groups indicates differences in the motivations of more and less experienced marathon runners. This suggests the possibility of a change in motivation from a personal performance, psychologically-based and internally focused stage to an externally focused, competitive and socially-oriented "marathon identity" phase. However, due to the cross-sectional design of this study, developmental sequencing is only one of several hypotheses. Another possible interpretation is that there is a subset of marathon participants who begin running for competitive and social reasons and continue to run for these same reasons while becoming veteran runners. Longitudinal studies could provide the critical test for these rival interpretations as with the present design it is not possible to know which rookie runners will continue and become mid-level or veteran runners and which mid-level runners will become veterans.

Similar to Crandall's (1980) work, it is questionable how far the results could be generalized beyond marathon runners to other runners or exercisers. Particularly among the veteran marathon runners we found results that are not entirely consistent with expectations based on work with other populations. Nevertheless, the findings are worth considering in light of how they may apply to other groups.

For example, the results of this study imply that adherence to exercise may be enhanced if initial efforts are directed toward psychological variables. These could include careful and flexible goal setting (Martin et al., 1984), emphasis on the relaxation and mood enhancement effects often associated with exercise (Morgan & Goldston, 1987), and talking to participants about exercise as part of a healthy philosophy of life including what this may mean in terms of other important areas of functioning such as job and family. The program could then introduce social reinforcers that would facilitate the acquisition of an identity based on the activity being performed (Dubbert, Rappaport, & Martin, 1987). Examples include public rewards for achieving certain milestones, announcements in company or agency publications, and the ever popular, yet still valued, awarding of t-shirts displaying emblems or logos that identify the wearer as a particular type of exerciser. The development of perceived and actual competence is also important throughout the program and must be considered at each phase.

References

Barrell, G., Chamberlain, A., Evans. J., Holt, T., & Mackean, J. (1989). Ideology and commitment in family life: a case study of runners. Leisure Studies, 8, 249-262.

Carmack, M. A., & Martens, R. (1979). Measuring commitment to running: A survey of runners' attitudes and mental states. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 24-42.

Clough, P., Shepherd, J., & Maughan, R. (1989). Motives for participation in recreational running. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 297-309.

Crandall, R. J. (1980). Motivations for leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 45-54.

Dishman, R. K. (1982). Compliance/adherence in health-related exercise. Health Psychology, 3, 237-267.

Dishman, R. K. (1986). Exercise compliance: A new view for public health. The Physician and Sports Medicine, 14, 1:27-145

Dubbert, P. M., Rappaport, N. B., & Martin, J. E. (1987). Exercise in cardiovascular disease. Behavior Modification, 11, 329-347.

Johnsgard, K. W. (1985). The motivation of the long distance runner: II. Journal of Sports Medicine, 25, 140-143.

Johnsgard, K. W. (1989). The exercise prescription for depression and anxiety. New York: Plenum.

Kasimatis, M., Langston, C. A., & Clark, L. F. (1992). Toward a process model of exercise adherence. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Lee, C., & Owen, N. (1986). Uses of psychological theories in understanding the adoption and maintenance of exercising. The Australian Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18, 22-25.

Martin, J, E., & Dubbert, P.M. (1982). Exercise applications and promotion in behavioral medicine: Current status and future directions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 1004-1017.

Martin, J. E., Dubbert, P.M., Katell, A. D., Thompson, J. K., Raczynski, J. R., Lake, M., Smith, P. O., Webster, J. S., Sikora, T., & Cohen, R. E. (1984). Behavioral control of exercise in sedentary adults: Studies 1-6. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 795-811.

Masters, K. S., & Lambert, M. J. (1989). The relations between cognitive coping strategies, reasons for running, injury, and performance of marathon runners. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 161-170.

Masters, K. S., Ogles, B. M, & Jolton, J. A. (1993). The development of an instrument to measure motivation for marathon running: The Motivations of Marathoners Scales (MOMS). Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 134-143.

Morgan, W. P., & Goldston, S. E. (Eds.). (1987). Exercise and mental health. New York: Hemisphere.

Okwumabua, T. M., Meyers, A. W., & Santille, L. (1987). A demographic and cognitive profile of master runners. Journal of Sport Behavior, 10, 212-220.

Shepherd, R. J. (1985). Factors influencing the exercise behavior of patients. Sports Medicine, 2, 348-366.

Sonstroem, R. J. (1988). Psychological models. In R. K. Dishman (Ed.), Exercise adherence: Its impact on public health, 125-153. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Summers, J. J., Sargent, G. I., Levey, A. J., & Murray, K. D. (1982). Middle-aged, non-elite marathon runners: A profile Perceptual and Motor Skills, 54, 963-969.

Summers, J. J., Machin, V. J., & Sargent, G. I. (1983). Psychosocial factors related to marathon running. Journal of Sports Psychology, 5, 314-331.