Differences in participation motives of first-time marathon finishers and pre-race dropouts.

Havenar, Jake ; Lochbaum, Marc

Regular physical activity is associated with a variety of beneficial physiological and psychological outcomes (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). Despite these benefits, it is estimated that 60% of the US population does not engage in recommended amounts of physical activity, 25% engage in no physical activity, and only 15% engage in 30 min of moderate activity for 5 or more days per week (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). Despite these alarming participation statistics, a small portion of our society actually endures the pain and financial costs of aerobic endurance events such as marathons. Masters, Ogles, and Jolton (1993) have appropriately named marathon runners "super adherers." Because of their large divergence from the majority of Americans and the pain, monetary, and time commitment required to train and run a marathon, the motives of long distance and marathon runners have been gaining research attention (Barrell, Chamberlain, Evans, Holt & Mackean, 1989; Curtis & McTeer, 1981; Johnsgard, 1985a; Johnsgard, 1985b; Masters & Lambert, 1989; Masters & Ogles, 1995; Ogles & Masters, 2000; Ogles & Masters, 2003; Ogles, Masters, & Richardson, 1995; Summers, Sargent, Levely, & Murray, 1982; Thornton & Scott, 1995; Ziegler, 1991). Though the motives of those who endure marathons are interesting, past research has yet to investigate the motive differences in runners prior to training for their race. Hence, the purpose of this present investigation was to prospectively examine whether the motives of runners differ in those who completed the marathon training and actual marathon from those who dropped out of marathon training.

Motivations of Marathon Runners

The voluntary engagement of several thousands of marathoners each year in an otherwise sedentary society creates the following simple question: What motivates these people? Curtis and McTeer (1981) were among the first to specifically investigate marathoners. The researchers used open-ended questions that asked for reasons why runners increased their distance to that of a marathon. The results suggested that runners were initially motivated by physical benefits such as weight loss and mental benefits such as stress relief. Specific to increasing training distance to that of a marathon, participant reported motives were for the desire to meet personal running distance goals. Summers and colleagues (1982) used an open ended response format to examine motivational changes of first time marathoners. They distributed questionnaire packets pre- and post-race. The pre-race questionnaire asked runners to list reasons for participating in their first marathon. Facing physical and mental challenges along with a sense of accomplishment were the most often cited reasons. The post-race questionnaire asked finishers for reasons why they would run another marathon. The top reason given was to run a faster time. Barrell et al. (1989) interviewed 24 runners who had already completed at least one marathon. They found that, at the beginning of their career these runners were motivated to stay in shape. Additionally, it was discovered that as these runners gained experience, they were still motivated to stay in shape, but they were also motivated to compete with themselves by running a faster time and to beat other racers.

Although these studies have provided insight and ideas for current research on marathoners, the studies have been faulty because they have relied on non-psychometrically validated, open-ended, recall questions to garner data. In addition, the studies also included runners who had not completed a marathon for their comparison group. To overcome many of the past research methodological shortcomings, Masters and colleagues (1993) developed the Motivations of Marathoners Scales (MOMS). The MOMS is a standardized self-report instrument designed to measure nine different motivational domains including: general health orientation, weight concern, affiliation, recognition, competition, personal goal achievement, psychological coping, self-esteem, and life meaning.

Using the MOMS, Ogles and Masters (2003) provided evidence that marathon runners are differentially motivated. Based on data collected from marathon runners with varying levels of experience, a multivariate cluster analysis identified five distinct motivational profiles including: Running Enthusiasts, Lifestyle Managers, Personal Goal Achievers, Personal Accomplishers, and Competitive Achievers. Motives related to health, personal achievement and self-esteem were more important than competitive and social motives across all five groups. Additionally, psychological motives were rated as slightly more important than competitive and social motives for all five clusters. Ogles and Masters (2000) compared the motivations of younger (between 20 and 28 years of age) and older participants (> 50 years of age). The older runners were more motivated by general health orientation, weight, life meaning and group affiliation, whereas the younger runners were more motivated by personal goal achievement. Last with the MOMS, Masters and Ogles (1995) compared the motives of runners grouped according to three different experience levels. The MOMS along with a training experience questionnaire was handed out at race day registration. The three experience groups were rookies (first marathon), mid-levels (second or third marathon), and veterans (over three marathons completed). Veterans were motivated by social identity, recognition, affiliation, health, and competition. Mid-levels were motivated to have a better performance than their first race. They were also identified as being motivated by internal intrapersonal performance enhancement and internal psychological beneficence. Rookies were more motivated by health, weight concern and personal goal achievement.

Present Investigation: Purpose and Hypotheses

To date, all research examining the MOMS within marathon runners have surveyed only race finishers (Masters & Ogles, 1995; Ogles & Masters, 2000; Ogles & Masters, 2003). The present study adds two original components to the continuing analysis of marathon runners' participation motivations. First, to control for potential error resulting from dissimilar marathon experience, the study sample will be comprised solely of first time or "rookie" marathon participants. Second, one of the comparison groups will be comprised solely of dropouts. To further understand the problem of attrition, the present study will attempt to distinguish motivations associated with first time marathon runners' participation compared to dropouts. Hence, the purpose of the present study is to compare the participation motivations of training and race finishers to pre-race dropouts among a group of first time marathon runners. It was hypothesized that a majority of the study sample would discontinue training prior to the race (dropouts). Thus, a smaller number would finish training and the race (finishers). Based on past research, it was hypothesized that rookie finishers would be motivated by health, weight concerns, and personal goal achievement more so than dropouts.

Method

Participants

Participants were 106 first time marathon runners who volunteered for the present investigation. All participants had to have been 18 years of age and had not attempted to run a marathon. Of these runners, 72 (68%) were females and 34 (32%) were males. Finishers (n = 31) were defined as those who completed the training protocol and the subsequent marathon. Dropouts (n = 75) were defined as participants who discontinued training prior to the beginning of the race. Of the dropouts, 46 (61%) were female and 29 (39%) were male. Finishers were comprised of 27 (87%) females and 4 (13%) males.

Measures

Running Experience. Two questions assessed running experience by asking participants how many miles they ran per week and how many years and or months they had been running. Specifically, runners were asked: "How many miles a week they currently run?" and "How long have you been running?" The time of their prior running experience was converted into months and multiplied by the miles ran per week for each person. This produced a cumulative running sum total for each participant. Three cut points were set to divide subjects into the following three experience groups: low (0-100 miles), medium (101-1000 miles), and high (> 1001 miles).

Motivations of Marathoners Scales (MOMS). The MOMS is a 56-item inventory that (Masters et al., 1993) assesses reasons for participation in a marathon based on nine subscales. The nine subscales fall under the following four general motive categories: psychological, physical health, social, and achievement. The psychological motives category is comprised of the following subscales: self-esteem, psychological coping, and life meaning. The physical health motive category is comprised of: health orientation and weight concern. The social motives category includes: affiliation and social recognition. The achievement motives category is made up of motivations driven by: competition and personal goal achievement. Each item is measured on a 7 point Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 not a reason to 7 a very important reason. Participants rate the importance of each item as a reason for running. Items corresponding to each of the nine domains are summed to produce a total motivation score. In the present investigation, the MOMS demonstrated sound internal consistency psychometric properties (Cronbach's alpha range .75 to .88).

Procedure

Marathon runners were recruited at two pre-training informational meetings provided by two separate marathon training organizations. The organizations were non-profit and provided free group training and coaching with an agreement that runners would raise a set dollar amount for the charity affiliated with the organization. The directors of each organization were contacted and upon explanation of the study agreed to provide access to their runners for data collection. At each meeting, the first author explained the investigation and presented appropriate informed consent forms. Once participants agreed to participate, they were asked to complete the MOMS along with a question that assessed gender and two questions that assessed previous running experience. The response rate was 45%. All data were collected at the meetings that were held one week prior to the beginning of training; hence, the investigation's design was prospective. After the marathon race (six months post meeting and questionnaire completion) race results were obtained to differentiate finishers from dropouts.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

As previously described, running experience was operationally defined as low, medium, and high based on self-reported running mileage. Although the sample was homogeneous in terms of number of marathons completed, an analysis based on running experience was conducted to ensure that MOMS scores did not significantly differ across the three levels of running experience. In addition, both males and females were included in the study. Thus, the effects of running experience and gender were examined for each MOMS scale. For instance, for the psychological motive scale, a 2 (Gender) by 3 (Running Experience) MANOVA was conducted on the three psychological motive subscales. No significant interactions or main effects were found on any of the nine MOMS subscales (p > .05).

Main Analyses

MANOVAs were conducted for each MOMS scale (see Table 1 for means, standard deviations, and effect sizes) to determine whether motives differed by the participants who finished all of the training and marathon and those who dropped out of training and the race. The MANOVA was significant for the social motive scale, Wilks' Lambda = .94, F(2, 103) = 3.16, p < .05. Follow-up univariate analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted on the two social motive subscales. Both ANOVAs were significant (p < .05): social recognition, F(1,104) = 4.37; affiliation, F(1, 104) = 4.21. The effect sizes were moderate (-.34 and -.43, respectively for social recognition and affiliation) suggesting that dropouts endorsed these two motives moderately more at the beginning of the training than did those who finished the training and the marathon. The ANOVA on the weight concern subscale was significant, F(1,104) = 4.43, p < .05., and the effect size value was moderate in magnitude (ES = -.45). This difference along with the moderately meaningful effect size suggests that the dropouts began training with weight as an important motive when compared to the finishers. The MANOVAs for the other motive domains were not significant.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to compare the participation motivations of training and race finishers to pre-race dropouts among a group of first time marathon runners. It was hypothesized that a majority of the study sample would discontinue training prior to the race. This hypothesis was confirmed given 70% of the current sample dropped out prior to completion of the six month training program. This attrition rate among first time marathoners mimics that of the general public. Research has consistently suggested that at least 50-70 % of individuals discontinue an exercise program within the first six months. (Martin & Dubbert, 1982; Dishman, 1994; United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2000). Given the intensity of a marathon training program, it is not surprising that 70% of the participants discontinued training.

Concerning differences in motivations for marathon running, we hypothesized that rookie finishers would be more motivated by health, weight concern, and personal goal achievement. This hypothesis was not supported. Surprisingly, significant differences between the two groups emerged on the weight concern subscale and both of the social motive scales (social recognition and affiliation) in that the dropouts reported significantly greater scores on these subscales. These results were in contrast to our hypothesis regarding finisher motivation. During the development of MOMS, Masters Ogles and Jolton (1993) established content validity by using a confirmatory factor analysis. Correlation coefficients indicated that MOMS items which comprise the weight concern and recognition subscales were endorsed by a low percentage of marathon runners as a reason for training and running a marathon. The present results found these same two motives to be more strongly endorsed by non marathon runners (dropouts) than marathon runners (finishers) as a reason to begin a marathon training program. The consistency of these findings suggests that weight concern and recognition motives among first time marathoners are possible predictors of premature disseveration from the training program.

Concerning the reported differences in social motives, explanations exist. It is important to first note that although dropouts scored significantly higher than finishers on the social recognition and affiliation subscales, the mean values for both finishers and dropouts suggest that these two motives were of less importance than weight concern. This lower rating of social motives is consistent with Masters and colleagues (1993) initial findings. One possible explanation for the present results is the sampled participants. The sample was comprised solely of participants who had signed up to run for a non-profit training group. In exchange for personalized coaching, organized group training sessions, race entry and travel fees, each runner was required to raise over a thousand dollars for the charity affiliated with the training group. It could be that participants in search of recognition, specifically, may have received their desired amounts just during the fund raising portion of their experience. Actually completing the training and running the race might not have provided any more recognition or at least recognition at the level required to train and run a marathon. Social affiliation/support does increase adherence rates in exercisers (Carron, Hausenblas, & Mack, 1996). It may be speculated that the social affiliation goals of the dropouts were simply not met.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

As with most investigations, limitations were present in this investigation. First, based on the results, recording the participants' weight loss goals would have been very beneficial. Though the desired amount of weight that one participant compared to another desire to lose could be very different (i.e., 50 pounds or 5 pounds), it would have been informative to have these goals recorded to determine if dropouts' weight loss goals were greater than the race finishers. It is certainly plausible that the dropouts desired to lose more weight because they simply were heavier (more unhealthy weight). In addition to this limitation, more females than males participated in the present investigation. Given the MOMS was based mainly on male participants, the present results are difficult to fully interpret.

Last, the commitment to raising money for a non-profit organization is a potential motivator not assessed by the MOMS. Data reporting individual success rates in terms of fundraising were not collected and therefore could not be compared to the motivational data derived from the MOMS. It is possible that finishers and dropouts were motivated primarily to raise money. Finishers may have been motivated by a desire to raise money as a means to represent the organization during the race. Dropouts may have been motivated to fundraise, but they might not have felt the need to continue training once the monetary goal was met. By contrast, the added task of raising money may have contributed to a higher dropout rate. Based on these limitations, several future recommendations are warranted.

Future research should be conducted to verify the psychometric properties of the MOMS on a large female sample of marathon runners. Researchers in the future should include more specific quantitative measures of current weight and weight loss goals. Qualitative data should be collected to examine what specifically about social recognition and affiliation is motivating to potential marathon runners. Future samples should include runners who train primarily by themselves to allow for motivational comparisons with group affiliated runners. Data that tracks individual fundraising success rates should be included with samples that contain participants affiliated with a non-profit organization. Last, future research should be conducted that attempts to attend to participant motives because it is known that people are more likely to drop out of a program that does not match their motivations (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

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.

Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Mack, D. (1996). Social influence and exercise: A meta-analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 1-16.

Curtis, J., & McTeer, W. (1981). The motivation for running. Canadian Runner (pp. 18-19).

Dishman, R. K. (Ed.). (1994). Advances in exercise adherence. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Garner, K. M., & Wooley, S. C. (1991). Confronting the failure of behavioral and dietary treatments for obesity. Clinical Psychology Review, 11, 729-780.

Grover, V. P, Keel, P. K., & Mitchell, J. P. (2003). Gender Differences in implicit weight identity. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 34, 125-135.

Johnsgard, K. (1985a). The motivation of the long distance runner: I. Journal of Sports Medicine, 25, 135-139.

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

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.

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, 11, 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.

Masters, K. S., & Ogles, B. M. (1995). An investigation of the different motivations of marathon runners with varying degrees of exercise. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18, 69-79.

Ogles, B. M., Masters, K. S. & Richardson, S. A. (1995). Obligatory running and gender: An analysis of participative motives and training habits. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 233-248.

Ogles, B. M., & Masters, K. S. (2000). Older versus younger adult male marathon runners: Participative motives and training habits. Journal of Sport Behavior, 23, 1-14.

Ogles, B. M., & Masters, K. S. (2003). A typology of marathon runners based on cluster analysis of motivations. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26, 69-85.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

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.

Thornton, E. W., & Scott, S.E. (1995). Motivation in a committed runner: Correlations between self-report scales and behavior. Health Promotion International, 10, 177-184.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Ziegler, S. G. (1991). Perceived benefits of marathon running in males and females. Sex Roles, 25, 119-127.

Jake Havenar

Arizona State University

Marc Lochbaum

Texas Tech University

Address Correspondence To: Jacob Havenar, Physical Activity Nutrition & Wellness, Department of Exercise & Wellness, Arizona State University, Phone: (480)-727-1945, Fax: (480)-727-1051, E-mail: [email protected]

Table 1. Means and standard deviations for MOMS subscales by finishers
and pre-race drop outs
 Finishers Pre-race Drop
 (n = 31) Outs (n = 75)

Motives M SD M SD [ES.sub.
 between]
Physical Health
 Health Orientation 5.32 1.38 5.62 1.01 -.27
 Weight Concerns (a) 4.32 1.72 5.03 1.50 -.45
Achievement
 Person Goal
 Achievement 4.16 1.37 4.36 1.14 -.17
 Competition 1.73 1.05 1.89 .92 -.17
Social Motives
 Social Recognition (b) 2.14 1.21 2.52 1.11 -.34
 Affiliation (c) 2.52 1.11 3.07 1.35 -.43
Psychological
 Psychological Coping 2.90 1.73 3.39 1.56 -.30
 Life Meaning 3.05 1.51 3.42 1.52 -.25
 Self-esteem 4.35 1.62 4.71 1.30 -.27

Note: ANOVA results (a) F(1, 104)=4.43,p=.038; (b) F(1, 104)=4.37,
p=.039; (c) F(1, 104)=4.21,p=.042.