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

net/publication/308776738

The relationship between basic need satisfaction, behavioral regulation, and

participation in Crossfit

Article · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

15 310

3 authors:

Melissa Davies Lyndsie Koon

Ohio University University of Kansas
17 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS    26 PUBLICATIONS   69 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Megan Babkes Stellino

University of Northern Colorado
49 PUBLICATIONS   560 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Brand Management in a Niche Sport View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Melissa Davies on 12 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Relationship between Basic Psychological
Need Satisfaction, Behavioral Regulation,
and Participation in CrossFit

Melissa J. Davies
University of the Pacific

Lyndsie Coleman and Megan Babkes Stellino

University of Northern Colorado

CrossFit can be described as a relatively new fitness training method that is based on a va­
riety o f high-intensity weight training, body weight movements, and cardiovascular exercise.
Given the recent rise in CrossFit establishments, the purpose o f this study was to explore the
relationships between basic need satisfaction (autonomy, relatedness, competence), behav­
ioral regulation toward CrossFit, and actual participation behaviors within the framework
o f Self-Determination Theory. CrossFit participants (N = 206; Mage = 37.6 years), majority
Caucasian (76%), females (58%), who reported attending three (n = 91; 44.2%>) and five (n
= 78; 37.9%) CrossFit sessions per week completed online surveys about need satisfaction
and CrossFit self-regulation. Participants who attended CrossFit more frequently had signifi­
cantly higher levels o f basic need satisfaction across all three needs. Differences existed also
in behavioral regulation across frequency o f attendance and age. Together, the three basic
needs explained 38.8% o f the variance in autonomous regulation, while explaining 5.7% o f
the variance in controlled regulation toward CrossFit. This study provided empirical sup­
port fo r previous theoretical connections between basic psychological need satisfaction and
self-determined regulation toward exercise. Findings are intended to help inform CrossFit
“box” directors and those o f other group fitness activities looking fo r increased participant
recruitment and retention.

Address correspondence to: Melissa J. Davies, 3601 Pacific Avenue University of the
Pacific, Main Gym Stockton, CA 95211. University of Email: Mdavies@pacific.edu
239
240 / Journal o f Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

Physical inactivity is a prominent concern for people of all ages across North America.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics (2012), only 35% of the adult popula­
tion engages in physical activity on a regular basis, while 33% of adults are considered phys­
ically inactive. Of those participants who do attempt physical activity routines, there is often
a lack of persistence as nearly 50% of participants will drop out within the first 6 months
(Marcus & Forsyth, 2003). Similarly, over 70% of the adult population is not sufficiently
physically active, through neither frequency nor intensity, to see the physiological, psycho­
logical, and social benefits exercise and physical activity may provide (Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2011).
The decline in physical activity that occurs in adulthood is directly related to the
prevalence of obesity-related disease such as diabetes, hypertension and heart disease (Guh,
et al., 2009). Currently, more than one third of adults are considered obese (National Center
for Health Statistics, 2012). Though one’s adherence to an exercise program is prompted
through individual, environmental, and other factors (Biddle & Mutrie, 2007), the motiva­
tional context derived through these factors may serve as the central influence on behavior.
Previous research has revealed that, while most adults report the ease with which they start
a structured group fitness class, about 50% will drop out within the first three to six months
(Dishman & Sallis, 1994; Sallis & Hovell, 1990). Exploring the reasons that motivate, or
prevent, participation in physical activity is, therefore, a salient topic for sport and physical
activity practitioners.
CrossFit can be described as a relatively new physical training method that is based on
a variety of high-intensity weight training, gymnastics, body weight movements, and cardio­
vascular exercise (Glassman, 2010). CrossFit sessions, known as WOD’s (workout-of-the-
day), encompass all types of physical fitness: endurance, stamina, strength, speed, flexibility,
power, coordination, agility, and balance (Sibley, 2012). WODs take place in gyms known
as “boxes,” since the locations are typically old warehouses converted to useable gym space.
CrossFit is comparable to a group fitness class where effort is individually regulated, mem­
bers pace themselves, and progress or modify workouts at their own comfort and capability
levels. In addition, CrossFit coaches keep daily records of final times, number of repetitions,
and weight in pounds used in activities for each client’s future reference in the event that a
WOD is repeated. People are noticeably intrigued by this style of physical activity, as Cross-
Fit affiliates have grown from 7 to 3,500 between 2005 and 2012, and currently operate in
61 different countries, with nearly 50 new affiliates added each week (Huntley, 2012).
Few studies have examined the effects of CrossFit training, and no study to date has
examined the relationship between the social psychological factors and motivation as they
specifically relate to CrossFit participation. Understanding these aspects within the CrossFit
 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION IN CROSSFIT. . . /241

context is important given that attendance at three CrossFit sessions per week would satisfy
the recommended physical activity guidelines for adults (i.e., 20 to 60 minutes of vigor­
ous-intensity exercise three days per week) thereby reducing the physical inactivity nation­
wide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011).

Self-Determination Theory
To understand motivation in CrossFit participation, Self-Determination Theory (SDT;
Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is an appropriate and relevant theoretical founda­
tion. CrossFit, as compared to many other fitness environments, is a unique, very physically
challenging, group-oriented form of exercise that depends on individual self-regulation.
Understanding the motivational processes involved in choosing, putting forth effort, and
persisting in this unique context has the potential to meaningfully add to the SDT literature.
In particular, the unique aspects of CrossFit have the potential to reveal that competence,
autonomy, and relatedness basic psychological needs predict autonomous motivation and
behavior outcomes differently than they do in other group fitness, exercise contexts. SDT
is a prominent theory within the motivation literature which relies on four mini-theories to
explain people’s choice, effort, and persistence toward an activity. Motivation, within SDT,
can be conceptualized on a continuum of regulation ranging from extrinsic, or externally
regulated, through to intrinsic, or internally regulated behavior. In this framework, the psy­
chological underpinnings of behavior can be considered through a range of regulations from
controlling to autonomous (Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006).
When behavior is extrinsically motivated, or externally regulated, it is typically
selected due to the compliance toward some form of control or pressures within the con­
text or from significant others, such as family, friends, or a doctor (Mullan & Markland,
1997). Along these lines, a slightly less external form of regulation would be an introjected
regulation, which is reflected when there is not an actual external pressure, but rather a sense
of guilt felt from not engaging in a specific behavior, such as exercise (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Identified regulation is behavior undertaken for the perceived value or usefulness it offers an
individual, though it is not fully integrated to one’s being, as would be the case in a person
who displayed an integrated regulation. Intrinsic motivation, the most self-determined or
autonomous form of regulation, is very similar to integrated regulation, except that intrinsic
regulation includes an element of inherent interest in the activity, beyond the importance or
value placed on the behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Research findings show that across the lifespan, adults report various motivational
regulations to maintain a physically active lifestyle (Brunet & Sabiston, 2011). Younger
adults are more likely motivated to stay physically active for appearance reasons, whereas
242 / Journal o f Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

older adults are motivated by a more intrinsic perspective that includes reducing the physical
effects of aging, the overall enjoyment, pleasure and challenge they experience from partici­
pating in exercise and physical activity.
Internal regulation, or intrinsic motivation, is desirable because it has been positively
associated with persistence toward physical activity (see Teixeira, Carraca, Markland, Silva,
& Ryan, 2012). Kirkland, Karlin, Babkes Stellino, and Pulos (2011), for example, found
that exercisers over the age of 55, who were more intrinsically motivated to exercise, also
reported more frequent exercising habits. Age is a salient consideration in exercise motiva­
tion research due to the shifting goals, values, life demands, and health conditions across
the lifespan (Miller & Iris, 2002). Mullan and Markland (1997) studied exercise motivation
within a combined SDT and Transtheoretical Model of Behavior Change (TTM; Proshaska
& DiClemente, 1984) perspective to find that the more autonomous forms of behavioral
regulation were associated with later stages of change, meaning that those who were regular
exercisers, for the most part, did so under a more self-determined, internal regulation to do
so.
Ryan and Deci (2000) explain that humans have an innate tendency to pursue activities
that extend and challenge one’s capabilities. Intrinsic regulation is present when activities
foster this ability to pursue an inherent interest or the opportunity to satisfy a meaningful
challenge (Ryan & Deci, 2000). One of the SDT mini-theories which supports this innate
tendency is Basic Needs Theory (BNT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) which posits that when the three
basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy, and relatedness) are satisfied, a person
will be more intrinsically motivated to pursue an endeavor (Alexandris, Kouthouris, & Gir-
golas, 2007; Patrick & Canevello, 2011). According to BNT, because competence, autonomy
and relatedness are basic needs, people will inherently be motivated to find situations and
activities which satisfy these needs.
Competence refers to an individual’s perceived ability to interact effectively with
one’s environment (Kirkland, Karlin, Babkes Stellino, & Pulos, 2011), or the need to master
personally challenging tasks as opposed to mundane, trivial or meaningless tasks (Rodgers
et al., 2014). White (1959) described competence as the desire to be effective, efficient, and
masterful within an environment. A high perception of competence in any domain may result
in higher levels of persistence of that behavior (Elliot, 2005). Unlike the concept of self-effi­
cacy, or a situation-specific self-confidence and the perception that one can successfully ex­
ecute a chosen behavior (Bandura, 1997), competence addresses the expected consequences
of successful completion of a certain behavior and is associated with optimally challenging
tasks (Rodgers et al., 2014).
 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION IN CROSSFIT... /243

Autonomy refers to the choice surrounding the behavior as being derived by the
self. The need for autonomy is said to be fulfilled when individuals feel that they have the
opportunity to make selections, that their beliefs are valued, and when those individuals
are self-controllers (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Meanwhile, external factors, such as pressures
from others, guilt, deadlines, competition, and supervision can all negatively impact the
need satisfaction of autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Finally, relatedness refers to a sense of
belongingness with significant others (Harter, 1981; Ryan & Deci, 2006). Kipp and Amorose
(2008) defined the need for relatedness as “an individual’s desire to have satisfying and con­
sistent involvement with others” (p. 110). Through an understanding of what each of these
basic needs looks like in relation to physical activity, researchers can pinpoint conditions and
undertakings which are more likely to facilitate intrinsic motivation via basic need satisfac­
tion (Vallerand & Losier, 1999).
Given that the exercise setting of CrossFit requires bouts of intense effort and caters to
a wide range of age, size, and abilities, the purpose of this study was to explore the relation­
ships between basic psychological need satisfaction, behavioral regulation toward CrossFit,
and actual participation behaviors within a Self-Determination Theory (SDT) framework.
Three research questions guided this study: 1) what basic psychological needs significantly
predict autonomous and controlled motivation toward CrossFit participation? and 2) are
there differences in the basic psychological need predictors and/or forms of behavioral
regulation for CrossFit according to participant age and 3) are there differences in the basic
psychological need predictors and/or forms of behavioral regulation for CrossFit according
to participant gender?
Based on previous studies examining SDT and exercise (e.g., Kirkland, Karlin, Babkes
Stellino, & Pulos, 2011), we predicted that CrossFit participants who report higher satisfac­
tion across each of the three basic needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness will be
more autonomously motivated to pursue CrossFit. Silva et al. (2010) found that a more au­
tonomous exercise environment positively predicted long-term exercise behavior and weight
loss among women, and Moustaka, Vlachopoulos, Kabitsis, & Theodorakis (2012) reported
higher attendance rates among an autonomy-supportive exercise class when compared with
those attending a class that lacked autonomy support. Therefore, it was also predicted that
autonomously motivated participants will demonstrate more positive behaviors toward the
activity, specifically a higher frequency of attendance and long-term exercise participation.
Furthermore, previous research has found younger participants report more external mo­
tivates for exercise participation (Brunet & Sabiston, 2011) and it was predicted younger
CrossFit participants to hold more external regulations toward participation than older par­
ticipations. No significant differences were expected according to gender, since other studies
244 /Journal o f Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

(e.g., Mullen, Markland, & Ingledew, 1997) have found invariance across gender with
respect to motivational regulations in exercise. However, consistent with previous exercise
research (e.g., Brunet & Sabiston, 2011), younger CrossFit participants were expected to
hold more external regulations toward participation than are the older participants.

Methods

Participants
Participants were recruited through the “boxes” in which they currently engage in
CrossFit sessions. CrossFit affiliate gyms are referred to as “boxes” which are typically old
warehouses converted to useable gym space. The sample included 206 CrossFit participants
from the thirty-eight boxes who agreed to participate in this study. The participants were pri­
marily Caucasian (76%) and Hispanic (12%) females (58%), with a mean age of 34.7 years
old, ranging from 18 to 68 years old. Participants were asked what CrossFit membership
they currently enroll in, and with what frequency they actually attended (on average, during
the past two months), on a weekly basis. The majority of participants (n = 152; 93.2%) had
an unlimited membership and reported actually attending three (n = 91; 44.2%) and five
times per week (n = 78; 37.9%). Participants, including men and women, had an average
Body Mass Index (BM1) of 26.04, which fits in the “overweight” BM1 range (Center for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2011) according to calculation based on their self-reported
height and weight and reported a 15 to 17 on Borg’s Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE; 1998)
(n = 197, 59.3%) and 18 to 20 RPE (n = 94, 28.3%) during an average CrossFit session.
Lastly, this sample reported earning a relatively high approximate annual household income
where 41.7% (n = 86) earned over $100,001, while 23.8% (n = 49) earned $50,001-75,000.

Measures
Behavioral regulation. CrossFit behavioral regulation was measured with the Be­
havioral Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire-2 (BREQ-2; Markland & Tobin, 2004). The
BREQ-2 is a 19-item, self-report measure, that assesses exercise regulations according to
the SDT framework. There are five subscales that separately assess intrinsic regulation (e.g.,
“I enjoy my CrossFit sessions”), three forms of extrinsic regulation (identified, introjected,
extrinsic; e.g., “I take part in CrossFit because my friends/family/partner say 1 should”), and
amotivation (e.g., “1 don’t see the point in participation in CrossFit”). Each item is rated on
a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1= not true for me and 5= very true for me. Reliability
analyses have revealed internal consistency values from .76 to .90 (Duncan, Hall, Wilson, &
Jenny, 2010).
 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION IN CROSSFIT. .. /245

The BREQ-2 in itself does not report an autonomous and controlled level of behav­
ioral regulation, but it is possible to average the means from subscales from the integrated
motivation end of the regulation continuum (i.e., intrinsic and identified) into an autonomous
regulation subscale, while combining subscales from the other, non-integrated motives end
of the continuum (i.e., introjected, extrinsic, and amotivation) into a controlling subscale.
This method of categorizing the BREQ-2 into autonomous and controlled subscales was
selected in order to explore the relationship between basic need satisfaction, behavioral
outcomes the two theoretically opposite forms of behavioral regulation.
Basic need satisfaction. Autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction
in CrossFit were measured with the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNE;
Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006). The BPNE is a 12-item measure with three subscales
to represent each of the three basic psychological needs (i.e., relatedness, competence,
autonomy) within an exercise context. Items were adapted to reflect CrossFit experience
(e.g., “I feel extremely comfortable with the other members at this CrossFit box”) and ask
participants to respond on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 7= not at all true and 5= defi­
nitely true. This questionnaire has been found to have good internal consistency for all three
subscales with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .84 (autonomy), .81 (competence), and .92
(relatedness; Vlachopoulos & Michailidou, 2006).
Demographics. Several demographic questions were incorporated in the survey
including gender, ethnicity, annual household income, height, weight, current CrossFit mem­
bership type (e.g., unlimited), and actual weekly CrossFit attendance (e.g., 3x per week).
RPE was measured by asking participants to indicate their RPE during an average CrossFit
session which indicates perceived exercise intensity on a 15-point scale.
In order to assess group differences, age was asked as an open-ended question where
participants provided their actual age. Researchers then recoded the data into a categorical
variable using the following age ranges (18-24, 25-34, 35^14, 45-54, and 55 and older) to
assess for differences among age groups.

Procedure
Following approval from the Institutional Review Board, 62 CrossFit “boxes” were
contacted from 16 states in the United States using the online database of CrossFit affiliates
(maps.crossfit.com). Thirty-eight “boxes” agreed to send a script including the online survey
link to their respective members via email distribution lists, while two “boxes” elected to put
the survey link on their Facebook page. Participants read through an informed consent form,
which was embedded in the first page of the survey, following which completion of the
survey implied consent. The survey link was open for approximately three months in the fall
of 2013 and took participants on average between 5 and 15 minutes.
246 / Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

Data Analysis
Data were downloaded into SPSS 21.0 for all analyses. Prior to conducting any anal­
yses, data were screened for missing data. Thirty eight participants started the survey, but
exited with either one or two pages remaining in the survey. These participants were dropped
from further analyses, using listwise deletion, and the remaining sample (N = 206) was ana­
lyzed. The remaining data were screened to determine that there were no systematic patterns
of the remaining missing items, which were, therefore, replaced using a computation of
the mean (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Data were then analyzed, first by assessing descrip­
tive statistics, means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among all variables.
Secondly, three analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were run to compare mean differences in
all variables across gender, age, and frequency of attendance. The group sizes in each of
these analyses were different, and thus, the use of a harmonic mean was applied in each of
the ANOVAs. Lastly, a pair of multiple linear regressions were conducted to determine the
predictive ability of basic need satisfaction on the behavioral regulations (i.e., autonomous
and controlling) toward CrossFit participation.

Results

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, internal reliabilities, and
correlations between all variables can be found in Table 1. All of the subscales within this
measure were above the acceptable .70 alpha level, except for the three-item scale amoti-
vation, which had a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .57 (Nunnally, 1978). For this reason,
when operationalizing the subscales into autonomous and controlled variables, amotivation
was dropped. In relation to their behavioral regulation, this sample displayed generally high
levels of autonomous regulation toward CrossFit, while reporting generally low levels of
controlled regulation. Overall, this sample reported high satisfaction in the relatedness and
autonomy needs, followed by competence need satisfaction levels. Significant correlations
existed between all three of the basic psychological needs in CrossFit. The satisfaction of
each of the basic psychological needs was also positively related with autonomous motiva­
tion, while negatively related with controlled motivation.

ANOVA Results
In order to compensate for the three ANOVAs conducted, a Bonferonni adjustment
was applied to result in a more stringent significance level (p < .01). The first ANOVA
determined that there were no significant differences on any of the variables between males
 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION IN CROSSFIT... /247

and females (p = .05). The second ANOVA tested for differences in all variables across age
groups. Significant differences were detected in controlled regulation (p = .004). Results
from the post-hoc Tukey test revealed that the youngest age group (ages 18 to 24) had sig­
nificantly higher {p = .010) levels of controlled regulation toward Crossfit participation than
older participants (ages 45-64).
A final ANOVA was conducted to determine whether differences existed in each of the
variables across participants’ frequency of CrossFit attendance. Results revealed that there
were several differences across those who attended frequently (three times or more/week)
in comparison to those who reported attending zero to two times per week. Participants who
attended only zero to two CrossFit sessions per week had significantly lower reported auton­
omy (p < .01) and competence (p < .01) need satisfaction levels than did participants who
attended three to five times per week.

Table 1

Reliabilities, Simple Correlations, Means and Standard Deviations

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Autonomy .82

2. Competence .651** .79

3. Relatedness .488** .469** .91

4. Autonomous .584** .483** .454** .83

5. Controlled -.203** _ 223** -.157* -.075 .70

Mean 6.13 5.80 6.18 4.70 1.94

SD .894 .877 .890 .435 .648

Note: *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).
* C orrelation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed).
248 / Journal o f Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

Predictors of Motivation
The first multiple linear regression was conducted to determine the extent to which
each of the basic psychological needs (i.e., autonomy, relatedness, competence) predicted
autonomous regulation toward CrossFit participation. The basic needs explained 38.8% of
the variance in autonomous regulation, where both autonomy and relatedness basic need
satisfaction levels were significant and positive predictors of autonomous regulation.
The second multiple linear regression examined the extent to which basic psycholog­
ical need satisfaction predicted controlled regulation toward CrossFit participation. This
model explained much less variance than in the autonomous regulation model. Only 5.7%
of the variance in controlled regulation was explained by the basic psychological needs. No
single basic need emerged as a significant predictor in this model. Results from both regres­
sion analyses can be seen in Table 2.

Table 2

Multiple Linear Regressions

Autonomous Regulation Controlled Regulation

Variable P t P P t P
Autonomy .405 5.376 <.001 -.086 -.915 .361
Competence .127 1.702 .090 -.145 -1.56 .119
Relatedness .197 3.044 .003 -.047 -.590 .556
R2 .388 .057
F 42.620** 4.074**
Note: **p < .01.
 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION IN CROSSFIT... /249

Discussion

While ample research exists to support the favorable outcomes derived from internal­
ized, or autonomous, regulations toward exercise participation and persistence, this study
sought to add to the literature by specifically examining how psychological variables act as
predictors of autonomous, and controlled, regulation within the specific context of CrossFit.
Results largely supported previous literature grounded in SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1995; 2000) in
sport and exercise settings.
One unique contribution that these findings offer to the literature on psychological
predictors of self-regulation was the inclusion of the behavioral outcome of motivation,
actual attendance frequency reports, beyond the psychological basis of examining motivated
behavior. There were many significant differences in relation to the frequency with which
participants attended CrossFit. Notably, participants who attended less often also reported
lower levels of each of the psychological predictors including autonomous regulation to
participate and all three basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy and related­
ness. It is evident that fostering the basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
are important considerations for CrossFit managers and other practitioners seeking to boost
autonomous, and avoid controlled, aspects of motivation among participants. Much of the
previous basic psychological need research has focused on the provision of autonomy as
the source of fostering self-determined, or autonomous internally-regulated, motivation
(Wilson & Rodgers, 2002; 2004), but results from this study demonstrate that enabling the
basic need satisfaction of relatedness was an important element for autonomous motivation
as well. While theoretically relevant, studies have rarely found evidence of relatedness needs
satisfaction contributing to autonomous regulation without competence needs also predicting
self-regulation. As such, these results suggest that perhaps aspects of the CrossFit context
in particular are designed to satisfy different basic needs in the participants and therefore
provide the basis for their autonomous, more desired, form of regulation.
These findings, which largely support the theoretical underpinnings of SDT (Deci &
Ryan, 1995; 2000), are particularly relevant given the intense physical expenditures required
to persist at CrossFit. The fact that participants are motivated to pursue the activity for the
inherent interest they have in CrossFit, beyond any external forms of regulation to partici­
pate, such as the guilt felt from others or the seeking of rewards, is a noteworthy finding for
sport and exercise practitioners to know. Having participants, who are connected with the
physical activity and the environment itself, as well as feeling a sense of belonging, aside
from any additional pressures, allows practitioners to focus on the CrossFit WODs and the
“box” climate, rather than having to focus on external regulators like incentives for weight
loss or attendance.
250 / Journal o f Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

CrossFit “boxes” generally charge members between $85 and $250 for an unlimited
membership per month. The majority of this sample (79.2%) reported paying for an unlim­
ited CrossFit membership every month. It is possible that this expenditure on membership
could be perceived as a source of pressure for members who would feel like they need to
attend sessions to make use of their investment and participants would report a more con­
trolling fonn of regulation toward the activity. Based on results, however, for a majority of
these participants, this does not appear to be the case. It seems likely, in conjunction with
SDT contentions, that these participants were motivated through more internal regulations,
such as an inherent interest in the activity or the connection between CrossFit and other
personal goals, like health and well-being. The only group that did not follow this line of
behavioral regulation was the youngest age group, who had significantly higher levels of
controlled regulation toward CrossFit than did their eldest counterparts. Brunet and Sabis-
ton (2011) have also found that younger exercisers tend to hold more external regulations
toward exercise than do older people. The focus on appearance and weight control, for
example, are frequently cited sources of motivation for younger people to exercise, which
reflect external, or controlling, behavioral regulators. These younger participants may also
see the expenditure as being more relevant, due to their generally lower household incomes.

Limitations and Future Research

One limitation in this study is the self-selection bias that results from a cross-sectional
design using a convenience sample (James, 2006). It is possible, that participants who chose
to answer the survey were more avid participants in CrossFit than those who neglected to
fill out the survey, which in turn might have created a bias in the number of autonomously
regulated study participants. A second limitation comes in having analyzed the relationships
between need satisfaction, behavioral regulation, and attendance without consideration
for directionality of these relationships. It is plausible that while the need satisfaction can
promote autonomous regulation, which can promote physical attendance, that frequency of
attendance may also promote higher need satisfaction due to the increased time spent with
others in the Box (relatedness), the practice of skills (competence), and through understand­
ing the protocol (autonomy). Future studies should develop a model to test for the direction­
ality of these relationships in order to better inform physical activity practitioners.
In order to compare the factors that were examined in this study with the way partic­
ipants from other group fitness exercise activities perceive the psychological predictors and
motivation toward their activities, future research should combine several fitness contexts
together. This could include high-energy exertion activities that relate with CrossFit (e.g.,
spin class) or lower exertion activities (e.g., yoga) to explore the comparisons in basic need
 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION IN CROSSFIT. . . /251

satisfaction and behavioral regulation across various physical activity/exercise formats.

This sample of participants was highly autonomously motivated to pursue Cross-
Fit, which is tied to favorable behavioral outcomes; most notably persistence (Hagger &
Chatzirantis, 2008). This should be the ultimate concern and goal for sport and exercise
practitioners looking to recruit individuals and sustain participation. Given the unique
environment that exists within CrossFit “boxes”, from the minimalist structural and equip­
ment design, to the heavy emphasis on the community and relationships between members
and coaches, practitioners from other group fitness facilities can benefit from these findings.
Specifically, practitioners should strive to promote an environment which is conducive to
meeting their members’ basic psychological needs, particularly autonomy and relatedness, in
the hopes of retaining autonomously motivated, internally regulated participants who attend
the fitness regimes three or more times per week.

References

Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., & Girgolas, G. (2007). Investigating the relationships among
motivation, negotiation, and alpine skiing participation. Journal of Leisure Research,
39(4), 648-667.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycho­
logical review, 84(2), 191.
Biddle, S. J., & Mutrie, N. (2007). Psychology o f Physical Activity: Determinants, Well-Be­
ing and Interventions. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Human kinetics.
Brunet, J., & Sabiston, M. (2011). Exploring motivation for physical activity across the adult
lifespan. Psychology’ of Sport and Exercise, 12, 99-105.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). How much physical activity do adults
need? Physical Activity. Retrieved December 20, 2013 from http://www.cdc.gov/physica-
lactivity/everyone/guidelines/adults.html
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-detennination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Dishman, R. K., & Sallis, J. F. (1994). Determinants and interventions for physical activity
and exercise. In C. Bouchard, R. J. Shephard, and T. Stephens (Eds.), Physical Activity,
Fitness, and Health: International Proceedings and Consensus Statement (pp. 214-238).
Champaign, 1L: Human Kinetics.
252 /Journal of Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

Duncan, L. R., Hall, C. R., Wilson, P. M., & Jenny, O. (2010). Exercise motivation: a
cross-sectional analysis examining its relationships with frequency, intensity, and
duration of exercise. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activi­
ty, 7(7), 1-9.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). A test of self-detennination theory in the
exercise domain. Journal o f Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2240-2265.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189.
Ferrer-Caja, E., & Weiss, M. (2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent
students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 77(3), 267-
279.
Glassman, G. (n.d.). CrossFit level one training guide. CrossFit Journal. Retrieved February
5, 2014, from http://joumal.crossfit.eom/2010/05/crossfit-level-l-training-guide.tpl
Guh, D. P., Zhang, W., Bansback, N., Amarsi, Z., Birmingham, C. L., & Anis, A. H. (2009).
The incidence of co-morbidities related to obesity and overweight: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 9(1), 88.
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. (2008). Self-detennination theory and the psychology of
exercise. International Review o f Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1, 79-103.
Harter, (1981). A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences
and developmental change. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psy­
chology, 74,215-255.
Huntley, T. (2012, February 20). Why CrossFit, inc. may be worth $500 million. My Athletic
Life RSS. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from http://myathleticlife.com/2012/02/crossfit-
worth-500-million/.
James, H. S. (2006). Self-selection bias in business ethics research. Business Ethics Quarter­
ly, 76(4), 559-577.
Jeffrey, C. (2012). CrossFit effectiveness on fitness levels and demonstration of successful
program objectives. (Doctoral dissertation). Arkansas State University. (UMI number:
1514759).
Kipp L., & Amorose, A. J. (2008). Perceived motivational climate and self-determined moti­
vation in female high school athletes. Journal o f Sport Behavior, 31(2), 108-129.
Kirkland, R. A., Karlin, N. J., Babkes Stellino, M., & Pulos, S. (2011). Basic psychological
needs satisfaction, motivation, and exercise in older adults. Activities, Adaptation, &
Aging, 35, 181-196.
Marcus, B. H., & Forsyth, L. (2003). Motivating people to be physically active. Human
Kinetics.
 BEHAVIORAL REGULATION IN CROSSFIT. .. /253

Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification of the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise
Questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal o f Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 26, 191-196.
Moustaka, F. C., Vlachopoulos, S. R, Kabitsis, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2012). Effects of an
autonomy-supportive exercise instructing style on exercise motivation, psychological
well-being, and exercise attendance in middle-age women. Journal o f Physical Activity
and Health, 9(1), 138.
Mullan, E., & Markland, D. (1997). Variations in self-determination across the stages of
change for exercise in adults. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 349-362.
Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded conceptualization of self-de­
termination in the regulation of exercise behavior: Development of a measure using
confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5),
745-752.
Murray, T. C., Selzler, A., Rodgers, W. M., Wilson, R M., & Markland, D. (2014). Distin­
guishing perceived competence and self-efficacy: An example from exercise. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 85(4), 527-539.
National Center for Health Statistics. (2012, February 20). Centers fo r Disease Control and
Prevention. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Patrick, H., & Canevello, A. (2011). Methodological overview of a self-determination theo­
ry-based computerized intervention to promote leisure-time physical activity. Psychology
o f Sport and Exercise, 72(1), 13-19.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1984). The Transtheoretical Approach: Crossing
Traditional Boundaries o f Therapy. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Rodgers, W. M., Markland, D., Selzler, A. M., Murray, T. C., & Wilson, P. M. (2014). Distin­
guishing Perceived Competence and Self-Efficacy: An Example From Exercise. Research
quarterly fo r exercise and sport, 85(4), 527-539.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic
psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319-338.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy:
Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal o f Personality, 74,
1557-1586. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-6494.2006.00420.X
Sallis, J. F., & Hovell, M. F. (1990). Determinants of exercise behavior. Exercise and Sport
Sciences Reviews, 18( 1), 307-330.
Sibley, B. A. (2012). Using sport education to implement a CrossFit unit. Journal o f Physi­
cal Education, Recreation, and Dance, 83(8), 42-48.
254 / Journal o f Sport Behavior, Vol. 39, No. 3

Silva, M. N., Markland, D., Carrara, E. V., Vieira, P. N., Coutinho, S. R., Minderico, C. S.,
Matos, M. G., Sardinha, L. B., & Teixeira, P. J. (2011). Exercise Autonomous Motivation
Predicts Three-Year Weight Loss In Women. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
43( 1), 728-737.
Smith, M. N., Sommer, A. J., Starkoff, B. E., & Devor, S. T. (2013). CrossFit-based high-in-
tensity power training improves maximal aerobic fitness and body composition. Journal
o f Strength and Conditioning Research, 27( 11), 3159-3172.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). Boston,
MA: Pearson.
Teixeira, P. J., Carrara, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise,
physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Jour­
nal o f Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9(1), 78-108.
Vallerand, R. J., & Losier, G. F. (1999). An integrative analysis of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in sport. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, ll{ 1), 142-169.
Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Michailidou, S. (2006). Development and initial validation of a
measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The Basic Psychological
Needs in Exercise Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 10,
179-201.
Wankel, L. M. (1985). Personal and situational factors affecting exercise involvement: The
importance of enjoyment. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 56(3), 275-282.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2002). The relationship between exercise motives and
physical self-esteem in female exercise participants: An application of self-determination
theory. Journal o f Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7(1), 30-43.
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(3), 229-242.
 Copyright of Journal of Sport Behavior is the property of University of South Alabama and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

View publication stats