Leisure Sciences

ISSN: 0149-0400 (Print) 1521-0588 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulsc20

Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure among

College Students

Sarah Sylvia-Bobiak & Linda L. Caldwell

To cite this article: Sarah Sylvia-Bobiak & Linda L. Caldwell (2006) Factors Related to
Physically Active Leisure among College Students, Leisure Sciences, 28:1, 73-89, DOI:
10.1080/01490400500332728

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400500332728

Published online: 24 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 995

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ulsc20
Leisure Sciences, 28: 73–89, 2006
Copyright
C Taylor & Francis Inc.

ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online

DOI: 10.1080/01490400500332728

Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure among

College Students

SARAH SYLVIA-BOBIAK
Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

LINDA L. CALDWELL
The Pennsylvania State University, USA

The purpose of this study was to provide additional information about the complex rela-
tion of social cognitive constructs, gender, and active leisure among university students.
Structural equation modeling techniques were used to test the hypothesized relations in
a sample of 874 undergraduate students. Peer and family support had a moderate direct
effect on self-efficacy while self-efficacy had a large direct effect on active leisure. A mod-
eration effect was demonstrated. Peer support was more influential on male respondents’
beliefs that they could be active and males reported higher active leisure participation
when compared to females. The results of this study provide valuable insight into the
mechanisms of influence on active leisure among this university population.

Keywords adolescents, physically active leisure, self-efficacy, social support, struc-

tural equation modeling

The obesity epidemic is jeopardizing the health of millions of Americans across race, age,
gender, and socioeconomic class. The obesity rate among children and adolescents is at
an all time high. Despite nationwide efforts to address this serious health concern, the
obesity rate continues to rise (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2000). Although the
cause of obesity is quite complex, researchers generally attribute the rise in obesity to some
combination of poor dietary habits and inactivity.
The U.S. Surgeon General’s report on physical activity and health provides an extensive
look at the benefits of physical activity (United States Department of Health and Human
Services [USDHHS], 1996) and is supported by more recent research that confirms the
positive relation between physical activity and overall health (Blair, LaMonte, & Nichaman,
2004). Depending on the type, intensity, and frequency of activity, chronic diseases and
conditions such as mental stress, depression, high blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and
diabetes have been positively affected by regular physical activity participation among youth
(Sothern, Loftin, Suskind, Udall, & Blecker, 1999). Regular physical activity is also believed
to improve strength and energy as well as cardiorespiratory fitness (Leupker, 1999). Thus,
in the past decade, health professionals have developed guidelines intended to introduce or
sustain beneficial physical activity in Americans’ lives (USDHHS).
Research on the long-term benefits of physical activity during adolescence is still evolv-
ing, but the negative consequences of a sedentary lifestyle during adulthood appear to be

Received 15 August 2004; accepted 27 April 2005.

Address correspondence to Sarah Sylvia-Bobiak, Ph.D., Department of Family Medicine, 11001 Cedar Rd.,
Gerber Building/Suite 306, Cleveland, OH 44106. E-mail: sarah.sylvia@case.edu.

73
74 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

magnified when the individual is inactive during childhood and adolescence. Unfortunately,
children and adolescents are spending increased amounts of time engaged in sedentary ac-
tivities (Dubbert, 2002). In many cases, schools have eliminated physical education, thus
creating a situation whereby youth physical activity stems from personal choice or parental
guidance. Furthermore, physical activity declines as adolescents age. Because persistent
past physical activity predicts continued future physical activity participation (Thompson,
Humbert, & Mirwald, 2003), careful consideration must be given to what influences the
choice to be physically active to change the current sedentary lifestyle of many teens and
young adults. Thus, this paper tests a model of physical activity participation to better
understand what contributes to physically active leisure among young adults.

Literature Review
Young Adults and the Importance of Active Leisure
Understanding why adolescents choose to engage in physically active leisure is profitably
viewed from a developmental perspective because youth gain increased control over and
responsibility for their leisure choices as they mature. The choice to engage in physical
activity becomes more self-determined and less guided by parents. Many youth drop out of
sports around their middle school years (Caspersen, Pereira, & Curran, 2000), suggesting
these youth are no longer intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to continue physical activity.
Among other concerns, the decline in participation in physical activity has been attributed
to the increasing obesity rates in the United States (Caspersen et al.).
As youth mature, they face important transitional points in life (e.g., becoming of age to
drive, entering high school, moving out of parents’ home) that naturally lead to a time of self-
reflection, openness to change, and making important life decisions (Greene, Wheatley, &
Aldava, 1992). The transition from adolescence to young adulthood is a pivotal point in de-
velopment. During this time adolescents begin to leave behind their youthful freedom, take
on more responsibility reflective of adulthood, and develop increased emotional and behav-
ioral autonomy from parents (Schulenberg, Maggs, & Hurrelmann, 1997). This increased
autonomy is matched by increasing demands to be responsible and accept consequences of
one’s decisions (Maggs, 1997).
Concomitant with increased autonomy and responsibility, the transition into adulthood
is characterized by major changes in the older adolescent’s social structure. Older adoles-
cents separate from high school peers, often leave their families and move out on their
own, form new friendships, and establish new lifestyle behaviors (Maggs, Schulenberg, &
Hurrelmann, 1997). This pattern is particularly representative of adolescents who move
away from home to attend a college or university.
The move to college or university fosters exploration and discovery of what it means
to be an adult (Arnett, 2000) and provides a context for new self-determined behavior. The
college context offers both risk and opportunity regarding physical activity participation.
For example, the dreaded “freshman 15” refers to the typical weight gain many first-year
students experience and implicates a lack of physically active leisure reflective of increased
assimilation into college or adult work and family roles (Caspersen et al., 2000). On the other
hand, through exploration and discovery of their role in the adult world, older adolescents and
young adults might be most receptive to advice regarding the importance of physical activity
(Thompson et al., 2003). Researchers have indicated that “young adulthood represents a
potential preventative window in which lifelong physical activity habits and behaviors may
be positively influenced” (Leslie, Fotheringham, Owen, & Bauman, 2001, p. 258). This
window for prevention, coupled with the significant life changes occurring as a result of
 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 75

the transition to the college context, suggests that understanding what predicts physically
active leisure among college students can serve as a basis for effective intervention.

Active Leisure Defined

The term physical activity encompasses a number of meanings that describe any bodily
movement resulting in energy expenditure. To some researchers, physical activity encom-
passes two subcategories, exercise and sport. Exercise is any “volitional, planned, structured,
repetitive, [activity] aimed at improvement or maintenance of an aspect of fitness” (Fox &
Riddoch, 2000, p. 498) and sport includes “structured, competitive situations governed by
rules” (Fox & Riddoch, p. 498). According to these definitions, physical activity includes
all bodily movement, including a regimented exercise program or a structured athletic
experience.
An alternative way of delineating physical activity behavior is by the context of the
performed activity (Fox & Riddoch, 2000). In addition to exercise and structured sport,
physical activity can also be categorized as active leisure, which includes any volitional
activity that results in energy expenditure undertaken during one’s free time. Such activities
might include sport and exercise, but can also include alternative activities such as dancing,
hiking, sledding, or other activities that do not conform to the structure of exercise or sport.
The freedom to exert behavioral autonomy inherent in the college context and the
self-determined nature of leisure combine to suggest that college students are faced with a
great deal of choice in how they spend their time. Participating in physically active leisure
is a matter of personal choice. At the same time, given the importance of peers and the
continued role of (typically) distal family support, physical activity participation is also a
matter of socialization and social support. Therefore, understanding the role of motivation
in combination with social influences to be active is necessary.
The role of motivation in physically active leisure is important to consider because in-
trinsically motivated self-determined behavior results in the most positive outcomes (Culos-
Reed, Gyurcsik, & Brawley, 2001). Greater adherence, better performance, and prolonged
engagement characterize self-determined activities (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsically mo-
tivated physical activity is not as likely to produce the positive outcomes that go hand in
hand with intrinsically motivated outcomes.
Two related aspects of motivation are important to this study: self-efficacy and social
support, which are correlated to physical activity participation (e.g., Dowda, Ainsworth,
Addy, Saunders, & Riner, 2003; Sallis, Prochaska, & Taylor, 2000). Those individuals
who are more self-efficacious are more intrinsically motivated. Social support includes
support for one’s choice and with how motivation becomes internalized (i.e., from a form
of motivation that is more extrinsically rewarded to one that becomes self-endorsed, if not
entirely intrinsically motivated).
Self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977, 1986) has received a lot of attention in physical
activity research. Researchers report self-efficacy is consistently associated with physical
activity participation (Culos-Reed et al., 2001). The nature of this relationship, however, is
unclear. Self-efficacy is defined as the extent to which individuals believe they can accom-
plish a specified task or how well they will perform on a specified behavior. Physical activity
self-efficacy therefore refers to the belief that one can participate in physically active pur-
suits despite obstacles that might make participation difficult. Efficacious beliefs are most
influenced by past experiences and social support via social comparison or verbal persua-
sion (Bandura, 1997). Similarly, researchers have demonstrated that a strong relationship
exists between social support and physical activity (e.g., Brustad, Babkes, & Smith, 2001;
Daley, 2002; Sallis et al., 2000; Smith, 2003).
76 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

Studies that demonstrate the importance of social support in initiating and maintaining
an active lifestyle have emanated from various disciplines (Brustad et al., 2001; Daley,
2002; Sallis et al., 2000; Smith, 2003). For example, sibling physical activity patterns and
support from significant others were both important correlates of being active among an
adolescent population (Sallis et al., 2000). Leslie et al. (1999) found among Australian
college students that low levels of friend and family support were related to insufficient
levels of physical activity according to nationally recognized standards. Similar results were
found in an American college student population where friend support predicted physical
activity but was mediated by self-efficacy (Rovniak, Anderson, Winett, & Stephens, 2002).
Although general patterns of increased social support influencing increased physical activity
participation are prevalent, few researchers have considered how these patterns might differ
based on gender. Therefore, the role of gender is examined in this study.

Gender
Gender has consistently been a predictor of physical activity participation in research studies
(Sallis et al., 2000). Empirical research repeatedly has indicated boys are more active than
girls during adolescence. Gordon-Larsen, McMurray, and Popkin (1999) found females
consistently reported less physical activity participation than males in their nationally rep-
resentative sample. They found that 40% of the females in the study failed to meet the
minimum guidelines for physical activity by the U.S. surgeon general in 1996, but only
25% of males failed to meet the guidelines. In another nationally representative sample,
Caspersen et al. (2000) found male adolescents reported significantly higher engagement in
regular, sustained, and vigorous leisure time physical activity than female adolescents. More
recently, Dowda et al. (2003) found women between the ages of 18 and 30 years were sig-
nificantly less active than males from the same cohort in a nationally representative sample.
Self-efficacy may also vary by gender. Studies have identified the nature of the relation-
ship between self-efficacy and physical activity. Only a handful, however, has attempted to
explain the role of gender in this relationship. In spite of the limited empirical work that
has considered the relationship of gender and physical activity self-efficacy, existing reports
consistently show that: males have higher physical activity self-efficacy than females. For
example, Winters, Petosa, and Charlton (2003) found high school males reported higher
levels of perceived physical activity efficacy than females. Similarly, Milligan et al. (1997)
found 18-year old Australian males reported higher physical activity self-efficacy than fe-
males. More recently, Netz and Raviv (2004) found Australian adult males were more
efficacious than females regarding physical activity. These studies provide support for the
idea that physical activity self-efficacy varies by gender.
Social support to be active plays a crucial role in physical activity participation. In
studies of all female populations, social support emerged as being particularly important.
In a review of correlates of physical activity among women, Eyler et al. (2002) found social
support was a consistent predictor of physical activity for women. Support from parents,
peers, and teachers was most consistently related to physical activity participation among
an inactive adolescent female population participating in a school-based obesity prevention
program (Neumark-Sztainer, Story, Hannan, Tharp, & Rex, 2003).
Social support also contributes to the physical activity level of males. In fact, while
Australian adolescent males and females were about 50% more likely to be insufficiently
active when reporting low family support to be active, males were almost twice as likely than
females to be insufficiently active if they perceived low peer support to be active (Leslie
et al., 1999). This finding suggests peers might play a more influential role in engaging
adolescent males in physical activity than females.
 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 77

Although physical activity patterns of males and females differ substantially (e.g.,
Caspersen et al., 2000; Dowda et al., 2003; Gordon-Larsen et al., 1999), many studies that
explore these differences provide only descriptive accounts (i.e., males are more active
than females) or consider patterns of influence for some subset of the population (i.e., only
females). In contrast, Wu, Pender and Noureddine (2003) considered a more complex path
model, which included psychosocial and cognitive correlates of physical activity, in a study
on an adolescent Taiwanese population. They found the relation between peers and physical
activity self-efficacy was stronger for males than for females.
Given the influences of gender on self-efficacy, social support, and physical activity
participation, we felt it was important to consider how the relations among these variables
might differ depending on gender. Therefore, our study extends existing evidence about the
importance of self-efficacy and social support in promoting active leisure engagement for
both males and females (Motl et al., 2002; Rovniak et al., 2002) by describing how social
cognitive influences vary by gender. Given the importance of establishing healthy leisure
patterns in late adolescents and the fertile context of transitioning to college to change or
enhance activity patterns, we explored social cognitive influences (e.g., peers and parents),
self-efficacy beliefs, and the moderating role of gender on physically active leisure among
a college student sample.
The purpose of this study, therefore, was to test a model of physical activity participation
among college students. Specifically, we examined the effect of both peer and family support
on self-efficacy and the effect of self-efficacy on physical activity. We also tested how gender
moderated these relationships. The following relationships were hypothesized: (a) higher
levels of peer support would positively predict higher levels of physical activity self-efficacy,
(b) higher levels of family support would positively predict higher levels of physical activity
self-efficacy, (c) higher levels of physical activity self-efficacy would predict higher rates
of active leisure, and (d) gender would moderate the relation between friend support and
physical activity self-efficacy (i.e., friend support will more strongly predict physical activity
self-efficacy and in turn active leisure for males than for females).

Methods
This study was part of a larger study that considered the interactive influences of envi-
ronmental, interpersonal, personal, and demographic characteristics on college students’
physically active leisure participation. A cross-sectional research design was used. Upon
approval of the University’s Office for Research Protections Institutional Review Board
Committee, a convenience sample of students completed a questionnaire in the fall of 2003.

Participants
Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in one of seven introductory undergrad-
uate courses in two social science colleges at a large university in the eastern U.S. All
students were eligible to participate and all students present the day of survey administra-
tion consented to participate and were included in the analysis. Although this study used a
convenience sample from students enrolled in social science type courses, the size of the
sample provided some confidence of the external validity of the findings to other students
in the social sciences. These courses were selected to provide a broad spectrum of students
who enrolled in introductory courses within the social sciences. Instructors for each of the
nine courses selected for inclusion were asked to use approximately 15 minutes of class
time for students to complete the brief questionnaire.
All students in attendance the day of survey administration completed the questionnaire
(there were no refusals) and a total of 874 questionnaires were completed. Respondents were
78 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

TABLE 1 Demographics of Sample Population

All Males Females

(n = 874) (n = 293) (n = 581)

Race
White 85% 87% 85%
Black 4% 2% 5%
Other 11% 11% 10%
Enrollment status
Full-time 99% 99% 99%
Part-time 1% 1% 1%
Residence
Dorms 43% 38% 45%
Off-campus apartment 54% 3% 4%
At home 4% 59% 51%
Age
18–21 92% 90% 19%
22 and older 8% 10% 93%
Varsity Athlete 3% 4% 3%
Never/ Rarely Active 18% 11% 22%

primarily White (85%) and female (67%), which reflected the gender composition of the
two social science colleges included in this study (T. Kendig, personal communication, Jan.
29, 2005). Although this sample reflects the racial composition of the university (Associated
Press, 2005), the number of women is higher in these two colleges than what is reflected at
the university overall, where the male to female ratio is 52:48 (Ryan, 2003). The majority of
students were enrolled full-time (99%) and about half the students lived in the dorms (43%),
while the other half lived in off-campus apartments. The majority of students were 18–21
(92%) with only 3% reporting they were varsity athletes at the university (See Table 1).

Measures
A thorough review of the literature was employed in the development and design of the
survey instrument utilized in this study. The instrument used was pilot tested (N = 22) for
readability and length of administration prior to beginning data collection. Minor adjust-
ments to the survey were made that included adding a question that assessed varsity athlete
status and providing clearer instructions for the social support scales.
Demographics. Demographic information collected in the larger study included gender,
age, race, employment status, enrollment status, marital status, varsity athlete status, and
place of residence.
Social Support Scale. Two social support groups were of interest in this study, peers
and family. The peer group was defined as friends, acquaintances, and classmates. Family
was defined as anyone living in the adolescents’ permanent place of residence (e.g., par-
ents’ home). The Social Support Scale for Exercise Behavior (Sallis, Grossman, Pinski,
Patterson, & Nader, 1987) was used to measure both domains of social support. Accept-
able test-retest reliabilities (range r = 0.55–0.86) and high internal consistencies (range
α = 0.61 − 0.91) have been reported for this scale on a primarily female university popula-
tion by Sallis et al. (1987). Although this scale was developed to understand social influences
on exercise behavior, it has been used in a number of studies that considered physical activity
 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 79

in a more general sense, such as active leisure (DeBourdeaudhuij & Sallis, 2002; Sallis et al.,
1987).
To emphasize the notion of active leisure, the original scale was modified to ask about
social support for “physical activity” as opposed to “exercise.” Thus, in our study the family
and peer support scales asked respondents nine questions each about things people might
do or say to someone who is trying to be active on a regular basis such as: (a) “since coming
to school my friends have been physically active with me” and (b) “since coming to school
my family gave me encouragement to keep doing physically active things, regularly.” A
5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) was used
and a sum score was created for each scale. The Cronbach’s α coefficient for the family and
friends’ social support and involvement scales in this study were 0.89 and 0.88, respectively.
Self-efficacy Scale. To ascertain efficacious beliefs it was important to consider the
specific behavior of interest (McAuley & Mihalko, 1998). Three domains of specific active
leisure self-efficacy were measured for this study: structural barriers, personal barriers,
and ability to overcome barriers. Consistent with the operationalization of self-efficacy,
active leisure self-efficacy reflected one’s perceived ability to engage in physically active
pursuits despite obstacles that might make participation more difficult. These three domains
of efficacy were derived from two pre-existing scales: the Physical Exercise Self-regulatory
Efficacy: Barriers Efficacy Scale (McAuley & Mihalko) and the Physical Activity Self-
efficacy Scale (Motl et al., 2000). As with the social support scale, a slight modification
was made to highlight the more global sense of active leisure by asking respondents about
physical activity in general (as opposed to regimented exercise). Both scales are based on
identifying circumstances that have caused people to reduce or terminate exercising.
The Physical Exercise Self-regulatory Efficacy: Barriers Efficacy Scale consisted of 15-
items measuring two domains: (1) perceived structural barriers and (2) ability to overcome
barriers. The structural barriers subscale was represented by items such as “I believe I can
be active three times per week even if it was not enjoyable or fun.” Ability to overcome
barriers was captured through items such as “I can be active no matter how busy I am.” A
5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree was used.
The Cronbach’s α for the structural barriers and ability to overcome barriers scales in this
study were 0.81 and 0.70 respectively. The Physical Activity Self-efficacy Scale measured
one domain of active leisure self-efficacy with seven items using a 5-point Likert type scale
(1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Items such as “I can be physically active
during my free time on most days” were used. The Cronbach’s α coefficient for this scale
was 0.77.
Active Leisure Scale. The dependent variable in this study was physically active leisure,
which can be assessed a number of ways. Subjective measures include self-report data from
a questionnaire while objective measures include movement devices such as a pedometer
(Montoye, Kemper, Saris, & Wahsburn, 1996). Although objective measures might more
accurately represent energy expenditure, they are not practical in larger populations (Pereira
et al., 1997). Researchers have used self-report measures as an alternative because they do
not alter the behavior of the individual, cost and administration is reasonable, and they have
been shown to be reliable and valid methods for collecting physical activity participation
information (Montoye et al.). In this study, we elected to employ two previously validated
physical activity questionnaires, which increased our confidence in the internal validity of
measuring physical activity.
The first measure of physical activity used was the Stages of Change of Exercise
Behavior Scale (Marcus, Selby, Niaura, & Rossi, 1992). This self-report instrument was
designed to measure the current exercise level of respondents and has demonstrated good
test-retest reliability (α = 0.90). A slight modification was made to this scale to capture
80 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

the notion of active leisure as opposed to regimented exercise by asking respondents about
their current physical activity participation.
The second measure used to assess physical activity was the Godin-Shepard Leisure
Time Exercise Questionnaire (Godin & Shepard, 1985). This instrument was designed to
measure level of physical activity by asking respondents to indicate how many times a week
on average they participate in strenuous, moderate, and mild activity for at least 15 minutes.
Respondents also indicated how active they were in general (e.g., “In a typical week I
engage in regular activity long enough to make me sweat: often, sometimes, never”). Based
on predefined metabolic units (METs) a composite score was computed for respondents,
indicating how physically active respondents were. For example, if the individual answered
as follows:

Strenuous (9 METs) = 3 times per week

Moderate (5 METs) = 6 times per week
Light (3 METs) = 14 times per week
Composite score = (9 × 3) + (5 × 6) + (14 × 3) = 99
Again, the phrase “exercise” was replaced by “physical activity.” A one-way analysis
of variance indicated a significant difference existed between respondents who were often,
sometimes, and never active on reported METs, F(3, 872) = 59.58, p < .001. This finding
supports internal validity.

Statistical Analysis
Structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques were used in this study to test for model
fit as well as provide information about the processes of influence on active leisure through
analysis of direct, indirect, and total effects (Kaplan, 2000). First, preliminary analysis
was conducted to determine if the data conformed to the assumptions of latent variable
analysis. Because the data were not multivariate normal the “bootstrap” technique avail-
able in AMOS 4.0 was employed. A covariance matrix of all measured variables was
constructed and used to test the measurement model. Second, maximum likelihood esti-
mation was used to simultaneously estimate the measurement and structural models, and
test direct and indirect effects. This procedure allowed us to determine how well the model
fit the data and test how well social support (family and friends) predicted self-efficacy,
and then how well self-efficacy predicted active leisure (Figure 1). Regression coefficients
indicated support for or refutation of hypotheses while acceptable model fit was indi-
cated if the chi-square statistic was not significant and/or the comparative fit index (CFI),
Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and the normed fit index (NFI) were greater than .95 and the
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was less than .08 (Byrne, 2001). Fi-
nally, we considered whether gender moderated the relationship between peer support and
self-efficacy.

Results
Descriptive Statistics
Univariate analysis on the self-efficacy scale, two support scales, and active leisure are
reported in Table 2. Also in Table 2 are the results of the comparison of means between
males and females. Results from the analyses indicated all variables had reasonable variation
based on the standard deviations. However, the data were positively skewed and kurtotic
resulting in multivariate nonnormal distribution, which was adjusted by implementing the
bootstrap technique available in AMOS.
 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 81

FIGURE 1 Hypothesized structural model.

Measurement and Structural Model Fit Analysis

The measurement portion of the hypothesized model was evaluated to confirm the factor
structure of the latent variable self-efficacy, through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
The correlations among the scales are shown in Table 3. Examination of the fit indices of the
CFA indicated the model was a good fitting model. The obtained chi-square, χ 2 (149, N =
874) = 715.13, p = .000, was significant suggesting the model did not adequately fit the
data. However, the chi-square is sensitive to sample size and often inflates Type I error
(Bollen, 1989). Therefore, further consideration of other fit statistics was warranted. The
NFI (0.98), CFI (0.99), TLI (0.98) and RMSEA (0.07) all indicated the model was a good
fitting model. All factor loadings were significant at the .001 level. Having established the
best fitting measurement model, we proceeded to the structural analysis.

TABLE 2 Univariate Statistics of Independent Variables

Male Female All

Mean Mean Mean (SD)
Questionnaire (n = 293) (n = 581) (n = 874)

Family Support (9 items)∗ 20.41 21.69 21.27 (7.92)

Peer Support (9 items)∗ 26.96 25.73 26.14 (7.74)
Active Leisure Self-efficacy (19 items)∗ 3.26 3.17 3.20 (0.61)
Structural Barriers (8 items)∗∗ 2.86 2.69 2.75 (0.75)
Personal Barriers (4 items) 3.49 3.43 3.45 (0.71)
Ability to overcome Barriers (7 items) 3.44 3.38 3.40 (0.79)
Active Leisure (MET’s score)∗∗∗ 67.93 56.15 60.09 (41.67)
Note: low scores equal lower levels on variable.
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001.
82 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

TABLE 3 Correlations Among Scales

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Family Support −
2. Peer Support .425∗ −
3. Active Leisure Self-efficacy .374∗ .351∗ −
4. Structural Barriers .260∗ .215∗ .826∗ −
5. Personal Barriers .408∗ .421∗ .747∗ .403∗ −
6. Ability to overcome Barriers .250∗ .229∗ .851∗ .592∗ .446∗ −
7. Active Leisure .248∗ .295∗ .334∗ .285∗ .286∗ .244∗ −
∗
p < .001.

The hypothesized structural model (Figure 1) was then tested for model fit. Although
some fit indices indicated the hypothesized model was a good fitting model (NFI = 0.97,
CFI = .98, TLI = .97) the chi-square was significant, χ 2 (206, 874) = 1335.64, p = .000, and
the RMSEA (0.08) indicated the model could be improved. Modifications were made to the
hypothesized model and error terms for similar items were allowed to covary. Specifically,
the error term between the item on the self-efficacy scale related to asking a parent to be
active was allowed to covary with the family support construct. Similarly, the error term
associated with the self-efficacy question that asked about being active with a best friend
was allowed to covary with the error term associated with peer support. Finally the error
terms between the two support measures were allowed to covary. Since these items were
theoretically similar to one another, it was reasonable to assume a shared measurement
error between them. The modified model demonstrated a better model fit and was used as
the final model for hypothesis testing (χ 2 (203, N = 847) = 909.56, p = .000, NFI = .98,
CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA = .06; see Figure 2).

Hypothesis Testing
Peer support. Peer support had a moderate direct effect on physical activity self-efficacy
(βtotal = 0.27, p < .01) and a small indirect effect on active leisure (βtotal = 0.12, p < .01).
Higher levels of peer support predicted more positive efficacious beliefs about being active
and in turn more active leisure participation (see Table 4; Figure 2).
Family support. Family support had a moderate direct effect on physical activity self-
efficacy (βtotal = 0.29, p < .01) and a small indirect effect on active leisure (βtotal =
0.11, p < .01). Higher levels of family support positively predicted positive feelings of
efficacy about physical activity and in turn higher engagement in active leisure (see Table 4;
Figure 2).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy had the largest total effect on active leisure (βtotal = 0.40, p <
.05). More positive beliefs about one’s ability to engage in physically active pursuits led to
higher levels of engagement in active leisure (see Table 4; Figure 2). All main effects were
significant at the p < .05 level. The more peer and family support respondents received the
more strongly they believed they had the ability to engage in active pursuits in their free
time and the higher their engagement in those pursuits. The total variance in active leisure
explained by the two social cognitive constructs, social support and self-efficacy, was 16%.
Gender. We considered whether gender moderated the relation between peer support
and self-efficacy. This process proceeded in successive steps using multiple group analysis.
We first determined if the measurement model performed the same for both genders. We de-
termined next whether or not the hypothesized moderation effect was found. In determining
 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 83

FIGURE 2 Structural equation model.

whether the measurement model was equal for both genders, we established that the num-
ber of underlying factors for both genders was equivalent. Simultaneous model testing of
both genders was performed and served as the baseline model for further invariance testing.
Adequate fit (χ 2 = 1989.53, df = 408, p < .001; NFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.96;
RMSEA = 0.067) indicated an equal number of factors across both genders (Byrne, 2001).
We then determined that the pattern of factor loadings was invariant across groups. We com-
pared the baseline model with no constraints to the same model where all factor loadings
were constrained to be equal. The chi-square difference between the two models was not
significant which indicated the measures were operating in the same way for both males

TABLE 4 Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects of Hypothesized Model

Endogenous variables

Self-efficacy (R2 = .21) Physical activity (R2 = .16)

Independent Direct Indirect Total Direct Indirect Total

variables effects effects effects effects effects effects

Peer Support 0.27∗∗ .00 0.27∗∗ .00 0.12∗∗ 0.12∗∗

(.04) (.04) (.02) (.02)
Family Support 0.29∗∗ .00 0.29∗∗ .00 0.11∗∗ 0.11∗∗
(.05) (.05) (.02) (.02)
Self-efficacy − − − 0.40∗ .00 0.40∗
(.04) (.04)
Note: Standardized parameter estimates are reported with the bootstrap standard errors in
parenthesis.
∗
p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01.
84 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

and females. Finally, similar testing determined the first order factors were also equivalent
across groups.
Having established the measures were invariant across groups, we tested for modera-
tion. We used the completely constrained hypothesized structural model (see Figure 2; all
factor loadings, variances, and covariances were constrained to be equal) to test the null
hypothesis. The path model was the same for males and females. A significant difference
in chi-squares between the constrained and unconstrained model indicates the models for
males and females are not the same and the null hypothesis would be rejected indicating a
moderation effect. This resubmitted model yielded a χ 2 (430, N = 874) = 1405.32. When
comparing the constrained and unconstrained models, the model without constraints had a
significantly better fit than the model with constraints since the chi-square difference was
significant, χ2dif (22, 874) = 584.21, p = .000. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected
suggesting gender did play a moderating role.
Further examination of the parameter estimates of the better-fitting model indicated a
moderation effect between peer support and self-efficacy (critical ratio difference = −1.99).
As seen in Figure 3, the effect of peer support on self-efficacy was significantly greater
for males than females (for males, βtotal−SE = 0.61, p < .001; for females, βtotal−SE =
0.20, p < .001). Peer support was more influential on male respondents’ beliefs that they
could be active and in turn they reported higher active leisure participation when compared

FIGURE 3 Parameter estimates for males and females.

 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 85

to their female counterparts. In addition, both peer and family support and self-efficacy
for males explained a substantial amount of variance in active leisure (R 2 = 0.44). In
contrast, although peer and family support as well as self-efficacy positively influenced
active leisure participation for female respondents, only 18% of the variance in active
leisure was explained by the two social support constructs and self-efficacy.

Discussion
Current research on determinants of older adolescent physical activity and active leisure sug-
gests a number of areas for concern and the need for future research. Increased understanding
of processes that lead to active leisure is invaluable in the development and implementation
of effective interventions seeking to increase active leisure participation. Because older
adolescents are at particularly high risk for initiating and maintaining a sedentary lifestyle,
addressing their physical activity needs is important (Caspersen et al., 2000; Gordon-Larsen
et al., 1999). To increase the understanding of predictors of older adolescent active leisure,
this study used a cross-sectional design to consider three social cognitive constructs of
physical activity. Consistent with previous research, males reported higher participation in
active leisure than females. Males also reported higher active leisure efficacy and more peer
support to be active, whereas females reported more family support to be active.
Previous researchers also suggested a strong relationship between self-efficacy and
physical activity regardless of the population (Wallace, Buckworth, Kirby, & Sherman,
2000). The findings in this study supported previous research that suggested self-efficacy
beliefs influence physical activity. Peer and family social support also have been shown to be
important correlates to physical activity participation for both genders (Leslie et al., 1999;
Wallace et al.). Although the results of this study confirmed this relation (i.e., indirectly
through active leisure self-efficacy), gender differences did emerge, suggesting peer and
family support differentially affected active leisure self-efficacy and active leisure engage-
ment. Only a small proportion of the variance in active leisure (R 2 = .17) was explained by
the two social cognitive constructs under consideration, and this variance varied by gender.
Among males, almost half the variance in active leisure was explained by social support
and self-efficacy (44%) as compared with females for whom only 18% of the variance was
explained.
Although the model tested explained a larger proportion of the variance of active
leisure for males, the model for females demonstrated a good model fit, and all paths were
significant. These findings supported the notion that both peers and family play a crucial role
in adolescent females’ estimation of their ability to engage in active leisure. This finding is
consistent with self-efficacy literature that suggested verbal persuasion (e.g., social support)
is an important contributor to believing in one’s ability to be active (Bandura, 1997). The
relationship between family support and efficacy was slightly stronger than the relationship
between peer support and efficacy among females. Family support to be active may be
more influential on adolescent females’ assessment of their ability to be active, which is
consistent with other research (Leslie et al., 1999; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2003).
Despite the strong relationships between social support, self-efficacy, and active leisure
among females, a large proportion of the variance was still left unexplained. Among
females, other influential factors on active leisure might include social variables such
as the importance placed on active leisure by parents or other important role models
(Sallis, Prochaska, Taylor, Hill, & Geraci, 1999), motivational disposition and
self-perception (Biddle & Wang, 2003), and intentions and perceived behavioral control
(Trost et al., 2002). Evidence shows that a number of social cognitive factors are predictive
of active leisure (Sallis et al., 2000). Proceeding with research that ascertains how these
86 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

social cognitive influences vary by gender and what other social cognitive factors are most
influential on adolescent females’ active leisure engagement is important. Possibly other
environmental influences might be more influential on adolescent females’ active leisure
engagement than those social cognitive factors considered here. An ecological study that
includes more environmental factors, such as facility attractiveness and safety issues, may
shed more light on additional influences on female participation in physically active leisure.
Among males, peer and family support positively influenced males’ belief in their
ability to be active. However, peers played a more influential role on perceived ability to be
active in comparison to family. This finding makes sense. For this university sample, students
have presumably moved out of their parents’ home and live on their own either in dormitory
housing or off campus apartments. Friends comprise the more immediate support network
and according to the results here, played a more influential role in influencing perceived
ability to be active.
This study suggests some ways theory could be put into practice because it focused
on modifiable, social cognitive constructs that can be targeted in programming for univer-
sity populations of similar composition. Encouraging family interest and participation as
one component of an intervention could be a powerful mechanism, particularly for older
adolescent females. Although parents are not necessarily currently residing with, or even
within close proximity to their older adolescent, possible programming ideas might include
a mother-daughter or father-son golf tournament or parents’ weekend 5K walk or run. Both
events provide opportunities for parents, who may no longer be living in the same city as
their adolescent, to encourage their child in preparing for the event and provide support by
participating in that event with them. This strategy could be tested against a strategy that
encourages parents to verbally support their daughters’ physically active leisure rather than
participate with their daughter.
Building on self-efficacy theory and the strong relation with physically active leisure re-
ported here, studies could be designed to test more effective ways for providing peer support
and creating a normative environment where students feel “pressured” into participating in
physically active leisure because it is the thing to do. Furthermore, assessing the relative
influence of the self-efficacy sub-scales (structural, personal, ability to overcome barriers)
may provide more information about how self-efficacy works to promote physically active
leisure.
Although the results of this study provide insight into the mechanisms of influence on
active leisure among this university population, the results need to be interpreted with several
limitations in mind. Since the data were cross sectional, the direction of causality between
the hypothesized relations cannot be determined. Using longitudinal data to test this same
model would provide evidence for the direction of causality. Since this model accounted
for only a small proportion of the variance in physical activity among the population as
a whole, and among females in particular, other variables should be considered in future
derivations of this social cognitive model. Finally, the sample was not reflective of the
gender composition of the university from which it was drawn.
The results of this study provide additional information about the complex relation of
social cognitive constructs, gender, and active leisure among university students. Increased
understanding of factors related to physical activity and variations by gender is critical to
health promotion and increased physical activity among adolescents.

References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the
twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.
 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 87

Associated Press (February 23, 2005). Penn State Black Caucus says school’s response to racism is
poor. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/ news/103-02232005-
454351.html.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 4, 359–373.
Bandura, A. (1997). The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Biddle, S. J. & Wang, C. K. J. (2003). Motivation and self-perception profiles and links with physical
activity in adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 687– 701.
Blair, S. N., LaMonte, M. J., & Nichaman, M. Z. (2004). The evaluation of physical activity recommen-
dations: How much is enough? The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79(5), 913S–920S.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brustad, R. J., Babkes, M. L., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Youth in sport. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas,
& C. M. Janelle (eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 604–635). New York: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Caspersen, C. J., Pereira, M. A., & Curran, K. M. (2000). Changes in physical activity patterns in
the United States, by sex and cross-sectional age. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise,
32(9), 1601–1609.
Centers for Disease Control. (2000). CDC Fact Book 2000/2001. Retrieved January 24, 2003, from
www.cdc.gov.
Culos-Reed, S. N., Gyurcsik, N. C., & Brawley, L. R. (2001). Using theories of motivated behavior to
understand physical activity. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (eds.), Handbook
of sport psychology (pp. 695–717). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Daley, A. J. (2002). School based physical activity in the United Kingdom: Can it create physically
active adults? Quest, 54, 21–33.
DeBourdeaudhuij, I. & Sallis, J. F. (2002). Relative contribution of psychosocial variables to the
explanation of physical activity in three population-based adult samples. Preventive Medicine,
34, 279–288.
Dowda, M., Ainsworth, B. E., Addy, C. L., Saunders, R., & Riner, W. (2003). Correlates of physical
activity among U.S. young adults, 18 to 30 years of age, from NHANES III. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 26, 15–23.
Dubbert, P. M. (2002). Physical activity and exercise: Recent advances and current challenges. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(3), 526–526.
Eyler, A. E., Wilcox, S., Matson-Koffman, D., Evenson, K. R., Sanderson, B., Thompson, J., et al.
(2002). Correlates of physical activity among women from diverse racial/ ethnic groups. Journal
of Women’s Health & Gender-based Medicine, 11, 239–253.
Fox, K. R. & Riddoch, C. (2000). Charting the physical activity patterns of contemporary children
and adolescents. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 59, 497–504.
Godin, G. & Shepard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exercise behavior in a community.
Canadian Journal of Sport Sciences, 10, 141–146.
Gordon-Larsen, P., McMurray, R. G., & Popkin, B. M. (1999). Adolescent physical activity and
inactivity vary by ethnicity: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of
Pediatrics, 135(3), 301–301.
Greene, A. L., Wheatley, S. M., & Aldava, J. F. (1992). Stages on life’s way: Adolescents’ implicit
theories of the life course. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(3), 364–381.
Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (Vol. 10). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Kendig, T. Personal communication, January 29, 2005.
Leslie, E., Fotheringham, M. J., Owen, N., & Bauman, A. E. (2001). Age-related differences in
physical activity levels of young adults. Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise, 33(2),
255–258.
88 S. Sylvia-Bobiak and L. L. Caldwell

Leslie, E., Owen, N., Salmon, J., Bauman, A. E., Sallis, J. F., & Kai Lo, S. (1999). Insufficiently active
Australian college students: Perceived personal, social, and environmental influences. Preventive
Medicine, 28, 20–27.
Leupker, R. V. (1999). How physically active are American children and what can we do about it?
International Journal of Obesity, 23(Suppl. 2), S12–S17.
Maggs, J. L. (1997). Alcohol use and binge drinking as a goal-directed action during the transition
to postsecondary education. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (eds.), Health
risks and developmental transitions during adolescence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Maggs, J. L., Schulenberg, J., & Hurrelmann, K. (1997). Developmental transitions during adoles-
cence: Health promotion implications. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (eds.),
Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Marcus, B. H., Selby, V. C., Niaura, R. S., & Rossi, J. S. (1992). Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise
and behavior change. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63(1), 60–66.
McAuley, E. A. & Mihalko, S. L. (1998). Measuring exercise-related self-efficacy. In J. L. Duda (ed.),
Advances in sport and exercise psychology measurement (371–391). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology, Inc.
Milligan, R. A. K., Burke, B., Beilin, L. J., Richards, J., Dunbar, D., Spencer, M., et al. (1997).
Health-related behaviours and psycho-social characteristics of 18-year old Australians. Social
Science and Medicine, 45, 1549–1562.
Montoye, H. J., Kemper, H. C. G., Saris, W. H. M., & Wahsburn, R. A. (1996). Measuring physical
activity and energy expenditure. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Felton, G. M., Ward, D. S., et al. (2002).
Examing social-cognitive determinants of intention and physical activity among Black and
White adolescent girls using structural equation modeling. Health Psychology, 21(5), 459–
467.
Motl, R. W., Dishman, R. K., Trost, S. G., Saunders, R., Dowda, M., Felton, G. M., et al. (2000).
Factorial validity and invariance of questionnaires measuring social-cognitive determinants of
physical activity among adolescent girls. Preventive Medicine, 31, 584–594.
Netz, Y. & Raviv, S. (2004). Age differences in motivational orientation toward physical activity: An
application of social-cognitive theory. The Journal of Psychology, 138(1), 35–48.
Neumark-Sztainer, D., Story, M., Hannan, P. J., Tharp, T., & Rex, J. (2003). Factors associated with
changes in physical activity. Archives of Pediatric Medicine, 157, 803–810.
Pereira, M. A., FitzGerald, S. J., Gregg, E. W., Joswiak, M. L., Ryan, W. J., Suminski, R. R., et al.
(1997). A collection of physical activity questionnaires for health-related research. Medicine and
Science in Sport and Exercise, 29(6), S2–S107.
Rovniak, L. S., Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Stephens, R. S. (2002). Social cognitive determi-
nants of physical activity in young adults: A prospective structural equation analysis. Annals of
Behavioral Medicine, 24(2), 149–156.
Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Ryan, J. (April, 2003). Title IX: Helping women but hurting men? Paw Print,1 (VI). The Pennsyl-
vania State University. Retrieved March 30, 2005, from http://www. mascsa.psu.edu/SAAB/
Apr03 Paw Print.pdf.
Sallis, J. F., Grossman, R. M., Pinski, R. B., Patterson, T. L., & Nader, P. R. (1987). The development
of scales to measure social support for diet and exercise behaviors. Preventive Medicine, 16,
825–836.
Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, J. J., & Taylor, W. C. (2000). A review of correlates of physical activity of chil-
dren and adolescents. Medicine and Science in Sport & Exercise, 32(5), 963–
975.
Sallis, J. F., Prochaska, J. J., Taylor, W. C., Hill, J. O., & Geraci, J. C. (1999). Correlates of physical
activity in a national sample of girls and boys in grades 4 through 12. Health Psychology, 18,
410–415.
 Factors Related to Physically Active Leisure 89

Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J. L., & Hurrelmann, K. (1997). Negotiating developmental transitions during
adolescence and young adulthood: Health risks and opportunities. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs,
& K. Hurrelmann (eds.), Health risks and development transitions during adolescence (pp. 1–19).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, A. L. (2003). Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: A road less traveled in youth
sport and exercise psychology research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 25–39.
Sothern, M. S., Loftin, M., Suskind, R. M., Udall, J. N., & Blecker, U. (1999). The health benefits
of physical activity in children and adolescents: Implications for chronic disease prevention.
European Journal of Pediatrics, 158, 271–274.
Thompson, A., Humbert, M. L., & Mirwald, R. L. (2003). A longitudinal study of the impact of
childhood and adolescent physical activity experiences on adult physical activity perceptions
and behaviors. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 358–377.
Trost, S. G., Pate, R. R., Dowda, M., Ward, D. S., Felton, G. M., & Saunders, R. (2002). Psychosocial
correlates of physical activity in White and African American girls. Journal of Adolescent Health,
31, 226–233.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS). (1996). Physical activity and
health: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Author.
Wallace, L. S., Buckworth, J., Kirby, T. E., & Sherman, W. M. (2000). Characteristics of exercise
behavior among college students: Application of social cognitive theory to predicting stage of
change. Preventive Medicine, 31, 494–505.
Winters, E. R., Petosa, R. L., & Charlton, T. E. (2003). Using social cognitive theory to explain
discretionary, “leisure-time” physical exercise among high school students. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 32, 436–442.
Wu, T.-Y., Pender, N., & Noureddine, S. (2003). Gender differences in the psychosocial and cognitive
correlates of physical activity among Taiwanese adolescents: A structural equation modeling
approach. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10(2), 93.