Examining the social cognitive determinants of collegiate recreational sport involvement and outcomes

Lower‐Hoppe, Leeann M.; Evans, James; Brgoch, Shea

doi:10.1080/14927713.2021.1874832

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 76 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To combat constraints, studies identified participation enablers such as peers (e.g., Webb & Forrester, 2016), the breadth and access to opportunities (e.g., Brunton & St Quinton, 2021; Lower et al, 2015; Snyder et al, 2017; Zuest et al, 2021), financial resources (e.g., Fricke et al, 2018; Wood & Danylchuk, 2015), self efficacy (e.g., Lower-Hoppe et al, 2021) and previous experience (Lyons et al, 2018. Studies also explored the motivational factors of participation such as socialization/peer support, competency/mastery (e.g., Anderson & Ramos, 2018; Beggs et al, 2014; Carter-Francique, 2011; Deng et al, 2021; Ramos et al, 2018), appearance (e.g., Cooper et al, 2012; Diehl et al, 2018), goal achievement (e.g., Lower-Hoppe et al, 2021; Snyder et al, 2017), entertainment/stimulation (e.g., Munusturalar et al, 2015; Shapiro et al, 2020). A few studies also investigated communication and marketing practices like information dissemination (e.g., Lee et al, 2020), the use of social media (e.g., Achen, 2015), the internet and word of mouth (e.g., Bilos & Galic, 2016), promotional items (e.g., Ciuffo et al, 2014), advertising and branding (e.g., Mills & Williams, 2016), and the campus recreation facility as an institutional recruitment tool (e.g., Weaver et al, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, many studies focused on participation constraints such as time and energy, school (e.g., Barney et al, 2019;Diehl et al, 2018;Guo & Ross, 2014;Lerner et al, 2011), required commitment (e.g., St Quinton & Brunton, 2018), skill, competition (e.g., Brunton & St Quinton, 2021;Rundio & Bunning, 2021;Selvaratnam et al, 2021;Shaikh et al, 2018), the equipment, built environment (e.g., Henchy, 2011;Martin & Griffiths, 2016;Spivey & Hritz, 2013) and activity alternatives (e.g., Stankowski et al, 2017). To combat constraints, studies identified participation enablers such as peers (e.g., Webb & Forrester, 2016), the breadth and access to opportunities (e.g., Brunton & St Quinton, 2021;Lower et al, 2015;Snyder et al, 2017;Zuest et al, 2021), financial resources (e.g., Fricke et al, 2018;Wood & Danylchuk, 2015), self efficacy (e.g., Lower-Hoppe et al, 2021) and previous experience (Lyons et al, 2018. Studies also explored the motivational factors of participation such as socialization/peer support, competency/mastery (e.g., Beggs et al, 2014;Carter-Francique, 2011;Deng et al, 2021;Ramos et al, 2018), appearance (e.g., Cooper et al, 2012;Diehl et al, 2018), goal achievement (e.g., Lower-Hoppe et al, 2021;Snyder et al, 2017), entertainment/stimulation (e.g., Munusturalar et al, 2015;Shapiro et al, 2020). A few studies also investigated communication and marketing practices like information dissemination (e.g., Lee et al, 2020), the use of social media (e.g., ...…”

Section: Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Review of Campus Recreation and Sport-Based Experience Literature in Higher Education Contexts

Wilson

2022

Recreational Sports Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This rapid review was conducted to synthesize the empirical research related to campus recreation participatory experiences that was published between 2011 and 2021. To carry out the review, three databases (SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, Scopus) were systematically searched for peer reviewed empirical literature related to campus recreation participatory sport experiences. The results were then screened with predetermined criteria and 180 studies remained for data extraction. Data was extracted and trends were identified for discussion. When comparing the results to a similar review conducted on literature published between 1998–2010 (cf. Barcelona & Sweeney, 2012), the results of the reveal that the use of theory is becoming increasingly prevalent as scholars are more regularly providing theoretical frameworks, key constructs and discussing scholarly contributions. The review also revealed limitations such as inconsistencies with measurement and that most studies have been conducted at single institutions, which should both be addressed in future research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Themesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of Campus Recreation and Sport-Based Experience Literature in Higher Education Contexts

Wilson

2022

Recreational Sports Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, it departed from the dominant learning theories that focused solely on the stimulus-response mechanism, as Bandura's SCT highlighted the importance of human agency in the process of learning and behavior change [22]. One of its main strengths is that it focuses on individual agency (cognitive processes) as well as environmental influences (socio-structural factors) as a determinant of human behavior [23].…”

Section: Social Cognitive Theory (Sct)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The triad (Figure 1) holds that three main factors (personal, environmental and the target behavior) reciprocally influence one another in a dynamic fashion to shape human behaviors [26]. The personal factors are cognitive factors such as self-efficacy, outcome expectation and self-regulation, while the environmental factors are external, socio-structural factors, which could be physical, social or technological [21,22]. An example of a technological system that can influence human behaviors via cognitive processes is persuasive technology: an interactive system intentionally designed to change attitudes and behaviors through persuasion and social influence without deception or coercion [8].…”

Section: Social Cognitive Theory (Sct)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Culture and Social-Cognitive Characteristics on App Preference and Willingness to Use a Fitness App

Oyibo,

Vassileva

2024

MTI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fitness apps are persuasive tools developed to motivate physical activity. Despite their popularity, there is little work on how social-cognitive characteristics such as culture, household size, physical activity level, perceived self-efficacy and social support influence users’ willingness to use them and preference (personal vs. social). Knowing these relationships can help developers tailor fitness apps to different socio-cultural groups. Hence, we conducted two studies to address the research gap. In the first study (n = 194) aimed at recruiting participants for the second study, we asked participants about their app preference (personal vs. social), physical activity level and key demographic variables. In the second study (n = 49), we asked participants about their social-cognitive beliefs about exercise and their willingness to use a fitness app (presented as a screenshot). The results of the first study showed that, in the collectivist group (Nigerians), people in large households were more likely to be active and use the social version of a fitness app than those in small households. However, in the individualist group (Canadians/Americans), neither the preference for the social or personal version of a fitness app nor the physical activity level depended on the household size. Moreover, in the second study, in the individualist model, perceived self-efficacy and perceived self-regulation have a significant total effect on willingness to use a fitness app. However, in the collectivist model, perceived social support and outcome expectation have a significant total effect on the target construct. Finally, we found that females in individualist cultures had higher overall social-cognitive beliefs about exercise than males in individualist cultures and females in collectivist cultures. The implications of the findings are discussed.

show abstract

The 3 × 2 Achievement Goals in the Education, Sport, and Occupation Literatures: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Lochbaum

Sisneros

Kazak

2023

EJIHPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achievement goal theory has been a dominant motivation framework since the 1980s. The 3 × 2 achievement goal framework emerged in the literature in 2011. We aimed to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines of the 3 × 2 achievement goal research in education, sport, and occupation settings. We retrieved articles from searching EBSCOhost and Google Scholar platforms. Eligible articles contained the 3 × 2 achievement goal in education, sport, or occupation, were published in a peer-reviewed journal, and provided mean data or correlate data. We tested hypotheses concerned with (1) the overall pattern of achievement goal endorsement, (2) achievement goal differences by domain (education, sport) and compulsory nature of the domains or sub-domains, and (3) achievement goal relationships with correlates (e.g., learning strategies, motivations, performance). After screening, 56 articles met all inclusion criteria, providing 58 samples across education (n = 44), sport (n = 10), and occupation (n = 4) settings with 35,031 unique participants from 15 countries. Participants endorsed the task- and self-approach goals more than the counterpart avoidance goals, other-avoidance goals more than other-approach goals, and the intercorrelations and reliability coefficients were acceptable. Minimal impact results from examining within and across study bias statistics. Of importance, the domain (i.e., education, sport) and the compulsory nature of the domain or sub-domains (i.e., primary-secondary education, sport) moderated goal endorsement (group mixed-effects p < 0.05, g values medium to very large). These groupings also moderated the other goal differences. Concerning our correlates analyses, most meta-analyzed correlations among the achievement goals and correlates were small in meaningfulness with the largest correlations (0.30–0.42) between the approach goals merged and the task- and self-approach goals and facilitative learning strategies and desired motivations. In conclusion, the 3 × 2 achievement goals literature is diverse. Furthering the study and application of this model requires overcoming inherent limitations (i.e., consistent response scale sets), teasing out differences between the task- and self-goals, measuring performance outcomes, and cross-cultural collaborations.

show abstract

Examining the social cognitive determinants of collegiate recreational sport involvement and outcomes

Cited by 3 publications

References 76 publications

A Review of Campus Recreation and Sport-Based Experience Literature in Higher Education Contexts

A Review of Campus Recreation and Sport-Based Experience Literature in Higher Education Contexts

The Effect of Culture and Social-Cognitive Characteristics on App Preference and Willingness to Use a Fitness App

The 3 × 2 Achievement Goals in the Education, Sport, and Occupation Literatures: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About