Religiosity and physical activity behavior : workout for him or you? : on the relationship between religiosity and physical activity behavior with quality of motivation for physical activity behavior as mediator as a fu

Running head: WORKOUT FOR HIM OR YOU?

Religiosity and Physical Activity Behavior: Workout for Him or You? On the Relationship between Religiosity and Physical Activity Behavior

with Quality of Motivation for Physical Activity Behavior as Mediator as a Function of Degree of Religiosity

Daniël E.F. Steiner University of Amsterdam

Bachelor Thesis Social Psychology Student # 10292306

Thesis supervisor: Noah Millman

Abstract

A study was conducted to assess the relationship between physical activity behavior and degree of religiosity. Given present evidence on health benefits of religious involvement (e.g. better overall health, better mental health lookout) and the link between physical activity behavior and good health, it was hypothesized that those who were religious would partake in physical activity more, compared to those who were not religious. It was further hypothesized that quality, or type, of motivation for working out, as a function of degree of religiosity, would be able to account for some of the difference. Given the surge in prevalence of obesity and related diseases, and the link between physical activity and health, insight in what factors influence whether people partake in working out or not are of public interest. Social

Determination Theory was put to use as a framework of organization to assess type of motivation. College students (N = 181) from a Christian and public university completed self-reports of amount of physical activity behavior, degree ofreligiosity, and quality of motivation for physical activity ( consisting of amotivation, external regulation, and introjected, identified and intrinsic motivation). Degree of religiosity was not related to an increase or decrease in amount of physical activity behavior. A higher degree of religiosity did cause less introjected motivation for physical activity behavior. Explanations and suggestions for further research are discussed.

Religiosity and Physical Activity Behavior: Workout for Him or for You? On the Relationship between Religiosity and Physical Activity Behavior

Introduction

Religion, defined as the feelings, thoughts, experiences, and behaviors that arise from a search for the sacred ... or a search or quest for a non-sacred goal as identity, belongingness, meaning, health, or wellness, has since the conception of Psychology garnered a lot of interest from the science (Argyle & Beit-Hallahrni, 2013; Hill et al., 1985; as cited in Worthington et al., 2003). Religion seems to exert influence over a lot, if not all aspects of human life and behavior. Not the least of those is human health and health behavior.

Review articles, summarizing substantial evidence of salutary religious effects on morbidity and mortality, show that high levels of religious involvement are associated with better health status and health behavior (Seybold & Hill, 2001 ). Degree of religiosity is significantly and inversely linked with alcohol dependence, drug abuse or dependence, and adult antisocial behavior (Kendler et al., 2003), in the sense that those who are more religious use less drugs, and drink less alcohol, than those who are not. 'Very' religious Americans, for whom religion is an important part of daily life, as opposed to moderately religious and non- religious, are more likely to practice healthy behavior: for example, they eat healthier

(Gallup, 2010). Participants in organized religions have been seen to have, on average, better mental health status ( e.g. McCullough, Larson, & Worthington, 1998). It has also been seen that people of faith, across all faiths, enjoy a higher wellbeing ( e.g. a higher emotional health, engaging in more healthy behaviors, evaluating life more positively) compared with

nonreligious people ( e.g. Gallup, 2012; Green & Elliott, 2010).

Although the average life expectancy has increased, and people tend to stay healthier while getting older than their predecessors, this trend seems to be staggering in some

the Health Sciences and Psychology alike is that of obesity. Defined as a medical condition in which someone is overweight to the extent that is hazardous to one's health (Bleich, Cutler, Murray, & Adams, 2008), obesity is classified in the Western world as having a Body Mass Index or weight-to-height ratio of over 30 (Kanazawa et al., 2005). The condition is, in industrialized countries, and non-industrialized the like, growing (The State of Obesity, 2016). Worldwide obesity has more than doubled since the 1980s. Nearly one-third of the world's population (2.1 billion people) is now either overweight (having a weight-to-height ratio of greater than or equal to 25 and lower than 30) or obese. In the time period between

1980 and 2013, rates of overweight and obesity increased for both men and women (from 28 percent to 37 percent, and from 30 percent to 38 percent, respectively), in both the developed and developing world (Ng et al., 2014). Although the prevalence of excess body fat has been growing worldwide, it seems to be particularly prevalent in the United States, where 64.7 percent of men and women are now either overweight or obese, compared to 'just' 52 percent in the Netherlands and 54 percent in Italy (The State of Obesity, 2016; The Lancet, 2006).

Obesity is an important public health issue: excess body weight is the fifth most important risk factor contributing to the burden of disease in developed countries (Bleich et al., 2008). Obesity puts millions of people every year at risk for a range of chronic obesity- related diseases as cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoarthritis, and other preventable illnesses (A. E. Field et al., 2001 ), not only causing human suffering but also having large economic impact. For example, lifetime medical costs related to common medical conditions are $10,000 higher per person among the obese than among those of healthy weight (Bhattacharya & Sood, 2006). Needless to say, the eradication of obesity has been high on the agenda of (health) organizations as the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and many governments worldwide (Finkelstein, Ruhm, & Kosa, 2005). Although causes and solutions for obesity are multilayered, having to

do with overconsumption and inactivity, consensus exists that exercise and physical activity are an integral and effective part of combating obesity, gaining a normal and healthy weight and going back on track to leading a healthy lifestyle (Bleich et al., 2008).

Man is not made to sit all day, and yet, many of us do. A report by the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (2003) shows that while one in five, on average, partake in high levels of physical activity, one in four are largely inactive. Given the big prevalence of inactivity-related illnesses and conditions as obesity and overweight, insight in what factors could influence whether people participate in healthful physical activity

behavior or not, is vital in understanding what can be done to make people partake in healthful physical activity behavior

more. Knowledge of

this may aid in in preventing and

combating disease and help in attaining a healthy lifestyle.

Having previously mentioned the apparent beneficial effects of

religion on physical

and mental health

,

one comes to wonder if

[ 1] those who are religious also participate more

in healthful physical activity behavior. And if

so

,

if

the motivations that those of

faith have

for doing so, are accounting for this difference [2]. Taking

'

religion' at face value only

,

as a

cause for people working out more or less, does not necessarily gain insight into what makes

people do so

,

beyond the fact that religion as a construct either has a positive or negative

relationship with healthful physical activity behavior. Insight in the ( difference of) quality

,

or

type

,

of

motivation for physical activity behavior for either group

,

however

,

may guide

insight into what exactly makes people choose to go workout more or less. This knowledge

may in this way aid in identifying and developing effective strategies to facilitate adoption of

more physical activity behavior in people

'

s lives

,

combating inactivity-related illnesses and

conditions like obesity and overweight.

The purpose of

the present study was to [ 1] examine whether religious people

quality of motivation for working out for the very religious and the non-religious is

attributing to this difference. Given the weight of literature pointing to health benefits related to religiosity, and the fact that exercise is seen as integral to (keeping) a healthy lifestyle, it is hypothesized that [ 1] those who are religious will engage more in physical activity behavior than those who are not.

It

was further hypothesized that for those for whom religion plays an important role in their life, most activities that are undertaken, including working out, will be done with religion 'on the mind'. Therefore, it was hypothesized that, should any difference be found as far as the amount of physical activity behavior is concerned, [2] the

quality of

motivation

for working out will be able to explain at least some of this difference.

(Ryan & Deci, 2000)As far as quality of motivation is concerned, self-determination theory, currently the most widely used and acclaimed theory about motivation, was put to use as a framework of organization. Posited by Deci and Ryan (1985; as cited in Ryan & Deci, 2000), it states that individuals pursue activities for different reasons, which can be

represented using six 'factors', or types, of motivation. The types of motivation differ in the sense that each is assumed to lead to another level of self-determination, which is a reflection of the extent to which an activity has been internalized into the self. There are three subsets of motivation, ranging from no self-determination to much self-determination: amotivation, extrinsic motivation and internal motivation.

Amotivation

,

meaning

non-motivation

,

is found when someone engages in an activity, but does not believe this activity will bring about any desired result whatsoever.

Extrinsic motivation is the type of motivation we find ourselves having most of the time: we are motivated to perform an activity for some advantage it brings, or to avoid

negative consequences by doing so (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Extrinsic motivation is underpinned into four types of (behavioral) regulation: external, introjected, identified, and integrated regulation, of which each differ in degree of internalization. The degree to which someone

sees an activity as part of the self, increases when someone moves closer to intrinsic

motivation. External regulation is the type closest to amotivation. Someone with this level of regulation will be motivated to engage in physical activity behavior purely because of

external pressure or contingency; to avoid being punished for not doing so, or to gain some reward by doing so. Someone with introjected regulation will partake in physical activity behavior because of internal contingencies, such as guilt or obligation. Identified regulation is characterized by someone valuing the behavior; someone will exercise because he or she values the activity, believes it is good for them and think that it is important to do so. Integrated regulation is the closest to intrinsic motivation, but differs on the reason for partaking in an activity. Someone with integrated regulation already sees working out as part of the self, but will partake in physical activity not for the act itself, but to acquire a certain outcome, such as getting or staying in shape.

The third type of motivation is intrinsic motivation. Someone who partakes in

physical activity for the sake of enjoyment of the activity, or the sake of the activity itself, is intrinsically motivated for working out. There is not a specific outcome to be achieved: rather, the activity has become an end in itself. People who are intrinsically motivated to participate in physical activity, or any activity, for that matter, are the most likely to continue doing so for longer lengths of time (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Although salutary effects of religion on health have been extensively researched and reviewed over the course of more than one hundred years, little research has been conducted regarding the amount or frequency of physical activity behavior by religious and non-

religious people, and the difference between those groups. Given that religion is seen as being beneficial to health overall and physical exercise is seen as fundamental to a healthy lifestyle, such a link is likely, however. Previous research has in fact pointed to religious people engaging in more physical activity than non-religious people (Gallup, 2012), but literature

remains scarce. The aforementioned study, the only to be found to date about physical exercise and religion, divided amount of physical exercise between more, or less, than three times a week, which raises questions about the preciseness, although it does show a trend. Gallup did also not take into account ( quality of) motivation for physical activity behavior, which is something that one would actually like to know if any strategies to increase physical activity behavior are to be developed from the findings of the study.

The present study could therefore be seen as being one of the first, if not the first, in looking at if a difference can be discovered between religious and non-religious people in their amount of physical activity behavior and quality of motivation for engaging in that activity, using a sample of college students, religious and non-religious the like.

The purpose of this study was to examine whether religious people participate more in physical activity behavior than non-religious people. A secondary purpose was to examine whether quality of motivation for working out, for the very religious and the non-religious, was attributing to this difference.

It

was hypothesized that:

1. Those who are religious will engage more in physical activity behavior than those who are not.

2. The quality of motivation for working out will be able to account for some of this difference.

Methods Participants

181 students, 96 from the Christian University of Applied Sciences in Ede, The Netherlands and 85 from the University of Amsterdam in Amsterdam, The Netherlands participated in the study. All students completed the survey, although in four cases one or two questions were left unanswered. Of the participants, 90 were male and 91 female, with a mean age of 21.49 years old (SD = 2.26). 81 students counted themselves as non- religious/secular, 85 counted themselves as religious, and 15 found that neither of these options described their outlook on life.

Materials

Three instruments used in this study assessed self-reports of amount of physical activity behavior, degree of religiosity, and quality of motivation for physical activity. In addition to these surveys, students also filled out their religious affiliation, age, gender, highest level of previous education, and place of birth.

Weekly Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (L TP A). Amount of physical activity was assessed by using the Weekly Leisure Time Physical Activity

Questionnaire (Godin, 2011). Students filled out how many times in a one week period they participated, on average, in strenuous (running, judo, ice skating), moderate (fast walking, swimming) or mild (yoga, bowling) physical activity for more than 15 minutes. From these results, a weekly leisure activity score was calculated using to the following formula: (9 * Strenuous)+ (5 *Moderate)+ (3 * Light). For the English version of this questionnaire, (Godin & Shephard, 1985) reported a two-week test-retest reliability ofr = .74. The measure has a modest reliability with a Crohnbach's alpha of .47 at pretest and .44 at posttest, as reported by Cardinal, Jacques, & Levy (2002). For the purpose of this study, a Dutch version was needed, which was unfortunately not available. Since the survey consisted of only one

sentence, easily worded, it was assumed by the researchers that creating our own Dutch translation would not pose a threat to the aforementioned reliability and validity.

Religious Commitment Inventory-IO. The Dutch translation of the religious commitment inventory-IO (RCI-10, Worthington et al., 2003), a well-known measure based on Worthington's religious values model, was used to examine degree of religiosity. The RCI-10 is a 10-item scale that measures inter- and intrapersonal religious commitment by giving a number of statements about religion which are to be scored on a five-point Likert scale. Participants are asked to indicate how true each of the given statements are for them, by circling one of the 5 options (1 = not at all true of me, 5 = totally true of me). Religious commitment in the RCI-10 is defined as the degree to which a person adheres to his or her religious values, beliefs, and practices and uses them in daily living' (Worthington, 1988; as cited in Worthington et al., 2003). Example statements are "I often read books and magazines about my faith", "Religious beliefs influence all my dealings in life" and "I spend time trying to grow in understanding of my faith". The RCI-10 measures three constructs: interpersonal religious commitment, intrapersonal commitment and religious commitment. For the purpose of this study, only religious commitment was used. A religious commitment score is derived from adding up the scores on each item, giving results ranging from ten (not religious) to thirty-eight and up (very religious). The RCI-10 has a strong internal consistency score for the full scale with an a of .93. Worthington et al. (2003) reported a three-week test-retest reliability coefficient for the full scale of .87. The validity of the scale has been shown. For the purpose of the present study, a Dutch version was deemed necessary, which was not available. Given the fact that the RCI-10 has been translated into multiple languages, most recently in Farsi (Hafizi, Tabatabaei, Memari, Rahmani, & Arbabi, 2016) without loss in reliability, the author deemed it appropriate to translate the RCI-10 from English to Dutch with a group of four co-researchers, comparing each other's translations and agreeing on one.

After running a reliability analysis, it was found that the Dutch translation of the RCI-10 (appendix A) had a strong internal consistency of

a=

.97.

Behavioral Regulation In Exercise Questionnaire-2.

Quality of motivation was assessed using the Dutch translation of the Behavioral Regulation In Exercise Questionnaire- II (BREQ-2; (Markland & Tobin, 2004). The BREQ-2 is a nineteen item survey that

measures, based on self-determination theory (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994 ), extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to exercise.

It

consists of questions that measure external regulation ("I exercise because other people say I should"), introjected regulation ("I feel guilty when I don't exercise"), identified regulation ("I get restless if I don't exercise

regularly") and intrinsic motivation ("I find exercise a pleasurable activity"). Participants are asked to indicate to which extent each of the statements are true for them, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from O (not true for me) to 5 (very much true for me). The validity of the English version of the BREQ-2 has been supported in predicting motives for physical activity behavior. The scale has good reliability scores for intrinsic regulation,

a

=

0.86, identified regulation,

a=

0. 73, introjected regulation,

a=

0.80, external regulation,

a=

0. 79 and

amotivation,

a=

0.83. Although there currently is an updated version of the BREQ available, called the BREQ-3, that version was not available into Dutch at the time of the study. The Dutch version of the BREQ-2 was developed by Lode Hol voet and Sietse Willems under the direction of Dr. Filip De Fruyt and colleagues at the Department of Developmental,

Personality and Social Psychology at the University of Ghent, Belgium. The subscales of the BREQ-2 can be analyzed separately by deriving a mean for each scale. They can also be combined into a single measure, called the Relative Autonomy Index (RAI). The validity of the RAI is under dispute (see Chemolli & Gagné, 2014) and was not used in this study.

Demographic information form.

A demographic information form (appendix B) was developed for this study. Participants were asked to indicate their gender, age, place of

birth, their highest level of education, and how they would describe their type of religion. This question offered the options of

E

v

an

g

elical

C

hri

s

tian

,

Dutch R

e

formed,

Reformator

y

C

hurch,

Roman-

C

atholi

c

,

Prot

es

tant

C

hurch Holland

,

(diff

e

r

e

nt typ

e

of)

C

hristian,

N

on-

R

e

li

g

iou

s

/

Se

c

ular

,

or oth

e

r

,

pleas

e

indicate.

Procedure

Data was collected with a group of

four during the month of

November. One daytrip

was made to the Christian University of

Applied Sciences in Ede,

where students were

approached during lunch break and handed a questionnaire on paper,

explaining to them that

this was a survey about religion and sport. Over the course of

several days,

students were also

approached at the University of

Amsterdam

,

mostly at the dining hall,

in the same way as in

Ede. Data was collected at these two universities with the express purpose of

finding both

religious and non-religious students. The Christian University of

Applied Sciences in Ede has

a religious affiliation and attracts people from many Dutch (Christian) backgrounds. The city

of

Ede is described as being in the Dutch

'bible-belt'.

The University of

Amsterdam is a

public university

with no religious affiliation, and attracts students from all over the country

and many countries outside The Netherlands. Permission to collect data was obtained through

the Institutional Review Board and participants in both universities were provided informed

consent on paper when completing the survey. Participation in the study was assured to be

completely voluntary. The surveys were printed on paper and consisted of

seven pages A4.

Instructions

stated that the surveys examined

'various subjects'

and that students should just

enter what came to mind: there were no wrong or right answers. Demographic information

was collected at the end of

the survey to check for influence of

factors as age or level of

education. Most students were able to complete the surveys in ten minutes or less. Responses

were confidential and anonymous.

Results Preliminary analyses

Initial checks for linearity and unusual cases were performed on the data. Two cases were graphically identified as outliers on the L TP A by inspection of a boxplot. Both had an unusually high score on the

L

TPA compared to the rest of the participants, which was possibly caused by them misunderstanding how to calculate the amount of exercise. Their data was excluded from the analysis. Two participants were graphically identified as an outlier on the BREQ-2 by inspection of a boxplot, having an unusually high score on external regulation. Their scores were also not included in the analysis.

Hypothesis testing

The distribution of scores on all the measures are reported in Table 1. A simple linear regression analysis was conducted on amount of physical activity behavior and degree of religiosity. Assumptions of this test are: presence of a linear relationship, multivariate

normality, no multicollinearity, homoscedasticity and independence of errors, and absence of outliers (Field, 2013). A linear relationship was assessed by inspection of a scatter plot and deemed present. Homoscedasticity was assessed using a plot of the residuals versus the predicted values and too deemed present. Multicollinearity was not present, all VIF values

<l 0. A Durbin-Watson test showed that the assumption of independence of errors was not

violated,

d

=

1.86.

To check for the normality of the distribution of scores, Shapiro-Wilk scores were obtained for each variable. The scores on degree ofreligiosity, D(l 76)

=

0.84, p < .001,

differed significantly from normal. The distribution of scores on quality of motivation, being amotivation, D(l 76) = 0.73, external regulation, D(l 76) = 0.74, introjected regulation,

D(l 76) = 0.92, identified regulation, D(l 76) = 0.96, and intrinsic regulation, D(l 76) = 0.94,

behavior, D(l 76)

=

0.91, p < .001, also were significantly non-normal. Given the large sample size (N = 179), the violation of the assumption of normality was violated was not deemed to be a large issue (Field, 2013 ).

It was hypothesized that religious people would engage more in physical activity behavior than non-religious people. A simple linear regression was calculated to predict physical activity behavior based on degree of religiosity. A non-significant regression

equation was found, F(l, 175) = 1.00, p = .308, with an R2 of .01. Using bootstrap confidence intervals and significance values, it was seen that degree of religiosity did not significantly predict amount of physical activity behavior, ~ = -.20, t = -1.00, p = .308, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.19], however, there seemed to be a trend pointing to a decline in physical activity behavior when degree of religiosity increased given the negative ~ of -.20.

Further inspection of the data revealed that although religious people varied in their scores on the RCI-10, people who were secular always scored around the minimal score ( 10 to 12 out of 50). Therefore, the distribution of scores on the RCI-10 was severely skewed to one side. To account for the non-normality of scores on the RCI-10, a secondary regression analysis was conducted on amount of physical activity behavior as a function of degree of religiosity. In this analysis, only religious people (N = 105), i.e. those who scored higher or equal to 13 on the RCI-10 were used, since their scores on the RCI-10 were normally

distributed. A simple linear regression analysis was conducted on amount of physical activity behavior as a function of degree of religiosity. A non-significant regression equation was found, F(l, 103) = 0.53,p = .468, R2 = .01. Degree ofreligiosity did not significantly predict amount of physical activity behavior.B> -.24, t = -0.73,p = .468, CI [-0.55, 0.19]. Again, however, a trend was observed that pointed to a decrease in physical activity behavior as degree of religiosity increased, given the negative ~ of -.24.

Hypothesis 2. A mediation analysis was conducted on amount of physical activity behavior as a function of degree of religiosity with quality of motivation as mediator, using the entire data (N

=

177). Quality of motivation for physical activity behavior was

hypothesized to be different for those who were very religious, compared to those who were not. Motivation was, in that respect, hypothesized to be able to explain some of the difference in amount of physical activity that the different groups were hypothesized to display. To establish mediation, three conditions must be satisfied (Baron & Kenny, 1986): the predictor variable (degree of religiosity) predicts the mediator (quality of motivation); the predictor variable affects the criterion variable (amount of physical activity behavior); the mediator affects the criterion variable. The first step of the mediation analysis was therefore to

establish that quality of motivation differed as function of degree of religiosity. The different types of motivation made up a total of five different mediators: amotivation, external

regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation and intrinsic regulation. A mediation analysis was calculated to predict the mediators on degree of religiosity; to predict amount of physical activity behavior on religiosity; to predict amount of physical activity on degree of religiosity including the mediator, and to predict amount of physical activity behavior on the mediators.

There was no significant total effect of degree of religiosity on amount of physical activity behavior, F(l, 172)

=

0.83, p

=

.362, R2

=

.01. Using bootstrap confidence intervals and significance values, it was seen that degree of religiosity did not predict amount of physical activity, b

=

-0.18, t

=

-0.91.

p

=

.362, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.21]. The addition of quality of motivation to predict physical activity behavior did cause the model to become significant,

F(6

,

167)

=

2.45, p

=

.027, R2

=

.08,

i1

R

2

=

.08. This was to be expected, in the sense that quality of motivation for physical activity behavior logically predicts amount of physical activity behavior. However, 'quality of motivation' is not a construct: it consists of the five

types of motivation. For these five types, mediation analyses were conducted.

There was no significant indirect effect of degree of religiosity on amount of physical activity behavior through amotivation, b

=

0.02, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.11]. Degree ofreligiosity did however predict amotivation, b = O.Ol, t = 2.01,p = .038, 95% CI [0.00, 0.02]. An increase in degree of religiosity caused an increase in amotivation for sport. Figure 1 shows the complete model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by

amotivation. Total effects, direct and indirect effects are also reported.

Amorivation

b = 0.01,p = .038 b = 2.05.p = .647

. Degree of Religiosity Physical Activity Behavior

Total effect, b = -0.18. p = .362 Direct effect, b = -0.03,p = .872

Indirect effect, b = 0.02. 95% CI (-0.05. 0 11]

Figure I. Model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by amotivation. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a 95% CI based on 1,000 samples

There was no significant indirect effect of degree of religiosity on amount of physical activity behavior through external regulation, b = 0.0 l, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.09]. Degree ofreligiosity did not predict external regulation, b

=

0.00, t = -0.41,p = .679, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.01]. Figure 2

shows the complete model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by external regulation. Total effects, direct and indirect effects are also reported.

External Regulation b = -0.00. p = .679 b = -8 51, P = .073 Degree of Religiosity Physical Activity Behavior Total effect, b = -0. 18, p = . 362 Di.reet effect, b = -0.03. p = .872 Indirect effect. b = 0.0 I, 9'.'0 _{ó Cl [-Ofü, 0 09]}

Figure 2. Model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by external regulation. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a 95% CI based on 1,000 samples

There was no significant indirect effect of degree of religiosity on amount of physical activity

behavior through introjected regulation, b = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.29, -0.02]. Degree of

religiosity did however predict introjected regulation, b = -0.02, t = -3.32,p = .001, 95% CI [-

0.03, -0.01]. An increase in degree ofreligiosity caused a decrease in introjected regulation

for physical activity behavior. Introjected regulation predicted physical activity behavior, b

=

6. 79, t

=

2.10, p

=

.038, 95% CI [0.40, 13.18]. An increase in introjected regulation caused an

increase in physical activity behavior. However, since there was no total effect, these two

significant findings could not be interpreted as being substantial, beyond the fact that a

relationship between these variables existed. Figure 3 shows the complete model of degree of

religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by introjected regulation.

b = -0.02. p = .001

Introjected Regulation

Degree of Religiosity --- Physical Activity Behavior

b =6.79,p=.038

Total effect. b = -0. 18, p = . 362 Direct effect, b = -0. 03, p = .872

Indirect effect, b = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.29. -0.02]

Figure 3. Model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by

introjected regulation. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a 95% Cl based on 1,000

samples

There was no significant indirect effect of degree of religiosity on amount of physical activity

behavior through identified regulation, b = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.00]. Degree ofreligiosity

did however predict identified regulation, b = -0.0l, t =

-

2.

7

9

,

p

= .006, 95% CI (-0.02, -

0.00]. An increase in degree ofreligiosity caused a decrease in identified regulation for

physical activity behavior. Figure 4 shows the complete model of degree of religiosity as a

predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by amotivation. Total effects, direct and

indirect effects are also reported.

b = -0 0 l. p = .006

Identified Reguliltion

b = l.21,p = .796

Degree of Religiosity . Physical Activity Behavior

Total effect. b = -0.18. P =. 362

Direct effect. b = -0. 03. p = .872 Indirect effect. b = -0.02. 95°ó CI (-0.0L 0.00)

Figure 4. Model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by

identified regulation. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a 95% CI based on 1,000

There was no significant indirect effect of degree of religiosity on amount of physical activity behavior through intrinsic regulation, b

=

-0.04, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.02]. Degree of religiosity did not predict intrinsic regulation, b =-0.01, t = -1.43,p = .154, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.00]. Figure 5 shows the complete model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity

behavior, mediated by intrinsic regulation. Total effects, direct and indirect effects are also reported.

Intrinsic Regulation

b = -0.01,p= .154

Degree of Religiosity 1---i Physical Activity Behavior Total effect, b = -0.18,p = .362

Direct effect. b = -0. 03, p = .872

Indirect effect, b = -0.04. 95% Cl (-0.20, 0.02]

Figure 5. Model of degree of religiosity as a predictor of physical activity behavior, mediated by intrinsic regulation. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is a 95% Cl based on 1,000 samples

Table 1

Distribution of continuous variables (N

=

177)

Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis

LTPA

59.97 33.84 1.26 1.69

Degree of Religiosity 22.71 13.01 0.46 -1.33

Quality of motivation for physical activity

Amotivation 0.46 0.67 1.75 3. 11

External Regulation 0.44 0.59 1.49 2. Il

Introjected Regulation I. I 0 0.94 0.86 0.39

Identified Regulation 2.65 0.88 -0.59 -1.20

Intrinsic Regulation 2.81 0.89 -0. 77 0.52

Discussion

It was hypothesized that those who are religious would engage in physical activity behavior more than those who are not religious: degree of religiosity would be positively linked to amount of physical activity behavior. It was further hypothesized that quality of motivation for physical activity would be able to account for some of the difference in amount of physical activity between those who are religious and those who are not. The hypothesis that degree of religiosity would be positively linked to amount of physical activity behavior, was based on evidence (e.g. Gallup, 2012; Kendler et al., 2003) that those who are religious enjoy a better health and better overall wellbeing, and the fact that engaging in physical activity behavior is seen as vital staying in good health. As it was hypothesized that those who are very religious have religion 'on the mind' for most of their activities, it was assumed that this would also hold true for physical activity behavior. Therefore, quality of motivation for physical activity was assumed to differ as function of degree of religiosity.

It was found that those who are religious do not partake in physical activity behavior more or less than those who are not. A small trend seemed to be present, however, that pointed to less physical activity behavior with an increase in degree of religiosity. Quality of motivation differed slightly as a function of religiosity, as those who were religious showed less introjected regulation for working out than those who were not religious. However, since the amount of working out as a function of religiosity did not differ, this effect could not be interpreted further beyond the stated relationship. Aforementioned findings offered no support for the hypotheses tested in this study.

If

it should be the case that those who are religious in fact partake less in physical activity behavior than those who are not, a possible explanation might have to do with the factor time. Those who are more religious, on average, attend church services more often,

activities related to religion, such as praying or Bible study. This time cannot be used to go to the gym or engage in sports.

If

there is no difference to be found, however, between those who are religious and

not as far as amount of physical activity behavior is concerned, questions arise about what

can be seen as the cause for the higher wellbeing and overall health of those who are

religious. Are the salutary effects of religion on health possible without the benefits of

exercise? Literature does, in fact, point to other causes of better health, ascribed to religion.

For example, religious rituals, such as praying, are associated with lower blood pressure

(Hixson, Gruchow, & Morgan, 1998). Attending church services regularly is associated with

a higher sense of belongingness (Krause & Wulff, 2005). Church communities offer for

formal and informal social support (Krause, Ellison, Shaw, Marcum, & Boardman, 2001;

Taylor & Chatters, 1988). In both cases, social support and the satisfaction of a need for

belonging are associated with better health. Having the idea that something fits 'in a bigger

picture', or being able to ascribe meaning to events in life, is associated with religiosity. This

sense of meaning is cause for less stress and is seen as a very good coping mechanism, thusly

being associated with better health (Steger & Frazier, 2005). Furthermore, as said, higher

degrees of religiosity are adversely linked with risky health behaviors as substance abuse

(McCullough, Larson, & Prescott, 2003).

The findings in this study run contrary to those of Gallup (2012), which reported that

those who were very religious engaged in more physical activity behavior than those who

were not. The question comes to mind why this effect was not found in the present study.

Firstly, the Gallup poll was not as precise as the present studies.

It

measured physical activity

behavior as 'exercising 30 minutes at least three times a week' (measured on a binary scale).

validated LTPA-questionnaire. This could have been a factor of influence to any (found) effect. Secondly, the sample used in Gallup (2012) was a lot bigger than in the present studies, totaling roughly 550,000 participants. Small differences between groups are much more likely to be significant in larger samples, than the same difference in small(er) samples. To this effect, it would have been more informative to know what effect size that was found (Royall, 1986). In short, there are two options: either there is an effect, which was not found in the present study, due to, for example, a smaller sample size. It is also possible that there is no effect, and Gallup (2012) found something, maybe due to their large sample size, that would not hold true in the long run.

It could be indeed the case that degree of religiosity is not related to physical activity behavior. Many factors influence whether people choose to engage in physical activity behavior or not (Shuval, Weissblueth, Brezis, Araida, & Dipietro, 2009; Vallerand, 2007).

Within this large amount of factors, it might be possible that there is simply no place for religion: it is either too small to be statistically found, or it is not present at all.

As stated in the introduction, knowledge about which factors cause people to partake in physical activity behavior or not, can aid in the development of programs to make people go workout more (and, through that, aid in the treatment and prevention of obesity). Further research will be necessary to establish what factors, if not religion (per se), influence whether people engage in working out or not, and what can be done to make people partake in

physical activity more. Setting aside the physical activity angle, another interesting point might be to explore if some of the associated health benefits from religion are, in fact, also found next to it ( e.g., instead of getting social support from a church group, finding social support from a fitness group). Knowledge of this may aid in attaining more tools 'from religion' to better people's health and health behavior.

All in all, an assumption made at the beginning of this study still stands: physical activity is important to maintaining good health and regaining good health. Knowledge about what makes people partake in it, or not, does not only stay very welcome and relevant, but indeed a necessity-worldwide.

References

Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (2013).

The social psychology of

religion.

Retrieved from

http://site.ebrary.com/id/l 0813901

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal

of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6)

,

1173-1182.

https://doi.org/10.1037 /0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bhattacharya, J., & Sood, N. (2006). Health insurance and the obesity extemality. In

The

Economics of

Obesity

(Vol. 17, pp. 279-318). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/l 0.1016/S0731-

2199(06) 17011-9

Bleich, S. N., Cutler, D., Murray, C., & Adams, A. (2008). Why is the developed world

obese?

Annual Review of

Public Health

,

29(1 ), 273-295.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.29.020907.090954

Cardinal, B. J., Jacques, K. M., & Levy, S.S. (2002). Evaluation of a university course aimed

at promoting exercise behavior.

The Journal of

Sports Medicine and Physical Fitnes

s,

42(1)

,

113-119.

Chemolli, E., & Gagné, M. (2014). Evidence against the continuum structure underlying

motivation measures derived from self-determination theory.

Psychological

Assessment

,

26(2)

,

575-585. https://doi.org/10.1037 /a0036212

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization:

The Self-Determination Theory perspective.

Journal of

Personality

,

62(

1 ), 119-142.

https://doi.org/10.l 111/1467-6494.ep9406221281

Field, A. E., Coakley, E. H., Must, A., Spadano, J. L., Laird, N., Dietz, W. H., ... Colditz, G.

during a 10-year period.

Archives

of

Internal M

edicine, 161(13),

1581. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.161.13.1581

Field, A. P. (2013).

Discovering statistics

using

IBM

SPSS statistics: and

sex

and drugs and

rock

"

n

"

roll

(4th edition). Los Angeles: Sage.

Finkelstein, E. A., Ruhrn, C.

J

.,

& Kosa, K. M. (2005). Economic causes and consequences of obesity.

Annual Review of

Public

H

ealth,

26(1), 239-257.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144628

Gallup. (2010). Very religious Americans lead healthier lives. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/ 145 3 79/Religious-Americans-Lead-Healthier-

Lives.aspx

Gallup. (2012, January 16). In U.S., very religious have higher wellbeing across all faiths. Retrieved November 14, 2016, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/Religious- Higher-Wellbeing-Across-Faiths.aspx

Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community.

Canadian Journal of

Applied Sport Sciences

.

Journal

Canadien Des

Sciences Appliquees Au Sport, 10(3),

141-146.

Green, M., & Elliott, M. (2010). Religion, health, and psychological well-being.

Journal of

Religion and Health, 49(2)

,

149-163. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl0943-009-9242-1 Hafizi, S., Tabatabaei, D., Memari, A.H., Rahmani, A., & Arbabi, M. (2016). Religious

Commitment Inventory - 10: Psychometric properties of the farsi version in assessing substance abusers.

International Journal of

High Risk Behaviors

and

Addiction, In

Press(ln

Press). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijhrba.31651

Hixson, K. A., Gruchow, H. W., & Morgan, D. W. (1998). The relation between religiosity,

selected health behaviors, and blood pressure among adult females.

Preventive

Medicine

,

2

7

(4),

545-552. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1998.0321

Kanazawa, M., Yoshiike, N., Osaka, T., Numba, Y., Zimmet, P., & Inoue, S. (2005). Criteria

and classification of obesity in Japan and Asia-Oceania. In A. P. Simopoulos (Ed.),

World Review of

Nutrition and Dietetics

(pp. 1-12). Basel: KARGER. Retrieved from

http://www.karger.com/doi/l 0.1159/000088200

Kendler, K. S., Liu,

X.-Q.

,

Gardner, C.

0.

,

McCullough, M. E., Larson, D., & Prescott, C. A.

(2003). Dimensions of religiosity and their relationship to lifetime psychiatric and

substance use disorders.

Am

e

rican Journal of

Psychiatry

,

I 60(3 )

,

496-503.

https://doi.org/1 O. l l 76/appi.ajp.160.3.496

Krause, N., Ellison, C. G., Shaw, B. A., Marcum, J.P., & Boardman, J. D. (2001). Church-

based social support and religious coping.

Journal

for the Scientific Study of

Religion

,

40(4)

,

637-656. https://doi.org/10.1111/0021-8294.00082

Krause, N., & Wulff, K. M. (2005). Church-based social ties, a sense of belonging in a

congregation, and physical health status.

The Int

e

rnational Journal

for th

e

Psycholo

gy

of

Religion

,

I

5(1), 73-93. https://doi.org/10.1207/s l 5327582ijprl 501_6

Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise

questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation.

Journal of

Sport and Ex

e

rcise

P

sy

chology

,

26(2)

,

191-196. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.2.191

Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N., Margono, C., ... Gakidou, E.

(2014). Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity in

children and adults during 1980-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of

Disease Study 2013.

Th

e

Lancet

,

384(9945)

,

766-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-

6736( 14 )60460-8

Olshansky, S.J., Passaro, D. J., Hershow, R. C., Layden, J., Carnes, B. A., Brody, J., ...

the 21st century.

N

ew England Journal of

Medicin

e,

352(11)

,

1138-1145. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsr043 7 43

Royall, R. M. (1986). The effect of sample size on the meaning of significance tests.

Th

e

A

m

e

ri

c

an Stati

s

ti

c

ian

,

40(4)

,

313-315.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1986.

l

04 75424

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.

American P

s

ycholo

g

i

s

t

,

55(1 )

,

68- 78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.68

Segal, L. M., & Martin, A. (2016).

Ob

es

it

y

rat

es

& tr

e

nd

s

ov

e

rvi

ew:

Th

e s

tat

e

of

ob

es

it

y.

The State of Obesity. Retrieved from http://stateofobesity.org/obesity-rates-trends-

overview/

Seybold, K. S., & Hill, P.C. (2001). The role ofreligion and spirituality in mental and physical health.

C

urr

e

nt Dir

ec

tion

s

in P

syc

hologi

c

al Sci

e

n

ce,

10(1 )

,

21-24. https://doi.org/10.

l

l 11/1467-8721.00106

Shuval, K., Weissblueth, E., Brezis, M., Araida, A., & Dipietro, L. (2009). Individual and socio-ecological correlates of physical activity among Arab and Jewish college students in Israel.

Journal of

Ph

ys

ical

Ac

tivi

ty

& H

e

alth

,

6(3), 306-314.

Steger, M. F., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in life: one link in the chain from religiousness to well-being.

Journal of

C

oun

se

lin

g

P

syc

holo

gy,

52(4)

,

574-582.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167 .52.4.574

Taylor, R. J., & Chatters,

L.

M. (1988). Church members as a source of informal social support.

R

ev

i

ew

of

R

e

li

g

iou

s

Re

se

arch

,

30(2)

,

193-203.

https://doi.org/10.2307 /3511355

The Lancet. (2006). Curbing the obesity epidemic.

Th

e

Lancet

,

367(9522), 1549. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/SO l 40-6736(06)68664-9

Vallerand, R. J. (2007). A hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for sport and physical activity. In M. S. Hagger & N. L. D. Chatzisarantis (Eds.),

Int

r

in

sic

moti

va

tion

a

nd

se

lf-d

e

t

e

rmination in

exe

r

c

i

se

and

s

port

(pp. 255-363). Champaign,

IL, US: Human Kinetics.

Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J.

W., ... O'Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory--! 0:

Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling.

Journ

a

l of

Co

un

se

lin

g

P

syc

holo

gy,

50(1), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 0167.50.1.84

Appendix A

Dutch translation of the Religious Commitment Inventory-] 0

Instructions: Lees elk van de volgende uitspraken. Omcirkel het antwoord dat het beste beschrijft hoe waar elke

uitspraak is voor u. Dit gaat van 'geheel niet op mij van toepassing' (I) tot 'geheel op mij van toepassing' (5).

C C _::, 0,: C 0,: > 0,: _> E C ::, > ::, C. ~ 0,: > E C)J) ::, E C)J) _{0 ·-} ~ C)J) C E C .::,: ~ - C C. ·- C. ·- E ·- 0 ~ C. 0 ~ ~ 0,: "' 0 .: C. C. "' - 0,: ... C. ... C)J) :!2 [

...

0 [ E E

-

...

::;, C

...

...

'.:;

...

C 0

... ·-

~ E 0,: C ... 0

...

-

...

"' C _0,: .0: - ~ ~

...

...

_E 0 >

...

.0:

...

C

...

C.

...

...

0 f-' ;> f-' ~ E

_"'

I. _{Ik lees vaak boeken en tijdschriften over mijn geloof} 1 2 3 4 5

2. _{Ik geef financiële bijdragen aan mijn religieuze instelling} 1 2 3 4 5

3. Ik neem de tijd om te groeien in begrip van mijn geloof l 2 3 4 5

4. Religie is in het bijzonder belangrijk voor mij, omdat het veel 1 2 3 4 5

vragen over de zin van het leven beantwoordt

5. Mijn religieuze opvattingen liggen ten grondslag aan 1 2 3 4 5 hoe ik het leven benader

6. Ik vind het fijn om tijd door te brengen met mensen met dezelfde 1 2 3 4 5 religieuze opvattingen

7. Mijn religieuze opvattingen beïnvloeden alle dingen waar ik in het 1 2 3 4 5 leven mee bezig ben

Het is belangrijk voor mij om af en toe de tijd te nemen om te

8. reflecteren, en na te denken, over zaken die met mijn geloof te 1 2 3 4 5 maken hebben

9. Ik vind het leuk om mee te helpen met activiteiten die mijn 1 2 3 4 5 religieuze instelling organiseert

10. Ik houd me goed geïnformeerd over mijn lokale religieuze groep, 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix B

Demographic Information Form (Dutch)

Vul a.u.b. in:

Leeftijd

Geslacht

(kruis aan) DMan

DVrouw

Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding?

D Basisonderwijs

D Lager/voorbereidend beroepsonderwijs (1 bo/vmbo)

D Middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (mbo)

D Hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (havo)

D Voorbereidend wetenschappelijk onderwijs (vwo)

D Hoger beroepsonderwijs (hbo)

D Wetenschappelijk onderwijs (wo)

Wat is uw geboorteplaats?

Hoe zou u uw geloofsrichting omschrijven?

D Evangelisch D Gereformeerd D Katholiek D Nederlands Hervormd D PKN D (Anders) christelijk

D Niet gelovig/seculier