Introduction
A physically active lifestyle is associated with numerous physical and mental health benefits for adolescents (Chaput et al., 2020). It is recommended for this age group to do at least an average of 60 min per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), primarily aerobic, across the week (World Health Organization, 2020). However, existing data suggest that a minority of adolescents are sufficiently physically active, and the activity level decreases with increasing age (Inchley et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2022). The school setting, and in particular the physical education (PE) context, has been given an essential role in providing enjoyable, educational physical activity that can foster the development of motor skills and introduce students to a variety of activities that can be performed in a life-time perspective (World Health Organization, 2018a,b). The PE setting has the potential to offer a structured environment and learning activities that can influence students’ physical activity (PA) behaviours in PE lesson time and during leisure time (Owen et al., 2014; Castillo et al., 2020; Vasconcellos et al., 2020). It has also been documented that positive attitudes towards PE can upheld over time (Ladwig et al., 2018) and predict future PA participation (Rhodes and Kates, 2015).
Nevertheless, available data suggest that students’ time spent in MVPA during PE classes varies substantially, with a decrease observed from middle school to high school (Hollis et al., 2017). The age-related decrease co-occurs with an overall decline in motivation for PE (Papaioannou et al., 2006; Yli-Piipari et al., 2009). Motivational processes in PE are multifaceted and complex, with motivational influences divided into internal and external aspects (Kretschmann, 2014). Internal factors comprise individual characteristics (e.g., gender, physical attributes), dispositional variables (e.g., perceived competence and autonomy), and individual situational variables (e.g., sports involvement). External factors include environmental, situational variables (e.g., teachers’ skills and teaching style) and contextual variables (e.g., PE curriculum, PE activities) (Kretschmann, 2014). Thus, to develop quality PE programmes, there is a need to better understand factors at multiple levels associated with students’ engagement and participation.
So far, research efforts on motivation and participation in PE have primarily focused on addressing the subject from a social-psychological perspective, with the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan, 1985, 2000) as the most used theoretical framework (Lindahl et al., 2015). In this regard, much of the existing research has investigated the role of autonomy-supportive environments on motivational processes, focusing on teachers’ role in creating a motivational climate (Vasconcellos et al., 2020). However, in PE classes, the body is at the centre of curricular outcomes. It is being judged for physical abilities and positioned in ways that open for social comparisons and body judgements (Kerner et al., 2018). Thus, the current study aims to extend the existing research by examining the link between individual characteristics and PE participation, focusing on body-related concerns among adolescents. Grounded in the SDT, special attention is given to the mediation pathway of motivation forms.
SDT distinguishes between different types of motivations varying on a continuum from controlled to more autonomous forms, with an increasing degree of self-determination present (Ryan and Deci, 2017). According to SDT, intrinsic motivation is described as the inherent propensity to develop skills actively, engage in challenges, and take an interest in new activities (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Extrinsic motivation is divided into four types of regulation: integrated, identified, introjected and external (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Integrated regulation represents the most self-determined form and refers to behaviours executed out of choice to harmonise and bring coherence to different parts of the self. Identified regulation refers to a situation when the behaviour is highly valued by the individual and, therefore performed with less pressure, even if it is not particularly pleasant. Introjected regulation refers to behaviour starting to be internalised but not entirely self-determined. This kind of behaviour may be performed to gain social recognition or avoid feelings of guilt. External regulation is behaviour regulated through external means, such as punishment or rewards. The last category is amotivation which refers to the absence of motivation.
SDT proposes that intrinsic motivation and the more autonomous types of extrinsic motivation will lead to constructive functioning, better learning and improved psychological health and well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Literature from the PE context has demonstrated that self-determined forms of motivation towards PE are positively associated with several desirable responses in physical education, such as greater concentration, effort, and persistence (Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage et al., 2005), higher levels of positive affect (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et al., 2005; Zamarripa et al., 2016), physical activity in PE (Owen et al., 2014), participation in PE (Owen et al., 2014; Ulstad et al., 2019), and higher levels of leisure time PA as well as greater intention to continue to be physically active (Castillo et al., 2020). Also, introjected regulation has been weakly associated with PA in PE lessons (Owen et al., 2014). Amotivation has, on the other hand, been positively associated with unhappiness, negative affect, and boredom in PE (Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage et al., 2005; Zamarripa et al., 2016; White et al., 2021).
Physical perceptions and experiences in PE can be impediments to students’ motivation towards PE (Papacharisis and Goudas, 2003), and several qualitative studies have identified body-related issues as obstacles to participating in PE and sports (Allender et al., 2006; Martins et al., 2021). Many studies suggest that embarrassment, body image concerns, physical discomfort and body insecurity are barriers to PE and PA participation and are more frequently reported among girls than boys (Martins et al., 2021; White et al., 2021). Body image is a multidimensional construct that includes how one sees, thinks, feels, and behaves related to the body’s appearance and function (Cash and Smolak, 2011). An enhanced body image has been positively associated with engagement in PE (Bevans et al., 2010) and with physical activity (Sabiston et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2021). The adolescent years are characterised by body changes taking place and the internalisation of the society-imposed aesthetic model (Paxton et al., 2005). The cognitive dimension of body image, body dissatisfaction, is reflected in the desire of someone to lose weight or to gain weight (Laus et al., 2011). Body dissatisfaction reaches high levels in this period, especially among females (Fernández-Bustos et al., 2019), with clear gender differences observed (Laus et al., 2011; Sanchez-Miguel et al., 2021). In a time of high prevalence of body image disturbances among adolescents (Dion et al., 2016), it is pertinent to understand better how body-related factors are associated with physical activity in the PE context.
In addition to gender, weight status, BMI, and physical ability have been identified as key variables for body dissatisfaction (Dion et al., 2016; Fernández-Bustos et al., 2019; Molina-García et al., 2019). Evidence suggests that many overweight students report negative experiences of PE, such as bullying and embarrassment, along with other barriers to participation (Fox and Edmunds, 2000; Cardinal et al., 2014). As a result, this may lead to maladaptive coping behaviours, such as avoiding PA and PE (Li et al., 2017). However, improving body shape, physical appearance and weight management have also been reported as reasons for participation in physical activities, especially among girls’, suggesting that more external forms of regulations may drive involvement in PE (Martins et al., 2021). For example, some qualitative studies have reported that pressure to conform to popular beauty ideals is important reason for teenage girls to be physically active (Allender et al., 2006). Restrictive dieting and weight control are also frequently used by adolescents attempting to achieve an internalised image of an ideal body (Krowchuk et al., 1998).
Other body-related aspects that can affect the individual student and may be related to participation in PE are subjective health complaints. Such complaints can have both a somatic (e.g., headache and backache) and a psychological (e.g., feeling low and feeling nervous) dimension that is not explained by an underlying illness (Brown, 2007). Subjective health complaints have become progressively prevalent in children, increase with age (Inchley et al., 2020) and have been related to absenteeism in school (Saps et al., 2009) and lower PA levels (Marques et al., 2015; Keane et al., 2017). The impact of health complaints in the PE context has to our knowledge, not been examined. As the PE lessons might demand a well-functioning body focusing on performing in front of others, competition, grading and unrealistic standards (White et al., 2021), such complaints may be an impediment to experiencing autonomous motivation and thus impact involvement in PE.
SDT and motivational processes have been suggested as a potential avenue for further research to explain the relationship between body-related factors and PA (Vani et al., 2021). Based on a relatively large Norwegian nationally representative sample of secondary school students, the current study aimed to test a model of the relationship between body-related factors (i.e., BMI, health complaints, body perception, weight control behaviours) and measures of PE involvement, examining the mediating role of motivation in this relationship.
Discussion
This study aimed to increase our understanding of the link between body-related concerns and involvement in PE, with forms of motivation as the mediating pathway. In line with the tenets of SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2017), students with autonomous motivation attended PE classes more frequently and reported higher levels of MVPA during PE lessons when other factors were adjusted for. Controlled motivation was positively and amotivation negatively associated with MVPA during PE. The results indicated that the associations between body-related concerns and PE participation/MVPA were partly explained by autonomous motivation. More specifically, we found that the association between health complaints and PE participation/MVPA was almost fully explained by autonomous motivation, whereas the association with dietary behaviour (not on a diet but wanting to lose weight) and body perception (too fat) were partly explained by autonomous motivation.
The study finding of positive associations between autonomous motivation with both weekly participation in PE and MVPA during PE lessons adds to studies that have demonstrated adaptive outcomes of autonomous motivation in the PE context (Ntoumanis, 2005; Standage et al., 2005; Owen et al., 2014; Zamarripa et al., 2016; Lonsdale et al., 2019; Vasconcellos et al., 2020). For weekly participation in PE, the students were asked to report mandatory PE and self-selected optional PE courses. This might partly reflect a self-selection for optional PE courses among those reporting higher levels of autonomous motivation. This would align with the prospective study by Ntoumanis (2005), which found that students who chose to enrol in optional PE courses reported higher levels of self-determined motivation and lower levels of amotivation than those who decided not to enrol.
Controlled motivation was, in addition, a positive predictor and amotivation a negative predictor of MVPA during PE lessons, suggesting partly differential motivational processes for attending PE classes and MVPA during PE. In Owen et al. (2014) meta-analysis, a weak positive effect was also found between introjected regulation and PA in PE lessons. According to the SDT, the more controlled regulations (i.e., introjected and external regulations) are either driven by external demands to avoid negative reactions or for rewarding reasons (Ryan and Deci, 2017). A positive link between controlled motivation and MVPA during PE lessons could therefore be explained by the fact that students are being graded based on their accomplishments and efforts.
Ratelle et al. (2007) propose that the extrinsic controls and rigid constraints entailed in school could explain why students developed controlled forms of motivation. In line with this reasoning, these authors identified a student profile with high autonomous and controlled motivation as the most favourable for outcomes such as high persistence and achievement, low absenteeism, and high cognitive and affective functioning. Nevertheless, the effects on PA of more controlled regulations in PE are not likely to be upheld over time (Haerens et al., 2010). A weak negative association between amotivation and MVPA in PE is also in accordance with the meta-analysis of Owen et al. (2014) and the tenets of SDT (Ryan, 2017). Amotivation has been positively associated with unhappiness, negative affect, and boredom in PE (Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage et al., 2005; White et al., 2021), which may directly impact students’ efforts and intensity levels during PE, and, therefore, their MVPA levels.
Health complaints, not being on a diet but wanting to lose weight, and body perception (too fat) were negatively associated with weekly participation in PE when adjusting for other variables. This association was largely explained by students’ autonomous motivation in the case of health complaints and partly in the case of dietary behaviour and body perception. Similar results were observed for MVPA during PE lessons. The mechanisms involved in the observed relationships can be understood in light of a central proposition within the SDT, postulating that self-determined forms of motivation depend on the fulfilment of three innate basic psychological needs; the needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Empirical work within the PE context has shown that the three needs predict autonomous motivation independently and combined (Standage et al., 2007). Within the SDT, Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985) states that social factors perceived as controlling for the individual are likely to influence the basic psychological needs and, consequently, levels of self-determined motivation. Although not thoroughly studied, it has been suggested that different dimensions of body-related concerns may impact motivation in PE by undermining the psychological need satisfaction (Gillison et al., 2011). For instance, previous studies have found perceived competence satisfaction to be the strongest predictor of autonomous forms of motivation in PE compared to perceived autonomy and relatedness (Standage et al., 2005; Taylor et al., 2010). It is likely that with increased somatic or psychological health complaints, students might feel unable to meet PE demands, which can cause other adverse affective outcomes (White et al., 2021). It is also likely that the relationship between health complaints and physical activity is bidirectional (Marques et al., 2015). Nevertheless, experiencing somatic and psychological symptoms may impact the evaluation of the body’s physical features and the capacity to perform in PE. Overall, the findings add to previous research that has demonstrated an inverse relationship between health complaints and physical activity among adolescents (Marques et al., 2015; Keane et al., 2017).
Also, perceived external pressure on body image could compromise the need for autonomy, whereas the concern that others are judging one’s body shape negatively compromises the need for relatedness (Pelletier et al., 2001). Avoidance has been identified as one key coping strategy for managing negative experiences of the body (Li et al., 2017). It has been suggested that the PE non-participants, or those students who regularly disengage with PE, undertake such avoidance strategies to reduce the risk of body image disruption (Kerner et al., 2018). Past studies have also demonstrated that students with high BMI report lower perceptions of physical competence and social relatedness than those with lower BMI (Carissimi et al., 2017; Gråstén and Watt, 2017). Interestingly, BMI was not a unique predictor of motivation forms or PE in the current study that also included dietary behaviours and body perception.
Ideally, the PE context could serve as an arena to increase body appreciation (Vani et al., 2021). An enhanced body image has been positively associated with engagement (Bevans et al., 2010) and PA (Sabiston et al., 2019; Martins et al., 2021) in PE. However, it has been argued that aspects related to different dimensions of body image in PE may appear to be like the ‘elephant in the room’: obvious yet overlooked or ignored, not only in research but also in practice (Kerner et al., 2018). Nevertheless, if the learning climate in PE supports rather than thwarting basic psychological needs through teaching style and activities (White et al., 2021), it could make a difference for students with various body-related concerns. A recent review of qualitative studies has elucidated our understanding of how the satisfaction and frustration of different needs in the PE context can affect multiple outcomes, such as participation in PE (White et al., 2021). A qualitative study of Norwegian 15-year-old girls supports the association between body perceptions and PE participation (Walseth et al., 2017). Therefore, more research is needed to advance conceptual and theoretical understanding of the complex relationship between body-related factors, gender, age, motivation forms and participation in PE.
The examination of indirect effects suggested that also gender and family affluence were associated with PE participation through autonomous motivation. The results were largely similar for MVPA during PE, but additionally, gender was associated with MVPA through amotivation. PE in Norway is a coeducational setting, with both girls and boys attending the same class. In coeducational settings, girls have reported feeling that their bodies are under inspection by boys, leading to increases in body anxiety (Flintoff and Scraton, 2001). Studies have also found that girls place a higher value on their physical appearance in the coeducational context (O'Donovan and Kirk, 2008). Similar findings of girls’ body discomfort in PE classes were identified by Walseth et al. (2017) in the Norwegian qualitative study of 15-year-old girls. In the review of White et al. (2021), several factors were listed as contributes to amotivation. These were boredom from repeatedly doing the same activities, teacher-created performance climate, dominance of peers, and grades, all of which can thwart the need for competence, relatedness and autonomy. Overall, the findings suggest that teacher-created learning climates that nurture autonomous motivation and are sensitive to gender preferences seem relevant. Interestingly, the age group was the only exposure variable with a statistically significant total effect that was not explained at all by any of the motivation variables. The negative association with weekly PE participation can be explained by fewer mandatory PE classes from lower to upper secondary school. Also, upper secondary is not compulsory schooling in Norway. It could also be that 16-year-olds may have stronger interest in the health outcomes of being physically active. However, the positive association between age and MVPA during PE classes was unexpected and should be further explored but could relate to curriculum content.
Strengths and limitations
A strength of the current study is the use of a representative national sample of adolescent students and established and validated measures on body-related factors, including health complaints, family affluence and motivation in PE. However, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, the measure included to assess MVPA levels during PE was self-reported, known to have recall and reporting bias (Nigg et al., 2020). Almost half of the students reported MVPA “more than 30 min”, which may suggest an overestimation, as other studies using more objective methods of measuring PA have found that the level of MVPA in a 45- minutes PE lesson is usually less than 50% of the lesson time duration (Owen et al., 2014). Thus, future studies should include objective measures of physical activity (e.g., accelerometers) to help confirm the current findings. Also, research suggests that MVPA in PE lessons depends on the type of activities during PE and the intensity profiles of the PE lessons (Zhou and Wang, 2019). This information was not available in the current study. Such differentiation could have given more detailed knowledge of the impact of motivation on the relationship between body-related aspects and adolescent PE behaviour across PE lesson contexts. Further, given the cross-sectional design, although the hypothesised relationship direction aligns with motivation theory, causal inferences cannot be drawn. Finally, additional research directions within the framework of SDT could have offered a more fine-grained understanding of how body-related aspects are associated with adolescent PE behaviour, for example, by including the sequence of BPB in the model. However, measures of BPN in PE were not included in this survey.