This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]

On: 28 April 2014, At: 05:12

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of American College Health

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vach20

Gender Differences in College Leisure Time Physical

Activity: Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior
and Integrated Behavioral Model
a b c b
Jill M. Beville PhD , M. Renée Umstattd Meyer PhD, MCHES , Stuart L. Usdan PhD , Lori
b d e
W. Turner PhD , John C. Jackson PhD & Brad E. Lian PhD
a
Department of Campus Recreation , University of North Carolina at Greensboro ,
Greensboro , North Carolina
b
Department of Health Sciences , University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa , Alabama
c
Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation , Baylor University , Waco ,
Texas
d
Department of University Recreation , University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa , Alabama
e
Department of Community Medicine , Mercer University School of Medicine , Macon ,
Georgia
Accepted author version posted online: 12 Dec 2013.Published online: 05 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Jill M. Beville PhD , M. Renée Umstattd Meyer PhD, MCHES , Stuart L. Usdan PhD , Lori W. Turner PhD ,
John C. Jackson PhD & Brad E. Lian PhD (2014) Gender Differences in College Leisure Time Physical Activity: Application of
the Theory of Planned Behavior and Integrated Behavioral Model, Journal of American College Health, 62:3, 173-184, DOI:
10.1080/07448481.2013.872648

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.872648

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH, VOL. 62, NO. 3
Major Article
Gender Differences in College Leisure Time
Physical Activity: Application of the Theory
of Planned Behavior and Integrated
Behavioral Model
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
Jill M. Beville, PhD; M. Renée Umstattd Meyer, PhD, MCHES;
Stuart L. Usdan, PhD; Lori W. Turner, PhD; John C. Jackson, PhD;
Brad E. Lian, PhD
Abstract. Objective: National data consistently report that males
participate in leisure time physical activity (LTPA) at higher rates
than females. This study expanded previous research to examine
gender differences in LTPA of college students using the theory
of planned behavior (TPB) by including 2 additional constructs,
descriptive norm and self-efficacy, from the integrated behavioral
model. Participants: Participants were college students (N = 621)
from a large public university in the southeastern United States.
Methods: A self-report, classroom-based assessment with vali-
dated and reliable measures of LTPA, TPB constructs, descriptive
norm, self-efficacy, and demographics was conducted in fall 2009.
Results: Regression analyses revealed attitude (β = .119), inten-
tion (β = .438), self-efficacy (β = .166), body mass index (BMI)
(β = −.084), and sports participation (β = .081) as significantly
associated with LTPA for females (R2 = .425, p < .001), whereas in-
tention (β = .371) was significant for males (R2 = .202, p < .001).
Conclusions: Practitioners should consider tailoring promotional
materials to address these gender differences in efforts to increase
LTPA participation among college students.
Keywords: behavior change, exercise, males and females, univer-
sity students, theory, young adults
Dr Beville is with the Department of Campus Recreation at the
University of North Carolina at Greensboro in Greensboro, North
Carolina, and the Department of Health Sciences at the University
of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Dr Umstattd Meyer is with
the Department of Health, Human Performance, and Recreation at
Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Dr Usdan and Dr Turner are with
the Department of Health Sciences at the University of Alabama
in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Dr Jackson is with the Department of
University Recreation at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa,
Alabama. Dr Lian is with the Department of Community Medicine
at Mercer University School of Medicine in Macon, Georgia.
Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
173
P
hysical activity is the cornerstone of a healthy lifestyle
and is cited as a key strategy for reducing the risk
of chronic conditions and diseases, including hyper-
tension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and obe-
sity.1 Benefits such as maintenance of ideal body weight,
prevention of premature death, and enhanced psychological
well-being have been attributed to participation in regular
physical activity.2 However, data from the 2011 Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System indicate that approximately
only 52% of US adults meet the recommendations for reg-
ular leisure time physical activity (LTPA).3 The need to un-
derstand physical activity behavior and implement effective
intervention strategies is paramount.4
Despite the strong evidence for health promoting benefits
of engaging in regular physical activity, participation rates
decrease over the life span, with the steepest decline in LTPA
occurring in adolescence (approximately 15 to 18 years of
age) and young adulthood (approximately 20 to 25 years
of age).5–8 Epidemiological evidence indicates that levels
of LTPA decline from high school to college and activ-
ity patterns in college populations are generally insufficient
to improve health and fitness.8 National data suggest that
only 47.4% of college students meet recommendations for
moderate-intensity exercise, vigorous-intensity exercise, or
a combination of the two.9 The college years provide unique
opportunities (and responsibilities) for campus communities
to positively shape physical activity behaviors of their stu-
dents.10 The college environment, with its potential to reach
a large audience in a relatively confined area, may be an
 Beville et al

Experiential
attitude Knowledge and
skills
Attitude

Instrumental
attitude Salience of
behavior

Injunctive
norm
Perceived Norm INTENTION BEHAVIOR
Descriptive
norm

Environmental
constraints
Perceived
control

Personal Agency Habit

Self-efficacy
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014

FIGURE 1. Schematic representation of the integrated behavior model. Adapted from Montano DE, Kasprzyk
D. Figure 4.2: integrated behavioral model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K., eds. Health Behavior and
Health Education—Theory, Research and Practice . 4th ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008:77 (color figure
available online).
© John Wiley & Sons Inc. Reproduced by Permission of John Wiley & Sons Inc. Permission to reuse must be
obtained from the rightsholder.

ideal setting for disseminating information and delivering
health promotion interventions.11 Data suggest that there is
a need to study physical activity determinants and behavior
so that researchers can develop better programs and inter-
ventions to improve the physical activity patterns of college
students.8
Theoretical Background
This study was conducted to gain a better understand-
ing of factors that impact LTPA behaviors of college stu-
dents using the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and in-
tegrated behavioral model (IBM). Physical activity inter-
ventions based on theory have been shown to improve ef-
fectiveness.12 The TPB is one of several intrapersonal-level
value expectancy theories that have been regularly employed
to examine the disjuncture between awareness of the ben-
efits of physical activity and low levels of engagement in
physical activity.13 Value expectancy theories are based on
the foundational belief that behavior is achievable when in-
dividuals (1) “value” an outcome related with a behavior
and (2) “expect” that the specific behavior will lead to this
outcome.14
The central construct of the TPB is the person’s intention
to engage in a particular behavior.15 Furthermore, the TPB
posits that intention is a function of 3 determinants: atti-
tude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. The
IBM includes constructs from the TPB and other influen-
tial frameworks to provide a theoretical basis from which to
understand behavior and identify specific beliefs to target in
intervention strategies (see Figure 1).16 More specifically, the
IBM builds on the TPB and includes self-efficacy, described
by Albert Bandura as one’s degree of confidence in the abil-
ity to perform a behavior in the face of various obstacles or
challenges.17 In addition, the IBM describes subjective norm
as being made up of both injunctive and descriptive norms.
Descriptive norms are defined as perceptions about what oth-
ers in one’s social or personal networks are doing in regards
to a particular behavior.16
Although the IBM presents descriptive norm as an ad-
dition to the TPB, other researchers have incorporated this
concept with the TPB in their investigation of LTPA.13,18–21
Additionally, previous research has been conducted using
self-efficacy along with the TPB constructs.18,22 The results
of previous research has been mixed: one study found that
neither self-efficacy or perceived behavioral control were as-
sociated with physical activity,18 whereas another found that
both perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy each had
unique and independent relationships with physical activ-
ity.22 To date, the IBM has not been used in previous re-
search targeting LTPA.16 Therefore, conducting a study that
utilizes the constructs contained within the TPB and descrip-
tive norm and self-efficacy from the IBM is unique to this
study and adds to the current LTPA literature. In addition, in-
vestigating college students’ engagement in LTPA provides
a distinct context within the current literature. The potential
public health benefits of using campus settings to positively

174 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH


influence the physical activity habits of young adults should
not be underestimated.10
Previous research suggests that LTPA among college stu-
dents differs by gender.23–25 In a study exploring knowledge
of physical activity among a group of college students, gender
differences were reported for awareness of the definition and
health benefits of physical activity and the components of the
public health recommendations for this behavior.23 A study
by Blanchard and colleagues revealed gender differences in
behavioral, normative, and control beliefs among college stu-
dents.24 For Caucasians, the association between affective
attitudes and intention was stronger for females. However,
in African Americans, this association was stronger among
males. National data consistently acknowledge that males
participate in LTPA at higher rates than females.9,26
Potential Confounding Factors
Several potential confounding factors for LTPA have been
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
cited in the literature. More specifically, for college students
several factors, including body mass index (BMI),11,25,27 year
in school,28 race,24,25,28,29 Greek affiliation,30 and place of
residence,30,31 have all been related with physical activity in
previous research. Therefore, these factors were examined
as potential confounders when testing the relationships of
interest.
This study sought to apply the TPB and the 2 specific
IBM constructs, descriptive norm and self-efficacy, to in-
vestigate LTPA behaviors of college students. These find-
ings should aid in identifying specific factors associated with
students’ participation in LTPA and provide insight regard-
ing how to increase students’ engagement in regular LTPA.
This research investigated potential differences in LTPA
participation between male and female students using the
TPB and IBM. Identifying gender differences has practical
applications for practitioners to allow for better tailoring of
LTPA social marketing messages and interventions among
the students. We hypothesized that TBP constructs, descrip-
tive norm, and self-efficacy would be independently associ-
ated with LTPA. In addition, based on previous research, we
hypothesized that there would be gender differences in the
TPB and IBM descriptive norm and self-efficacy constructs
in relation to participation in LTPA.23–25
METHODS
Participants
After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval,
paper-and-pencil questionnaires were administered to stu-
dents enrolled in 15 large lecture undergraduate courses from
4 different colleges within a large public university in the
Southeast. Surveys were completed between November and
December of the 2009 Fall semester. The following recruit-
ment approach was taken to obtain a sample of students
that represented the enrollment of the institution. Male and
female college students who were enrolled in the selected
undergraduate courses were informed verbally and in writ-
VOL 62, APRIL 2014
Gender Differences in College Leisure Time Physical Activity
ten form that their participation was voluntary and that the
research was completely anonymous. In addition, the stu-
dents were informed of and provided with a written defini-
tion of regular LTPA (either 30 minutes of moderate-intensity
LTPA—ie, brisk walking, tennis, easy bicycling, on at least
5 days per week—or 20 minutes of vigorous LTPA—ie, run-
ning, aerobics, fast bicycling, on at least 3 days per week).
When the students completed their survey, it was returned
to the course instructor who then returned all surveys to the
researchers. This process was implemented in an attempt to
greater protect anonymity. There were no incentives provided
for participation.
Measures
Demographics were assessed by self-report using ques-
tions from the American College Health Association–
National College Health Assessment II (ACHA-NCHA II).
Questions included age, gender, self-reported height and
weight, year in school, ethnicity, marital status, on-/off-
campus residence, affiliation with a social fraternity/sorority,
grade point average (GPA), and participation in varsity, club,
and/or intramural sports.
Attitude
Attitude can be defined as the degree to which a person has
a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the be-
havior in question.15 A 6-item scale developed by Blanchard
et al was used to assess attitude.24 Blanchard and colleagues29
previously reported the affective attitude scale to have ac-
ceptable internal consistency for both African American
(α = .74) and Caucasian (α = .79) students. The instru-
mental attitude scale was also found to have acceptable in-
ternal consistency for both African American (α = .70) and
Caucasian (α = .81) students.29 Based on Blanchard et al’s
approach, the statement “For me to participate in moderate-
intensity leisure time physical activity over the next week will
be. . .” preceded a list of adjectives. Participants were asked
to rate 6 items related to attitude on a 7-point semantic differ-
ential adjective scale. This scale taps both the instrumental
(harmful–beneficial, bad–good, useless–useful) and affective
(unpleasant–pleasant, boring–fun, unenjoyable–enjoyable)
aspects of attitude. Scale scores were formed by averaging
the responses to the affective and instrumental norm ques-
tions (higher scores indicate a more favorable attitude). Inter-
nal consistency was also acceptable for attitude in the present
study (α = .85).
Subjective Norm (Injunctive Norm)
Subjective norm is the perceived social pressure to perform
or not to perform a particular behavior15 and was measured
using 3 items with a Likert scale rated from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 7 (strongly agree). The 3 items for the subjective
norm construct measure injunctive norms, which are the nor-
mative beliefs about what others think one should do.16 These
items included “Most people important to me (1) definitely
think I should, (2) definitely approve of me, and (3) definitely
175
 Beville et al
support me in engaging in moderate LTPA.”24,29 Scale scores
were calculated by averaging the responses to the 3 questions
(higher scores indicate stronger subjective norm for LTPA).
Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) for the 3-item scale was
previously reported as acceptable (α = .81).24 Internal con-
sistency for this scale was also similar in the present study
(α = .82).
Perceived Behavioral Control
Perceived behavioral control is defined as the perceived
ease or difficulty of performing a behavior and it reflects
past experience as well as anticipated impediments and ob-
stacles.15 This construct was measured using a 3-item scale
from Blanchard and colleagues.29 These items included the
following: (1) “During the next week, if I wanted to I could
engage in moderate leisure time physical activity” rated on
a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree); (2)
“During the next week, it would be for me to
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
engage in moderate leisure time physical activity” rated on a
scale of 1 (extremely difficult) to 7 (extremely easy); and (3)
“During the next week, how much control do you believe you
have to engage in moderate leisure time physical activity”
rated on a scale of 1 (extreme lack of control) to 7 (extreme
control). Scale scores were calculated by averaging the re-
sponses to the 3 questions (higher scores indicate greater
perceived control for LTPA). Blanchard and colleagues29
previously reported this perceived behavioral control scale to
have an acceptable internal consistency for African American
(α = .81) and Caucasian (α = .76) students. This perceived
behavioral control scale also had acceptable internal consis-
tency in the present study (α = .75).
Intention
Intention to perform a given behavior indicates how hard
people are willing to try and how much effort they plan to
exert in order to perform a behavior that is under volitional
control.15 Intention toward the behavior was measured using
a previously developed 3-item scale.24,29 The first 2 items,
(1) “During the next week, I intend to engage in moderate
leisure time physical activity” and (2) “During the next week,
I will engage in moderate leisure time physical activity,”
were measured on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). The third item states, “During the next
week, my goal is to engage in moderate-intensity leisure time
physical activity on at least days.” As previously reported,
a composite intention score was formed by averaging the
responses to the 3 items (higher scores indicate a greater
intention to participate in LTPA).24,29 Acceptable internal
consistency (α = .87) for this scale was previously reported.24
Internal consistency in the present study was also acceptable
(α = .89).
Descriptive Norm
Descriptive norm is defined as perceptions about what oth-
ers in one’s social or personal networks are doing.16 Okun and
colleagues19 developed this 2-item scale specifically for a use
176
with college students to determine if descriptive norm was a
significant and positive predictor of intention to participate in
LTPA and participation in LTPA. The first item asks whether
most of the subjects’ family members will engage in mod-
erate LTPA during the next week. The second asks whether
or not the subjects’ friends will engage in moderate LTPA
during the next week.19 Okun et al19 originally measured
these items on a Likert scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). However, for consistency of this research
project with the other scales, the ability to compare means
and improve understandability for the students, both ques-
tions were measured on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). A scale score was formed by averag-
ing the responses of the 2 questions (higher scores indicate
stronger descriptive norm for LTPA). Internal consistency for
this scale has not been previously reported. Internal consis-
tency in the present study was α = .53. Nunnally32 has indi-
cated .70 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient, but lower
thresholds are sometimes used in the literature. Although in-
ternal consistency was lower than usually acceptable, given
that these items were specifically created for use with col-
lege students, they were retained in bivariate analyses in the
present study to allow for rudimentary examination of all
constructs of interest. However, given low internal consis-
tency, it was not included in multivariate analyses.
Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is one’s degree of confidence in the ability to
perform a given behavior in a specific setting or context.14
One form of self-efficacy for LTPA, barrier self-efficacy, was
measured using the 5-item scale developed by Marcus and
colleagues.33 This scale measures how confident participants
are that they can participate in LTPA when faced with com-
mon barriers: negative affect, resisting relapse, and making
time for exercise. Specifically, the 5 questions included “Dur-
ing the next week, I am confident I can engage in leisure time
physical activity even when (1) I am tired, (2) I am in a bad
mood, (3) I feel I don’t have time, (4) I am on vacation, and
(5) the weather is bad.” Participants rated their confidence on
a Likert scale from 1 (not at all confident) to 7 (very confi-
dent). Self-efficacy scores were calculated by summing the
scores on the individual items (higher scores indicate greater
self-efficacy). This scale has previously reported acceptable
2-week test-retest reliability (r = .90) and internal consis-
tency (α = .82).33 In the present study, the self-efficacy scale
also had acceptable internal consistency (α = .81).
Leisure Time Physical Activity
LTPA behavior was measured using the Godin Leisure
Time Exercise Questionnaire.34 The questionnaire is reliable,
valid, and easy to complete quickly without a need for de-
tailed review.34 The questionnaire is relatively brief and asks
participants to recall their participation in LTPA (for more
than 15 minutes) during the past 7 days. The instrument
contains 3 open-ended questions covering the frequency of
mild (eg, easy walking), moderate (eg, fast walking), and
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH

strenuous (eg, jogging) exercise completed during free time.
As previously done by Rhodes and colleagues, the phrase
“leisure time physical activity” was substituted for “exer-
cise” on the instrument.35 This survey instrument has been
consistently used to identify engagement in LTPA and is
widely used with the college student population.19,29,35–39
LTPA scale scores were created according to the Godin
Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire. Weekly fre-
quencies of strenuous, moderate, and light activities were
multiplied by 9, 5, and 3, respectively. Overall LTPA scale
scores were then calculated by summing the products of the
3 separate components.34 For the purposes of this research,
LTPA was analyzed as a continuous variable.
Analyses
All data were entered, cleaned, and analyzed using SPSS
version 17 statistical software (SPSS, Chicago, Illinois). Sig-
nificance was examined using p ≤ .05, although exact p val-
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
ues are reported. Due to positively skewed data, LTPA scores
were corrected for gross errors by Windsorizing.40 The pro-
cess of Windsorizing eliminates the highest or lowest values
and replaces them with the next highest or lowest values to
correct large errors or large abnormalities in distributions. In
this sample, several LTPA scale scores were high (n = 13),
and were therefore replaced with values based on the 98th
percentile value.40
To determine if there were gender-related differences
in the relationships of specific TPB/IBM constructs with
LTPA, several analyses were conducted. Analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) and chi-square analyses were used to test for
demographic differences among the gender groups. Pearson
correlations were also examined to determine whether or not
the variables related as hypothesized by the TPB/IBM among
each gender. Similar methods were employed by Blanchard
et al.29 Specifically, the TPB and IBM state that attitudes to-
ward the behavior, subjective norm/perceived norm, and per-
ceived behavioral control/personal agency should be related
with intention. Finally, linear regression analyses were con-
ducted to determine if associations of TPB/IBM constructs
with LTPA behavior differed by genders. The TPB/IBM con-
structs, intention, and LTPA were all continuous variables in
this analysis.
RESULTS
Characteristics of the Sample
Of the 1,004 students enrolled in the participating courses,
a total of 775 surveys were returned (77.2% response rate).
Subsequently, respondents were not included in the analyses
if they reported being involved in varsity athletics (n = 75),
failed to complete demographic items (n = 22), were not
of traditional college age (18–24; n = 37), were graduate
students (n = 4), or if they were missing 2 or more responses
for a scale of interest (n = 16).41
Among the wide variety of procedures used to handle
missing data, imputing means for missing values is a com-
mon strategy used to address missing item responses, which
VOL 62, APRIL 2014
Gender Differences in College Leisure Time Physical Activity
allows researchers to use standard complete-data meth-
ods of analysis on the filled in data.42 Based on this ap-
proach, 38 participant TPB subscales (intention, n = 34;
attitude, n = 4) had means imputed for one missing item
response.
The final sample consisted of 621 (80.1% of the returned
survey sample) undergraduate students enrolled in classes
during the fall 2009 at a large public university in the south-
eastern United States (see Table 1). The majority of the
sample were female (n = 421; 67.8%) with a mean age
of 20.18 (SD = 1.572). With regard to ethnicity, the sam-
ple was predominantly white (n = 504; 81.2%) or black
(n = 91; 14.7%). Just over a fifth of the sample reported
being in their first year of college (n = 130; 20.9%), 25.9%
in their second year (n = 161), 19.6% in their third year
(n = 122), and 33.5% reported being in their fourth or
fifth year of college. The majority (n = 407; 65.5%) re-
ported that they were not affiliated with a Greek (frater-
nity or sorority) organization and 60.5% (n = 376) in-
dicated not participating in intramural and/or club sports.
Mean BMI calculated from reported height and weight, was
23.51 (SD = 4.189), and the mean self-reported GPA for the
502 students who responded to this item was 3.139 (SD =
0.481). Scores for each theoretical construct are presented in
Table 2.
Bivariate Analyses
One-way ANOVAs indicated that gender was significantly
related with BMI, attitude, subjective norm, intention, self-
efficacy, and LTPA. However, gender was not related with
age (F = 2.622, p = .106), descriptive norm (F = 0.902,
p = .343), or perceived behavioral control (F = 3.705,
p = .055). In this college sample, male students had signifi-
cantly higher (F = 34.52, p < .001) BMI scores (M = 24.92,
SD = 4.03) than female students (M = 22.84, SD = 4.10).
In addition, males had significantly higher (F = 11.183,
p = .001) attitude scores (M = 5.99, SD = 0.86) than fe-
males (M = 5.69, SD = 0.95). Males had significantly lower
(F = 10.679, p = .001) subjective norm scores (M = 5.58,
SD = 1.00) than females (M = 5.89, SD = 1.13). Intention
scores were also significantly different (F = 11.544, p =
.001) between males (M = 5.01, SD = 1.19) and females
(M = 4.64, SD = 1.34). Male students had significantly
higher (F = 23.649, p < .001) self-efficacy scores (M =
21.40, SD = 6.46) than female students (M = 18.66,
SD = 6.63). In addition, there was a significant difference in
reported LTPA (F = 14.627, p < .001) between males (M =
57.26, SD = 25.92) and females (M = 49.05, SD = 24.54).
Cross-tabulation and chi-square analyses indicated sig-
nificant differences in year in school (χ 2 = 11.910, p =
.008), Greek affiliation (χ 2 = 6.329, p = .012), and sports
participation (χ 2 = 93.720, p < .001) based on gender.
Forty percent of first-year students were male (60% female),
22.3% of second-year students were male (77.6% female),
31.1% of third-year students were male (68.9% female), and
35.6% of fourth- and fifth-year students were male (64.4%
female). Only 27.5% of males were affiliated with Greek
177
 Beville et al

TABLE 1. Demographics and Leisure Time Physical Activity Behavior of a Sample of College Studentsa

Characteristic n % M SD

Gender
Male 200 32.2
Female 421 67.8
Age 20.18 1.572
Body mass index 23.51 4.189
Grade point averageb 3.139 0.481
Year in school
First year 130 20.9
Second year 161 25.9
Third year 122 19.6
Fourth year 135 21.7
Fifth year 73 11.8
Racial/Ethnic group
White 504 81.2
Black 91 14.7
Hispanic/Latino 5 0.8
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 0.6
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014

American Indian/Alaskan Native/Native Hawaiian 1 0.2

Biracial or multiracial 15 2.4
Other 1 0.2
Greek affiliation
Yes 214 34.5
No 407 65.5
Sports participation
Club sports 32 5.2
Intramural sports 192 30.9
Club sports and intramural sports 21 3.4
None 376 60.5
Residence
Campus residence hall 168 27.1
Fraternity or sorority house 21 3.4
Other college/university housing 31 5.0
Parent/Guardian’s home 23 3.7
Other off-campus housing 371 59.7
Other 7 1.1
Marital status
Single 594 95.7
Married/partnered 18 2.9
Divorced 2 0.3
Other 7 1.1
aN = 621.
bN = 502 (excludes those who answered “Not applicable”).

TABLE 2. Theory of Planned Behavior and Integrated Behavioral Model Subscale Scores

Scale/Subscale M SD Range

Intention 4.76 1.30 0.67–7.00

Attitude 5.78 0.93 1.00–7.00
SJNorm 5.79 1.10 1.00–7.00
PBC 5.79 1.04 1.67–7.00
DSNorm 4.34 1.14 1.00–7.00
SEfficacy 19.54 6.69 5.00–35.00
LTPA 51.69 25.27 0.00–116.00

Note. SJNorm = subjective norm (injunctive norm); PBC = perceived behavioral control; DSNorm = descriptive norm; SEfficacy = self-efficacy;
LTPA = leisure time physical activity.

178 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH


TABLE 3. Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Theory of Planned Behavior Constructs, Descriptive Norm,
Self-efficacy, and Leisure Time Physical Activity of a Sample College Students
Intention Attitude SJNorm
Intention — .431∗∗ .307∗∗
Attitude .523∗∗ — .228∗∗
SJNorm .198∗∗ .218∗∗ — .241∗∗
PBC .429∗∗ .291∗∗ .207∗∗
DS Norm .228∗∗ .093 .154∗
SEfficacy .699∗∗ .447∗∗ .176∗
LTPA .459∗∗ .190∗∗ −.048
Note. Males (below diagonal): n = 200; females (above diagonal): n = 421. SJNorm = subjective norm (injunctive norm); PBC = perceived
behavioral control; DSNorm = descriptive norm; SEfficacy = self-efficacy; LTPA = leisure time physical activity.
∗∗ p < .01; ∗ p < .05.
organizations, and 37.8% of females were affiliated with
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
Greek organizations. For sports participation, 67% of males
participated in sports, whereas only 26.4% of female students
participated in sports. Chi-square results for ethnicity (χ 2 =
3.248, p = .197), marital status (χ 2 = 0.016, p = .898), and
residence (χ 2 = 0.149, p = .700) did not differ by gender.
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated by gender
with regard to the TPB and IBM constructs and LTPA (see Ta-
ble 3). For males (n = 200), the constructs attitude, perceived
behavioral control, intention, descriptive norm, and self-
efficacy were correlated with LTPA (p < .001). Self-efficacy,
attitude, and perceived behavioral control were related with
intention for males (p < .001). For females (n = 421),
all of the constructs—attitude, subjective norm, perceived
behavioral control, intention, descriptive norm, and self-
efficacy—were correlated with LTPA, and self-efficacy, per-
ceived behavioral control, and attitude were all related with
intention (p < .001) (see Table 3).
Multivariate Analyses
A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to
examine associations between LTPA and attitude, subjective
norm, perceived behavioral control, intention, self-efficacy,
and intention by gender. Given the low internal consistency
coefficient for descriptive norm (α = .53), it was not in-
cluded in multivariate analyses. Results from the chi-square
analyses and ANOVAs indicated that year in school, Greek
affiliation, sports participation, and BMI were significantly
associated with LTPA and therefore were included in the
multiple linear regression analysis as potential confounding
variables.
Based on bivariate results, the following independent vari-
ables were included in the multiple linear regression models
examining correlates of LTPA for males and females: sub-
jective norm (females only), attitude, perceived behavioral
control, self-efficacy, intention, BMI, year in school, Greek
affiliation, and sports participation (see Table 4). For male
students, the model was significant (F = 6.038, p < .001)
and explained 20.02% of the variance in LTPA. However, the
VOL 62, APRIL 2014
Gender Differences in College Leisure Time Physical Activity
PBC DSNorm SEfficacy LTPA
.562∗∗ .427∗∗ .664∗∗ .622∗∗
.368∗∗ .226∗∗ .408∗∗ .389∗∗
.310∗∗ .232∗∗ .152∗∗
— .327∗∗ .430∗∗ .373∗∗
.087 — .370∗∗ .340∗∗
.401∗∗ .228∗∗ — .535∗∗
.185∗∗ .190∗∗ .400∗∗ —
only significant correlate of LTPA for male students was in-
tention (p < .001). Specifically, for male students, the higher
one’s intention score, the more likely they were to participate
in LTPA.
For female students, the model was also significant (F =
33.726, p < .001) and explained 42.5% of the variance
in LTPA. For female students, attitude (p = .006), in-
tention (p < .001), self-efficacy (p = .001), BMI (p =
.033), and sports participation (p = .034) were signifi-
cantly related with greater participation in LTPA. Specifi-
cally, the higher a female student’s attitude, intention, and
self-efficacy scores, the more likely she was to participate in
LTPA. Additionally, a lower BMI and participation in sports
were also related with greater participation in LTPA for fe-
male students. No other variables were significant in this
model.
COMMENT
Conclusions
This study was unique in that it examined the relationship
of the IBM constructs descriptive norm and self-efficacy
regarding LTPA behavior in addition to TPB constructs.
The IBM, and more specifically descriptive norm and self-
efficacy, have not been examined in other LTPA studies using
the TPB.24,29,43–45 This study supported the IBM’s inclusion
of self-efficacy in examinations of LTPA behavior among this
population, as it was significantly associated with and further
explained participation in LTPA. Although descriptive norm
was not included in multivariate analyses, bivariate findings
suggest that it is potentially an important concept to consider
after measures are further developed and validated.
As hypothesized, the findings of this research indicate
that there are gender differences with respect to the the-
oretical constructs related with LTPA. For male students,
attitude, perceived behavioral control, intention, descriptive
norm, and self-efficacy were all correlated with LTPA be-
havior in bivariate analyses. However, subjective norm was
not significant. Among female students, all of the constructs
were positively correlated with LTPA in bivariate analyses.
179
 Beville et al

TABLE 4. Multiple Regression Model Examining Correlates of Leisure Time Physical Activity Among a Sample
of College Students by Gender

Item β p value t value Range M/% SD

Attitude M: −.098 .211 −1.25 2.00–7.00 5.96 0.86

F: .119 .006 2.76 1.00–7.00 5.69 0.95
SJNorm M: a a a
1.00–7.00 5.58 1.00
F: −.046 .253 −1.15 1.00–7.00 5.89 1.13
PBC M: −.065 .376 −0.89 2.00–7.00 5.91 1.05
F: .008 .870 0.16 1.67–7.00 5.74 1.04
Intention M: .371 <.001 3.79 1.33–7.00 5.01 1.19
F: .438 <.001 7.65 0.67–7.00 4.64 1.34
SEfficacy M: .157 .094 1.69 5.00–35.00 21.40 6.46
F: .166 .001 3.24 5.00–35.00 18.66 6.63
BMI M: .040 .545 0.61 16.04–44.91 24.92 4.03
F: −.084 .033 −2.14 16.13–45.72 22.84 4.10
Participates in sports M: .027 .692 0.40 67.0%
F: .081 .034 2.12 26.4%
School M: −.072 .280 −1.08
F: −.017 .660 −0.44
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014

Greek affiliated M: −.041 .546 −0.61 27.5%

F: −.021 .585 −0.55 37.8%

Note. M = males: n = 200; F = females: n = 421. Males: R2 = .202, p < .001; females: R2 = .425, p < .001. SJNorm = subjective norm; PBC =
perceived behavioral control; SEfficacy = self-efficacy; BMI = body mass index.
aSubjective norm was not included in the model for males, based on the bivariate analyses.

For both genders, intention was the strongest correlate with
LTPA, followed by self-efficacy, which supports the frame-
work of the theories, where the most direct determinant of
behavior is intention.15,16
The findings of this research are consistent with previous
research in that others suggest that there are gender differ-
ences when it comes to LTPA among college students.23–25
Behrens et al23 explored the understanding of moderate phys-
ical activity among a group of college students. Their findings
suggest that there are gender differences in the awareness of
the definition and health benefits of physical activity and the
components of the public health recommendations for this
behavior.23 A study by Blanchard and colleagues24 found
gender differences in the behavioral, normative, and control
beliefs among black students, but not white students. Sum-
iniski et al25 used stages of change from the Transtheoretical
Model to investigate gender differences in LTPA among col-
lege students. They found that more males were in the main-
tenance stage and more females were in the Contemplation
stage.25
Although gender is consistently related with physical ac-
tivity in the literature, theoretical explanation for these as-
sociations is scant.46 Even though theoretical frameworks
may not be able to explain the gender differences that exist
with regard to physical activity, they are still present. Na-
tional data consistently demonstrate that males participate
in higher rates of LTPA than females.9,26 There are several
possibilities that account for the gender differences found
among this population of college students. The social pres-
sures on males and females to participate in physical activity
may be different among college students.47 There may be
some cultural influences that perpetuate an idea that males
are supposed to play sports and be active and that it is not
as accepted for females to engage in this behavior.48 Past
behavior may also play an important role in explaining these
gender differences.18 Participation in organized sport during
adolescence may affect whether or not students continue to be
active in college. The opportunities available to adolescents
to play organized youth sports may have gender differences,
where males have more opportunities than females.49 How-
ever, on a college campus, opportunities exist for organized
sport through intramural and club sport participation for both
males and females. In this study, females who participated in
sports activities were more likely to engage in LTPA.
One purpose of this research was to investigate the TPB
while including descriptive norm and self-efficacy from the
IBM. The measure of descriptive norm was taken from pre-
viously published research; however, no previous tests of
validity or reliability were reported. In the present study
descriptive norm was retained in bivariate analyses, which
resulted in a positive correlation with LTPA. However, due
to the low internal consistency coefficient for descriptive
norm (α = .53), it was not included in multivariate anal-
yses. Future studies should develop a new measure of de-
scriptive norm based on the process described in the TPB
and subsequently establish reliability and validity within the
population of college students. Additionally, the scale used
to measure descriptive norm in the present study only con-
sisted of 2 items, 1 item for friends and 1 for family. Thus,
conceptually each item could be described as its own 1-item

180 JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH


subscale. Development of a valid and reliable scale is war-
ranted, considering that rudimentary bivariate results seen in
the current study potentially suggest that descriptive norm
is important to consider in addition to subjective norms.
However, these results should be considered with caution
given the low internal consistency seen in this present study.
Given these limitations regarding the current measurement
of descriptive norm, further examination of a more complete
multivariate IBM model, including descriptive norm, is rec-
ommended after a valid and reliable descriptive norm scale is
developed.
These findings provide a better understanding of LTPA
behaviors of college students by using the TPB and self-
efficacy. This examination of LTPA among college students
should be of interest to those fostering programs, services,
and facilities to support this behavior, and particularly cam-
pus recreation professionals. In addition, the results parallel
previous research that has consistently supported the promi-
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
nent roles of attitude and perceived behavioral control in
the prediction of intention, with a lesser role for subjective
norms, and potential mediation of the effects of these con-
structs on behavior by intentions.50 Future research should
aim to examine mediating relationships using a prospective
study design.
Findings from this research suggest that it may be ad-
vantageous to tailor educational and promotional efforts for
LTPA to college students and more specifically by gender.
Distinct differences exist in the correlates of LTPA between
male and female college students. The practical applications
of the current findings suggest that practitioners should tailor
educational and promotional materials and that one format
may not be appropriate for all students. More specifically,
promotional material targeting male students should focus
on intention, the significant predictor of LTPA among this
college sample. Practitioners could take it one step further
and use these results showing that attitude, perceived behav-
ioral control, and self-efficacy were positively correlated to
intention for the male students. Therefore, these constructs
could also be targeted in promotional materials, as this could
indicate mediating relationships as supported by both the
TPB and IBM theoretical models. On the other hand, for
females, promotional efforts should address attitude, inten-
tion, and self-efficacy, which were the significant predictors
of LTPA in this sample, suggesting potential partial and full
mediating relationships between various constructs for fe-
males. Given the results of this study and the potential im-
plications for practitioners, additional research is needed to
further confirm and understand these relationships.
Practitioners or college professionals could use the present
finding supporting the relationship between intention and
LTPA to create intervention strategies for all students. Prac-
titioners could develop a promotional campaign for LTPA
that stresses the importance of regular engagement in the
behavior to target the intention construct. For example, a
campaign entitled “Make It a Part of Your Day” could be
created to remind and encourage students to participate in
LTPA. Sending e-mail reminders or announcements about
VOL 62, APRIL 2014
Gender Differences in College Leisure Time Physical Activity
different opportunities on campus to engage in LTPA could
make students consider their intentions on attending these
programs and opportunities. In addition, social networking
sites, such as FaceBook or Twitter, could be used to form
groups, send event invitations, or make announcements about
LTPA opportunities on campus.
In addition, practitioners and other college professionals
could specifically target female students regarding the di-
rect relationships between LTPA and both attitude and self-
efficacy. Reaching out to female students in residence halls
or in sorority houses to promote LTPA with messages geared
towards improving LTPA attitudes may be an effective strat-
egy to increase LTPA participation. Research by Chatzis-
arantis and Hagger support the proposition that interventions
can produce change in attitudes and intentions by address-
ing modal salient beliefs.51 In their study, the most popular
salient beliefs related with physical activity were identified:
having fun, staying fit, improving skill, getting an injury,
and feeling hot and sweaty. They addressed these beliefs
through communication strategies and found that individuals
who were given messages containing salient beliefs reported
more positive attitudes and stronger intention than those
who were given messages with nonsalient beliefs. There-
fore, identifying salient beliefs among college women for
use in marketing and promotional efforts could be an effec-
tive strategy to for improving attitudes and intentions towards
LTPA.
Providing opportunities to enhance self-efficacy for fe-
males would also be beneficial. In 2011, Williams and French
reported an increase in self-efficacy and physical activity be-
havior when interventions used strategies that included action
planning, providing instruction, prompting practice, reinforc-
ing effort toward the behavior, prompting self-monitoring,
setting graded tasks, planning social support, and/or relapse
prevention.52 The researchers pointed out that identifying
specific plans for when, where, and how the behavior will be
performed improved both self-efficacy and physical activity.
Examples of how to tap into these recommendations include
offering group exercise classes or walking clubs at specific
times and locations through the residence halls and/or soror-
ities. Engaging female students in smaller groups and/or in
familiar settings may assist in increasing their confidence to
perform LTPA. Some of the benefits of group physical ac-
tivity include exposure to a social and fun environment, a
safe and effectively designed workout, a consistent exercise
schedule, an accountability factor for participating in exer-
cise, and a workout that requires no prior exercise knowledge
or experience.53 Campus recreation professionals could also
offer weight room orientations or other small-group instruc-
tional opportunities that could enhance the students’ com-
fort and confidence in using equipment. In addition, finding
strategies to reinforce regular LTPA may have favorable re-
sults.52 This could be accomplished through providing in-
centives that reward or acknowledge small successes while
working towards a larger goal. Using the findings from this
research, grounded in theory, to create programs and promo-
tional strategies should prove beneficial.
181
 Beville et al
Limitations
There were limitations of this research that warrant further
discussion. First, this study relied on respondents to honestly
self-report their LTPA behavior. Although self-reporting is
not unique to this particular study,24,29 there was potential
for students to inflate or underreport their LTPA participa-
tion, whereby results support inflation. Therefore, to adjust
for extreme values reported, data were Windsorized to help
eliminate large errors in self-reported LTPA.40 This research
was also limited in that it was an exploratory cross-sectional
study. The cross-sectional study design limited our ability to
examine causality. A more accurate picture of LTPA and the
examined relationships could be attained through a prospec-
tive study design. A prospective study would also further
validate the utility of the TPB and IBM in examining LTPA
behavior and allow for potential mediating relationships to be
explored. Future research should consider using a random-
ized prospective study to allow for examination of causality
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
and these potential indirect effects.
Another limitation was the lack of generalizability and
potential selection bias associated with the use of a conve-
nience sample. This research used a convenience sample of
college students from classes at 1 university in the southeast-
ern United States. Thus, the results may not be generalizable
to other-aged populations or even other samples of college
students. However, this research attempted to minimize se-
lection bias by using general education classes from multi-
ple colleges that included students from several departments
and various majors; thus, the sample should be relatively
generalizable to other students at the university in which
the research was conducted. Overall, based on the referent
university’s published statistics, the demographic rates of
this sample were fairly consistent with the entire under-
graduate population of the university, although this sample
had a disproportionately higher number of females (67.8%)
and Greek-affiliated students (34.5%). In fall 2009, univer-
sity published statistics documented that there were 12,426
(52.4%) female students and 6,399 (27%) students affili-
ated with a Greek organization. In addition, this sample had
a slightly lower percentage of white students (81.2%) than
enrolled at the institution (82.9%), and a slightly higher per-
centage of black students (14.7%) compared with the total
percent (11.8%) enrolled.
The influence of campus exercise or fitness facilities and
their hours of operation on college students’ physical activity
behaviors is still unclear.28 There is a lack of research re-
garding how many sedentary students use campus recreation
facilities and this should be considered in future planning of
interventions to increase LTPA. One qualitative study54 ex-
amining differences in physical activity location preference
among active and inactive college students found location
preferences to be related with intrinsic/extrinsic orientation,
although inactive students engaged in less physical activity
regardless of orientation. In this study, extrinsically moti-
vated students (active and inactive) preferred being active
in places where they could be seen or see others and most
often reported university recreation facilities. On the other
182
hand, intrinsically motivated students expressed preference
in being active in noncompetitive types and locations for ac-
tivity with lower visibility. However, intrinsically motivated
active students still reported using university recreation fa-
cilities. More research to better understand the utilization
of campus recreation facilities of active and sedentary stu-
dents is needed to help understand how sedentary college
students can best be served and encouraged to engage in
LTPA.
Despite these limitations, the results of this study support
the development and implementation of educational and pro-
motional materials that target increasing college students’
participation in LTPA. This research provides a better un-
derstanding of the factors associated with participation in
LTPA. The findings of this research also indicate that tai-
loring materials based on gender would be beneficial, as the
results demonstrated that different constructs were signifi-
cantly related with LTPA dependent on gender. In addition,
development of a valid and reliable scale for the descriptive
norm construct is recommended. Findings of this research
provide preliminary support for the inclusion of the IBM
construct self-efficacy, and potentially descriptive norm, in
conjunction with TPB in examining LTPA behavior. How-
ever, further research is necessary to fully examine the rela-
tionships among IBM and TPB constructs in relation to LTPA
behavior.
FUNDING
No funding was used to support this research and/or the
preparation of the manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. The
authors confirm that the research presented in this article
met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal
requirements, of the United States and received approval
from the Institutional Review Board of Baylor University.
NOTE
For comments and further information, address corre-
spondence to M. Renée Umstattd Meyer, Department of
Health, Human Performance, and Recreation, Baylor Univer-
sity, One Bear Place 97313, Waco, TX 76798, USA (e-mail:
Renee Umstattd@Baylor.edu).
REFERENCES
1. Staten RR, Miller K, Noland MP, Rayens MK. College stu-
dents’ physical activity: application of an ecological model. Am J
Health Stud. 2005;20:58–65.
2. Fischer DV, Bryant J. Effect of certified personal trainer
services on stage of exercise behavior and exercise mediators in
female college students. J Am Coll Health. 2008;56:369–376.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. physical
activity statistics. Available at: apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss. Published
2011. Accessed April 20, 2010.
4. Rhodes RE, Plotnikoff RC. Can current physical activ-
ity act as a reasonable proxy measure of future physical activ-
ity? Evaluating cross-sectional and passive prospective designs
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH

with the use of social cognition models. Prev Med. 2005;40:547–
555.
5. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical ac-
tivity, exercise, and physical fitness: definition and distinctions for
health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126–131.
6. Dishman RK, Buckworth J. Increasing physical activity: a
quantitative study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1996;28:706–719.
7. Stephens T, Jacobs DR, White CC. A descriptive epi-
demiology of leisure-time physical activity. Public Health Rep.
1985;100:147–157.
8. Kilpatrick M, Hebert E, Bartholomew J. College students’
motivation for physical activity: differentiating men’s and women’s
motives for sport participation and exercise. J Am Coll Health.
2005;54:87–94.
9. American College Health Association. American College
Health Association–National College Health Assessment II: Refer-
ence Group Executive Summary Fall 2011. Baltimore, MD: Amer-
ican College Health Association; 2011.
10. Leslie E, Sparling PB, Owen N. University campus set-
tings and the promotion of physical activity in young adults:
lessons from research in Australia and the USA. Health Educ.
2001;101:116–125.
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
11. Doerksen SE, Umstattd MR, McAuley E. Social cognitive
determinants of moderate and vigorous physcial activity in college
freshmen. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2009;39:1201–1213.
12. Suminski RR, Petosa R. Web-assisted instruction for chan-
ing social cognitive variables related to physical activity. J Am Coll
Health. 2006;54:219–225.
13. Okun MA, Ruehlman L, Karoly P, Lutz R, Fairholme C,
Schaub R. Social support and social norms: do they both con-
tribute to predicting leisure-time exercise? Am J Health Behav.
2003;27:493–507.
14. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health Behavior
and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. 4th ed. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.
15. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum
Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.
16. Montano DE, Kasprzyk D. Theory of reasoned action, the-
ory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In:
Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, eds. Health Behavior and Health
Education—Theory, Research and Practice. 4th ed. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass; 2008:67–96.
17. Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A
Social Cognitive Theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall;
1986.
18. Jackson C, Smith RA, Conner M. Applying extended version
of the theory of planned behavior to physical activity. J Sports Sci.
2003;21:119–133.
19. Okun MA, Karoly P, Lutz R. Clarifying the contribution of
subjective norm to predicting leisure-time exercise. Am J Health
Behav. 2002;26:296–305.
20. Rhodes RE, Courneya KS. Investigating multiple conpo-
nents of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control: an exam-
ination of the theory of planned behaviour in the exercise domain.
Br J Soc Psychol. 2003;42:129–146.
21. Rhodes RE, Blanchard C, Matheson DH. A multicomponent
model of the theory of planned behavior. Br J Health Psychol.
2006;11:119–137.
22. Motl RW, Dishman RK, Ward DS, et al. Comparison of
barriers self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control for explain-
ing physical activity across 1 year among adolescent girls. Health
Psychol. 2005;24:106–111.
23. Behrens TK, Dinger MK, Heesch KC, Sisson SB. College
students’ understanding of moderate physical activity: a qualitative
study. Am J Health Stud. 2005;20:129–134.
24. Blanchard CM, Rhodes RE, Nehl E, Fisher J, Sparling PB,
Courneya KS. Ethnicity and the theory of planned behavior in the
exercise domain. Am J Health Behav. 2003;27:579–591.
VOL 62, APRIL 2014
Gender Differences in College Leisure Time Physical Activity
25. Suminski RR, Petosa RL, Utter AC, Zhang JJ. Physical ac-
tivity among ethnically diverse college students. J Am Coll Health.
2002;51:75–80.
26. American College Health Association. American College
Health Association- National College Health Assessment II: Refer-
ence Group Executive Summary Fall 2009. Baltimore, MD: Amer-
ican College Health Association, 2009.
27. Cilliers J, Senekal M, Kunneke E. The association between
body mass index of first-year female university students and their
weight related perceptions and practices, psychological health,
physical activity and other physical health indicators. Public Health
Nutr. 2006;9:234–243.
28. Keating XD, Guan J, Pinero JC, Bridges DM. A meta-
analysis of college students’ physical activity behaviors. J Am Coll
Health. 2005;54:116–125.
29. Blanchard CM, Fisher J, Sparling PB, et al. Understanding
physical activity behavior in african american and caucasian college
students: an application of the theory of planned behavior. J Am Coll
Health. 2008;56:341–346.
30. Dinger M. Physical activity and dietary intake among college
students. Am J Health Stud. 1999;15:139–148.
31. Irwin JD. Prevalence of university students’ sufficient
physical activity: a systematic review. Percept Mot Skills.
2004;98:927–943.
32. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill; 1978.
33. Marcus BH, Selby VC, Niaura RS, Rossi JS. Self-efficacy
and the stages of exercise behavior change. Res Q Exerc Sport.
1992;63:60–66.
34. Godin G. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the
community. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985;10:141.
35. Rhodes RE, Blanchard CM, Matheson DH, Coble J. Disen-
tangling motivation, intention, and planning in the physical activity
domain. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2006;7:15–27.
36. Rhodes RE, Courneya KS. Relationships between person-
ality, an extended theory of planned behaviour model and exercise
behaviour. Br J Health Psychol. 2003;8:19–36.
37. Winters ER, Petosa RL, Charlton TE. Using social cogni-
tive theory to explain discretionary, “leisure-time” physical exer-
cise among high school students. J Adolesc Health. 2003;32:436–
442.
38. Gyurcsik NC, Bray SR, Brittain DR. Coping with barriers
to vigorous physical activity during transition to university. Fam
Community Health. 2004;27:130–142.
39. Rhodes RE, Jones LW, Courneya KS. Extending the theory
of planned behavior in the exercise domain: a comparison of social
support and subjective norm. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2002;73:193–
199.
40. Kirk RE. Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. 3rd ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company; 1995.
41. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis With Missing
Data. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.
42. Huisman M. Imputation of missing item responses: some
simple techniques. Qual Quant. 2000;34:331–351.
43. Ajzen I, Driver BL. Application of the theory of planned
behavior to leisure choice. J Leis Res. 1992;24:207–224.
44. Bozionelos G, Bennett P. The theory of planned behavior as
predictor of exercise. J Health Psychol. 1999;44:517–529.
45. Bryan AD, Rocheleau CA. Predicting aerobic versus resis-
tance exercise using the theory of planned behavior. Am J Health
Behav. 2002;26:83–94.
46. Rhodes RE, Blanchard CM, Blacklock RE. Do physical ac-
tivity beliefs differ by age and gender? J Sport Exerc Psychol.
2008;30:412–423.
47. Dishman RK, Sallis JF, Orenstein MR. The determi-
nants of physical activity and exercise. Public Health Rep.
1985;100:158–171.
183
 Beville et al
48. Shropshire J, Carroll B, Yim S. Primary school children’s
attitudes to physical education: gender differences. Phys Educ Sport
Pedagog. 1997;2:23–38.
49. Vilhjalmsson R, Kristjansdottir G. Gender differences in
physical activity in older children and adolescents: the central role
of organized sport. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56:363–374.
50. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of
planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol.
2001;40:471–499.
51. Chatzisarantis NLD, Hagger MS. Effects of a brief interven-
tion based on the theory of planned behavior on leisure-time physi-
cal activity participation. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2005;27:470–487.
52. Williams SL, French DP. What are the most effective inter-
vention techniques for changing physical activity self-efficacy and
Downloaded by [Newcastle University] at 05:12 28 April 2014
184
physical activity behaviour—and are they the same? Health Educ
Res. 2011;26:308–322.
53. Dolan S. Benefits of group exercise. Available at: http://
www.acsm.org/access-public-information/articles/2012/01/20/ben
efits-of-group-exercise. Published 2012. Accessed July 29,
2013.
54. Baller SL. An Investigation of Materialistic Values
and Physical Activity Participation, Location, and Experience.
Tuscaloosa: Health Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa;
2010.
Received: 19 January 2013
Revised: 27 October 2013
Accepted: 3 December 2013
JOURNAL OF AMERICAN COLLEGE HEALTH