Content uploaded by Shauna Burke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shauna Burke on Jun 26, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Self-efficacy and imagery use in older adult exercisers
NATASCHA N. WESCH, MARCIA I. MILNE, SHAUNA M. BURKE, & CRAIG R. HALL
School of Kinesiology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between self-efficacy and imagery use in older male (n
/ 40)
and female (n
/ 52) exercisers. Participants’ self-efficacy was evaluated using the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Exercisers,
and their use of imagery was evaluated using the Exercise Imagery Questionnaire. Results revealed that older adult
exercisers were most efficacious in terms of the task, followed by scheduling physical activity into their daily routines, and
finally overcoming barriers related to physical activity. Older adult exercisers also reported using appearance and technique
imagery to much the same extent, but used both significantly more than energy imagery. In addition, energy imagery
predicted task self-efficacy but none of the three functions of imagery predicted barrier and scheduling self-efficacy.
Keywords: Self-efficacy, imagery, older exercisers, exercise participation
Introduction
The physical and psychological benefits of physical
activity are substantial and have been well documen-
ted, yet 57% of Canadians aged 18 and older, one-
third of the American population age 50 and over,
and 66% of adults in the UK over 65 are considered
insufficiently active for optimal health benefits (Ca-
nadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute,
2002; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2004; Department of Health, 2000). Furthermore,
the proportion of those who are physically inactive
increases with age. Physical activity undertaken by
older adults is of particular concern because indivi-
duals aged 65 years and over constitute one of the
fastest growing population groups, and carry the
highest load of chronic disease, disability, and
healthcare utilization (King, Rejeski, & Buchner,
1998). Moreover, for the elderly individual, insuffi-
cient physical activity can result in activity restric-
tions, reduced mobility, increased morbidity, and
potentially loss of independence (O’Brien Cousins,
1997). Previous research involving older adult po-
pulations has shown that physical activity is effective
in reducing and/or preventing the functional declines
that normally accompany ageing (van der Bij,
Laurant, & Wensing, 2002). For example, older
adults who are physically active show improved
cardiovascular function (Green & Crouse, 1995),
reduced risk of falling (Province, Hadley, & Horn-
brook, 1995), and reduced loss of muscle mass and
strength (American College of Sports Medicine,
1998).
Nevertheless, many older adults are not partici-
pating in sufficient physical activity or exercise
programmes to delay disease and increase quality
of life (Courneya, 1995; Marcus, 1995). Specifically,
more than 50% of adults aged 6574 years, and
65% of those over 75 years, do not participate in any
leisure-time physical activity (Schoenborn & Barnes,
2002). Furthermore, fewer than 10% of older adults
participate in any form of vigorous physical activity
(US Department of Health and Human Services,
1991). Shephard (1997) suggested that exercise
participation in older adults may be linked to their
self-efficacy for exercise. Older individuals fre-
quently underestimate their physical abilities, and
this could be one reason for their lesser involvement
in physical activity. Self-efficacy reflects an indivi-
dual’s beliefs in his or her ability to engage in
behaviours that will yield a desired outcome (Ban-
dura, 1986). It relates to one’s sense of competency
and proficiency, and therefore affects one’s choice of
Correspondence: M. I. Milne, School of Kinesiology, 3M Centre, The University of Western Ontario, London, ONT N6A 3K7, Canada.
E-mail: mmilne2@uwo.ca
European Journal of Sport Science, December 2006; 6(4): 197 203
ISSN 1746-1391 print/ISSN 1536-7290 online # 2006 European College of Sport Science
DOI: 10.1080/17461390601012512
behaviour, activity, and exerted effort (Strauser,
1995).
Self-efficacy has been consistently related to
physical activity participation through its established
predictive influence on both the adoption and
maintenance of physical activity (Bandura, 1997).
More specifically, self-efficacy research in younger
populations has demonstrated that those who report
higher exercise-related self-efficacy exercise more
frequently and are more likely to continue exercising
in the future (Godin et al., 1994; Marcus, Pinto,
Silken, Audrain, & Taylor, 1994; Rodgers & Gauvin,
1998). In older adults, self-efficacy research has
yielded similar results. For example, McAuley
(1993) found self-efficacy to be very important in
the initial adoption of exercise in sedentary adults.
Furthermore, in a 6-month randomized control trial
with an 18-month follow-up, McAuley, Jerome,
Elavsky, Marquez and Ramsey (2003) found that
self-efficacy plays a pivotal role in long-term exercise
participation in adults aged 6075 years. Given
these results, it is apparent that self-efficacy is an
essential component in exercise participation among
older adults. Consequently, Brassington, Atienza,
Perczek, DiLorenzo and King (2002) suggested that
more attention should be given to increasing con-
fidence in the elderly to help them achieve significant
fitness outcomes.
One limitation of the above studies is the varying
operationalization of self-efficacy. Some investigators
have examined individuals’ confidence in overcom-
ing barriers to exercise, and others have addressed
confidence in one’s ability to engage in specific types
of exercise. Accordingly, Maddux (1995) proposed
that it is useful to assess different types of self-
efficacy and current exercise psychology research has
focused on three types: task, barrier, and scheduling
self-efficacy (DuCharme & Brawley, 1995; Rodgers,
Hall, Blanchard, McAuley, & Munroe, 2002a;
Rodgers & Sullivan, 2001). Task self-efficacy is
described as the confidence in one’s ability to per-
form the fundamental aspects of a task in a specific
situational context (Maddux, 1995). Barrier self-
efficacy is defined as confidence in one’s ability to
perform a task under challenging conditions or to
overcome social, personal, and environmental con-
straints. Scheduling self-efficacy is the confidence in
one’s ability to schedule or plan strategies for
carrying out a specific action. Support has been
provided for the distinction between the three types
of self-efficacy in exercise contexts (e.g. Rodgers &
Sullivan, 2001), although they have yet to be
measured in an older adult population.
On account of self-efficacy’s potential to influence
exercise participation, many suggestions for enhan-
cing exercise self-efficacy have been made. One such
suggestion has been the use of mental imagery. Hall
(1995) has proposed that individuals who imagine
themselves in an exercise situation, performing the
way they want to perform, may increase their self-
efficacy. Furthermore, Bandura (1986) stated that
visualizing (imagining) other people perform suc-
cessfully can increase one’s confidence that one too
can master the same activities.
In a study examining imagery use in exercisers,
Hausenblas, Hall, Rodgers and Munroe (1999)
found that exercisers use imagery for three primary
functions: technique, appearance, and energy. Tech-
nique imagery involves imaging the performance of
exercise movements and represents a cognitive
function of imagery. Appearance imagery addresses
the physical outcomes of exercise such as being fitter
and leaner. Finally, energy imagery represents the
affective outcomes of exercise such as feelings
of being ‘‘energized’’ or ‘‘psyched up’’. Both appear-
ance and energy imagery are motivational functions.
Gammage, Hall and Rodgers (2000) found that
male and female exercisers reported using appear-
ance imagery the most and energy imagery the least.
In addition, males and females differed in their
imagery use, with males using more tech-
nique imagery and females using more appearance
imagery.
Recently, Milne, Burke, Hall, Nederhof and
Gammage (2005/6) compared exercise imagery use
in older and younger adult exercisers. They found
that participants in both age groups showed the same
pattern of imagery use, with appearance imagery
being used most frequently, followed by technique
and energy imagery. However, there were some
differences between the two age groups with younger
exercisers using more appearance imagery than older
exercisers, and younger female exercisers using less
technique imagery than their older female counter-
parts.
Given that self-efficacy influences exercise parti-
cipation by older adults, one aim of the present study
was to examine the three types of self-efficacy (i.e.
task, barrier, and scheduling) in older adults who
participate in regular exercise. Research conducted
with a younger sample of exercisers and non-
exercisers (mean age 38 years) revealed that those
who exercised more often (three times a week or
more) reported higher task, coping (barrier), and
scheduling efficacy (Rodgers & Sullivan, 2001).
However, the reported task efficacy scores were
higher than the coping and scheduling efficacy
scores. Based on that research, we hypothesized
that the participants in the present study would be
highest in task self-efficacy and would have lower but
similar barrier and scheduling self-efficacy.
Since imagery is an important source of self-
efficacy, the second aim of the study was to examine
the relationship between imagery use and self-efficacy
198 N. N. Wesch et al.
in older exercisers. To accomplish this, hierarchical
regression analyses were conducted in which the three
uses of imagery served to predict each type of self-
efficacy. More specifically, for task self-efficacy,
technique imagery (i.e. imaging performing exercise
tasks) was entered first, followed by appearance and
then energy imagery. Appearance and energy imagery
were entered separately since they have been found to
differentially influence other exercise variables. For
example, only energy imagery predicts obligatory
exercise (Rodgers, Hall, Blanchard, & Munroe,
2001), while only appearance imagery predicts inten-
tion to exercise (Rodgers, Munroe, & Hall, 2002b).
For barrier self-efficacy, energy imagery was entered
first, since imaging being energized should help
exercisers overcome common barriers such as being
too tired and unmotivated to exercise (for a discus-
sion of exercise barriers, see Eyler et al., 1998).
Appearance and technique imagery were then en-
tered separately in that order. With respect to
scheduling self-efficacy, a strong rationale for the
order of entry for the uses of imagery was less evident.
Since a weak argument could be forwarded that using
energy imagery might increase exercisers’ confidence
that they can effectively schedule their exercise
activity, it was decided to employ the same order of
entry as for barrier self-efficacy (i.e. energy, appear-
ance, and then technique imagery).
Methods
Participants
Male (n
/ 40) and female (n/ 52) exercise partici-
pants aged 65 years and over (mean 74 years, s
/
7.3) were recruited from the Canadian Centre for
Activity and Aging and the Retired Researchers
Activity Group at a large university in Ontario,
Canada. Participants took part in various exercise
classes that included weight training, walking, or a
combination of cardiovascular and resistance train-
ing activities. (A detailed description of the content
and schedule of the exercise classes is available on
the Centre for Activity and Aging website: www.u-
wo.ca/actage/activity/centre.htm.) The various exer-
cise classes were offered 35 times per week and
varied from 45 to 75 min in duration. Participants
were recruited after the classes had been in progress
for 6 weeks.
Measures
Exercisers’ use of imagery was evaluated using the
Exercise Imagery Questionnaire (EIQ; Gammage
et al., 2000; Hausenblas et al., 1999). The EIQ
contains nine items whereby participants are asked
to rate the frequency of their imagery use on a
9-point scale (1
/‘‘never’’ to 9 /‘‘always’’). The EIQ
consists of three subscales appearance imagery,
technique imagery, and energy imagery each of
which is made up of three items. An example of an
appearance imagery item is ‘‘I imagine myself look-
ing better from exercising’’. An example of an energy
imagery item is ‘‘To get me energized, I imagine
exercising’’. Finally, an example of a technique
imagery item is ‘‘When thinking about exercising, I
imagine my form and body position’’. For the
purpose of the present study, three items of the
EIQ were slightly reworded to better represent the
sample of older adults. For example, whereas an
item on the energy subscale was ‘‘To take my mind
off my work, I imagine exercising’’, the revised item
used in the present study was ‘‘To take my mind off
other things, I imagine exercising’’. Participants’
responses were summed and divided by three to
create an average value for each of the three
subscales.
In addition to the nine items on the EIQ, Rodgers
et al. (2002a) included three additional questions:
(1) ‘‘How much do you think about exercising when
not exercising?’’; (2) ‘‘When you think about ex-
ercise, do you think about the exercise itself?’’; and
(3) ‘‘When you think about exercise, do you think
about the benefits of exercise?’’ Although they were
administered in the present study, the inclusion of
these three questions did not offer any additional
insight; thus, they were not considered further.
The EIQ has been found to be psychometrically
sound; that is, confirmatory factor analysis fit indices
suggest excellent model fit [root mean square error
of approximation (RMSE)
/0.05; adjusted good-
ness-of-fit index (GFI)
/0.93; comparative fit index
(CFI)
/0.99] (Rodgers et al., 2001). Furthermore,
Cronbach’s alphas in previous research (Gammage
et al., 2000; Hausenblas et al., 1999; Rodgers, Hall,
Blanchard, & Munroe, 1999) have indicated accep-
table reliabilities for the EIQ subscales (a
/0.81 to
a
/0.86). In the present study, Cronbach’s alphas
were also acceptable (appearance imagery, a
/0.96;
energy imagery, a
/0.89; technique imagery,
a
/0.91).
Exercisers’ self-efficacy was evaluated using the
Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Exercisers (SEQE;
Rodgers & Sullivan, 2001). The SEQE is a 23-item
scale representing three types of self-efficacy: task
(n
/7 items), scheduling (n /8 items), and barrier
(n
/8 items). An example of a task self-efficacy item
is ‘‘How confident are you that you can exercise
using proper technique?’’ An example of a schedul-
ing self-efficacy item is ‘‘How confident are you that
you can plan other activities around exercise?’’
Finally, an example of a barrier self-efficacy item is
‘‘How confident are you that you can exercise when
you don’t feel like it?’’ Participants are asked to rate
Self-efficacy and imagery use 199
their self-efficacy on a 100% confidence scale ran-
ging from 0% (indicating no confidence) to 100%
(indicating complete confidence). The percentages
were added and divided by the number of items in
the subscale to create an average percentage for each
of the three subscales.
In previous research, the SEQE has been found to
be both valid and reliable. Specifically, confirmatory
factor analysis has supported the three factors
(RMSE
/0.04; GFI/0.96; CFI /0.97), and Cron-
bach’s alphas have been acceptable (a
/0.72 to
a
/0.88) (Rodgers & Sullivan, 2001; Rodgers
et al., 2002a). In the present study, Cronbach’s
alpha was 0.66, 0.74, and 0.82 for task, scheduling,
and barrier self-efficacy respectively. [Initially, the
internal consistency for the barriers self-efficacy
scale (n
/8 items) was unacceptable (a /0.51).
Following a statistical examination of each item on
this scale, an item that appeared problematic with
the present sample (‘‘How confident are you that you
can exercise when you are in a bad mood?’’) was
removed, resulting in an acceptable reliability
(a
/0.82). Thus, only seven items on the barrier
self-efficacy scale were included in subsequent
analyses.]
In addition to the EIQ and the SEQE, participants
were asked to provide demographic information
including age and gender. Participants were also
asked to indicate their primary type of exercise
activity (walking, strength training, or other) by
circling the appropriate response on the question-
naire and by providing a written response if they
circled ‘‘other’’.
Procedures
Ethics approval was obtained from the Office of
Research Ethics at the university where the study
was conducted. Participants were contacted either
immediately before or just after their respective
exercise classes. At this time, the participants were
provided with a letter of information and a descrip-
tion of the study, were informed that participation
was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any
time, and were asked to complete the EIQ, SEQE,
and demographic information described above. In
total, the questionnaires took approximately 10 min
to complete. Completion of the questionnaires
indicated consent, and the participants returned
the questionnaires immediately to the researcher.
Results
Descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses
Descriptive statistics and simple correlations for each
variable are listed in Table I. Initially, two separate
multivariate analyses of variance were conducted to
determine whether gender influenced either self-
efficacy or imagery use. These analyses were under-
taken as a result of evidence from Lirgg, George,
Chase and Ferguson (1996), who found that self-
efficacy can differ as a function of gender, and from
Gammage et al. (2000), who reported gender
differences in relation to imagery use. In the present
study, no gender differences were found for either
self-efficacy or imagery use (P
/0.05). Thus, male
and female responses were combined for all subse-
quent analyses.
Next, a repeated-measures analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to determine whether
differences existed between the three SEQE sub-
scales (task, barrier, and scheduling). Results re-
vealed differences between all three subscales
(F
2,90
/19.54, PB/ 0.01). Specifically, participants
were most efficacious in terms of the task, followed
by scheduling physical activity into their daily
routines, and finally overcoming barriers related to
physical activity.
A second repeated-measures ANOVA was also
performed to determine whether participants dif-
fered in their use of imagery. Results showed that
participants reported using appearance and techni-
que imagery to about the same extent, but used both
more than energy imagery (F
2,90
/23.77, PB/ 0.01).
It should be noted that the means for imagery use in
Table I. Descriptive statistics and correlations (n /92).
Variable Mean s 23456
1. Task self-efficacy 83.03 11.28 0.61** 0.52** 0.13 0.11 0.25*
2. Barrier self-efficacy 74.08 17.20 * 0.64** 0.05 0.02 0.12
3. Scheduling self-efficacy 79.46 13.43 * 0.02 0.08 0.16*
4. Technique imagery 5.32 3.08 * 0.61** 0.65**
5. Appearance imagery 5.35 2.64 * 0.68**
6. Energy imagery 4.01 2.52 *
Note : Task, barrier, and scheduling self-efficacy were rated on a confidence scale ranging from 0% to 100% with higher values indicating
greater perceptions of self-efficacy. Technique, appearance, and energy imagery were scored on a scale of 1 to 9 with higher values indicating
greater imagery use. * P B
/0.05; ** P B/0.01.
200 N. N. Wesch et al.
the present study are similar to those reported by
Milne et al. (in press) for a comparable sample of
older adults.
Self-efficacy and imagery use
To examine the relationship between self-efficacy
and imagery use, a series of three hierarchical
regression analyses was conducted (see Table I for
the statistics associated with these analyses). For task
self-efficacy, technique imagery was entered into the
regression equation followed by appearance imagery
and then energy imagery. Results showed that
technique imagery did not predict task self-efficacy
(P
/0.05), and accounted for only 2% of the
variance. Appearance imagery did not account for
any additional variance and was not statistically
significant (P
/0.05). Energy imagery accounted
for an additional 5% of the variance (R
2
/7%) and
was found to be a significant predictor of task self-
efficacy (F
1,88
/4.40, P B/0.05).
For both barrier and scheduling self-efficacy,
energy imagery was entered first in the regression
equation, followed by appearance imagery and
technique imagery. Results revealed that all three
uses of imagery failed to predict either barrier or
scheduling self-efficacy (P
/0.05). Interestingly,
although non-significant, an examination of the
standardized regression weights revealed a common
trend in that energy imagery was the strongest
predictor of both barrier (b
/0.21, P/0.19) and
scheduling (b
/0.25, P /0.11) self-efficacy.
Discussion
Three different types of self-efficacy have been
considered in the exercise psychology literature:
task, barrier, and scheduling (DuCharme & Brawley,
1995; Rodgers et al., 2002a; Rodgers & Sullivan,
2001). Since these three types of self-efficacy have
yet to be assessed in an older adult population, one
aim of the present study was to measure these types
of self-efficacy in a sample of older exercisers (65
/
years of age). Based on previous research with
younger exercisers (Rodgers & Sullivan, 2001), it
was hypothesized that participants would be highest
in task self-efficacy and would have less but similar
barrier and scheduling self-efficacy. A slightly differ-
ent pattern of results emerged than hypothesized. As
expected given the participants were all exercisers in
classes that had been ongoing for 6 weeks, they were
most efficacious in terms of the task (i.e. they were
quite confident they could do the exercises). How-
ever, they were higher in scheduling than barrier self-
efficacy. This finding should not be that surprising,
since these older exercisers probably would be quite
flexible in scheduling their exercise sessions com-
pared with their younger counterparts who would
have more scheduling constraints (e.g. work, looking
after young children). With respect to barriers, both
older and younger exercisers would face barriers,
although perhaps different ones (e.g. health issues
versus time constraints), and the confidence in their
ability to exercise despite these barriers will usually
be somewhat of a challenge (Rodgers & Sullivan,
2001).
With respect to imagery use, a slightly different
pattern of results was found in the present study than
previously reported. Milne et al. (in press) found
that older adults employed appearance imagery the
most, followed by technique and then energy ima-
gery. In the present study, exercisers used appear-
ance and technique imagery to about the same
extent, and used energy imagery the least. Research
(Gammage et al., 2000; Rodgers et al., 2001) has
consistently shown that young exercisers use appear-
ance imagery the most, possibly reflecting a strong
appearance motive for exercising. Although appear-
ance seems to be an important motive for older
adults to exercise, older people tend to be more
satisfied with their appearance than younger indivi-
duals (Hetherington & Burnett, 1994; Pliner, Chai-
ken, & Flett, 1990). Thus, it follows that older
exercisers would use less appearance imagery than
younger exercisers and this has been shown to be the
case (Milne et al., in press). However, why older
exercisers in the present study reported using less
appearance imagery (mean
/ 5.35) than those in
study of the Milne et al. (mean
/6.15) is not clear.
A second aim of the present study was to examine
the relationship between imagery use and self-
efficacy in older exercisers. Results revealed that
contrary to what was expected, technique imagery
did not predict task self-efficacy. This is surprising
Table II. The relationship between imagery use and self-efficacy:
Summary statistics for hierarchical regression analyses (n /92).
Imagery subscale RR
2
R
2
change
b
Task self-efficacy
Technique 0.13 0.02 0.02
/0.02
Appearance 0.14 0.02 0.00 /0.10
Energy 0.26 0.07 0.05 0.32*
Barrier self-efficacy
Energy 0.12 0.02 0.02 00.21
Appearance 0.15 0.02 0.01
/0.11
Technique 0.15 0.02 0.00
/0.02
Scheduling self-efficacy
Energy 0.16 0.02 0.02 0.25
Appearance 0.16 0.03 0.00
/0.01
Technique 0.19 0.04 0.01 /0.13
Note : The imagery subscales are presented in the order in which
they were entered into the regression equations. * P B
/0.05.
Self-efficacy and imagery use 201
considering the fact that both variables are asso-
ciated primarily with the task aspect(s) of an activity.
One explanation for this finding is that technique
imagery entails visualizing the proper performance
of the exercise movements, and after 6 weeks of
classes the participants were likely already very
familiar with these movements. Therefore, at this
point in time technique imagery would probably
have little influence on participants’ self-efficacy for
performing these movements.
Results also revealed that appearance imagery did
not predict task self-efficacy, whereas energy imagery
was a significant predictor. The lack of a correspon-
dence between the use of appearance imagery and
task self-efficacy was expected since appearance
imagery serves primarily a motivational rather than
a cognitive function (Hausenblas et al., 1999).
Although the link between energy imagery and task
self-efficacy is also not readily apparent, previous
research (e.g. Giacobbi, Hausenblas, Fallon, & Hall,
2003) has suggested that exercisers have expressed
the need to get ‘‘psyched up’’ or ‘‘energized’’ before
exercising. Furthermore, Rodgers et al. (2001)
demonstrated that despite high ratings of appearance
imagery relative to technique and energy imagery,
energy imagery emerged as the strongest predictor of
obligatory exercise behaviour. Thus, the present
results further emphasize the importance of energy
imagery in relation to exercise behaviour in that,
although the use of energy imagery was lower than
the use of appearance or technique imagery, visua-
lizing feelings of being ‘‘energized’’ or ‘‘psyched
up’’ was the strongest predictor of individuals’
confidence in their ability to physically engage in
exercise.
It was also hypothesized that imaging being
energized should help exercisers overcome common
barriers such as being too tired and unmotivated to
exercise. In contrast to this hypothesis, the use of
energy imagery failed to predict barrier self-efficacy
and also failed to predict scheduling self-efficacy.
This is somewhat perplexing considering that lack of
energy has been found to be the main barrier to
exercise for adults over 65 years of age (Canadian
Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute, 1996a). Of
course, lack of energy is just one barrier and is one
that is likely to dissipate the more people exercise
(i.e. regular exercise increases energy levels). How-
ever, it is possible that the other types of barriers that
energy imagery might help exercisers overcome are
not the ones that present the greatest challenges to
older exercisers. Research has found that the other
commonly reported barriers by older exercisers
include health, environmental, and ecological factors
(Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute,
1996a). Confidence to overcome these types of
barriers is less likely to be influenced by the use of
energy imagery.
The present study is not without its limitations.
First, the sample of older exercisers used in the
present study is not representative of the general
population of older adults considering that less than
one in four individuals over the age of 65 are
physically active (Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle
Research Institute, 1996b). Also, because mastery
experiences have been identified as a strong deter-
minant of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997), a second
limitation associated with the present study is
the failure to control for participants’ exercise
experience.
Since the present study has demonstrated that
older adults differ in the three types of self-efficacy
(i.e. task, barrier, and scheduling), future research
with this population should consider all three types
of self-efficacy when examining exercise intention
and behaviour. While McAuley et al. (2003) found
that self-efficacy increases the long-term exercise
participation of older adults, it is likely that task,
barrier, and scheduling self-efficacy have differential
effects on this involvement. Since the present results
also revealed that energy imagery predicted task self-
efficacy, the use of energy imagery may be an
effective intervention that can be used to enhance
older adults’ confidence in their ability to exercise.
Researchers should design and implement interven-
tions with a primary emphasis on energy imagery
with the aim of increasing task self-efficacy and,
ultimately, exercise participation rates among older
adults.
Overall, the results of the present study show that
older adults are quite efficacious in terms of: (a) the
task, (b) scheduling physical activity into their daily
routines, and (c) overcoming barriers related to
physical activity. Older adults also appear to use all
three types of exercise imagery, and the use of energy
imagery significantly predicts task self-efficacy.
These findings suggest that additional research
investigating the three types of self-efficacy and
imagery in older exercisers would likely be worth-
while. A better understanding of self-efficacy and
imagery could potentially assist practitioners in their
attempts to encourage older adults to become more
physically active.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the staff and participants at the
Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging and the
Retired Researchers Activity Group, both located in
London, Ontario.
202 N. N. Wesch et al.
References
American College of Sports Medicine (1998). American College
of Sports Medicine Position Stand: Exercise and physical
activity for older adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise , 30 , 992 1008.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundation of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . New York:
W. H. Freeman.
Brassington, G., Atienza, A., Perczek, R., DiLorenzo, T., & King,
A. (2002). Intervention-related cognitive versus social media-
tors of exercise adherence in the elderly. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine , 23 ,8086.
Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute (1996a).
Barriers to physical activity. Progress in Prevention, Bulletin
#4. Ottawa: CFLRI.
Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute (1996b). How
active are Canadians? Progress in Prevention , Bulletin #1.
Ottawa: CFLRI.
Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute (2002). 2001
Physical Activity Monitor . Ottawa: CFLRI.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004). Prevalence of
no leisure-time physical activity: 35 states and the District of
Columbia, 1988 2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report ,
53 ,8286.
Courneya, K. (1995). Perceived severity of the consequences of
physical inactivity across the stages of change in older adults.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17 , 447 457.
Department of Health (2000). Health survey for England 1998 .
London: The Stationery Office.
DuCharme, K., & Brawley, L. (1995). Predicting the intentions
and behaviour of exercise initiates using two forms of self-
efficacy. Journal of Behavioural Medicine , 18 , 479 497.
Eyler, A., Baker, E., Cromer, L., King, A., Brownson, R., &
Donatelle, R. (1998). Physical activity and minority women: A
qualitative study. Health Education and Behavior , 25 , 640 652.
Gammage, K. L., Hall, C. R., & Rodgers, W. M. (2000). More
about exercise imagery. The Sport Psychologist , 14 , 348 359.
Giacobbi, P. R., Hausenblas, H. A., Fallon, E. A., & Hall, C. R.
(2003). Even more about exercise imagery: An in-depth inter-
view study of exercise imagery. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology, 15 , 160 175.
Godin, G., Desharnais, R., Valois, P., Lepage, L., Jobin, J., &
Bradet, R. (1994). Differences in perceived barriers to exercise
between high and low intenders: Observations among different
populations. American Journal of Health Promotion , 8 ,
279 285.
Green, J., & Crouse, S. (1995). The effects of endurance training
on functional capacity in the elderly: Meta-analysis. Medicine
and Science in Sports and Exercise , 27 , 920 926.
Hall, C. R. (1995). The motivational function of mental imagery
for participation in sport and exercise. In J. Annett, B. Cripps,
& H. Steinberg (Eds.), Exercise addiction: Motivation for
participation in sport and exercise (pp. 15 21). Leicester, UK:
British Psychological Society.
Hausenblas, A., Hall, C., Rodgers, W., & Munroe, K. (1999).
Exercise imagery: Its nature and measurement. Journal of
Applied Sport Psychology, 11 , 171 180.
Hetherington, M., & Burnett, L. (1994). Aging and the pursuit of
slimness: Dietary restraint and weight satisfaction in elderly
women. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33 , 391 400.
King, A., Rejeski, J., & Buchner, D. (1998). Physical activity
interventions targeting older adults: A critical review and
recommendations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine ,
15 , 316 333.
Lirgg, C., George, T., Chase, M., & Ferguson, R. (1996). Impact
of conception of ability and sex-type task on male and female
self-efficacy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18 , 426
434.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Looking for common ground: A comment
on Kirsch and Bandura. In J. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy,
adaptation and adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp.
377 385). New York: Plenum.
Marcus, B. (1995). Exercise behavior and strategies for interven-
tion. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport , 66 , 319 323.
Marcus, B., Pinto, B., Simkin, L., Audrain, J., & Taylor, E.
(1994). Application of theoretical models to exercise behavior
among employed women. American Journal of Health Promo-
tion , 9 ,4955.
McAuley, E. (1993). Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise
participation in older adults. Journal of Behavioural Medicine ,
16 , 382 393.
McAuley, E., Jerome, G. J., Elavsky, S., Marquez, D. X., &
Ramsey, S. N. (2003). Predicting long-term maintenance of
physical activity in older adults. Preventive Medicine , 37 ,
110 118.
Milne, M., Burke, S., Hall, C., Nederhof, E., & Gammage, K. (in
press). Comparing the imagery use of older and younger adult
exercisers. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 25 ,5967.
O’Brien Cousins, S. (1997). Elderly tomboys? Sources of self-
efficacy for physical activity in late life. Journal of Aging and
Physical Activity, 5 , 229 243.
Pliner, P., Chaiken, S., & Flett, G. (1990). Gender differences in
concern with body weight and physical appearance over the life
span. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 16 , 263 273.
Province, M., Hadley, E., & Hornbrook, M. (1995). The effects of
exercise on falls in elderly patients: A preplanned meta-analysis
of the FICSIT Trials. Frailty and injuries cooperative studies of
intervention techniques. Journal of the American Medical Asso-
ciation , 273 , 1341 1347.
Rodgers, W. M., Hall, C. R., Blanchard, C. M., McAuley, E., &
Munroe, K. J. (2002a). Task and scheduling self-efficacy as
predictors of exercise behavior. Psychological Health , 17 , 405
416.
Rodgers, W. M., Hall, C. R., Blanchard, C. M., & Munroe, K. J.
(1999). The relationship between imagery and obligatory exercise.
Paper presented to the Canadian Psychomotor Learning and
Sport Psychology Conference, Edmonton, Canada.
Rodgers, W. M., Hall, C. R., Blanchard, C. M., & Munroe, K. J.
(2001). Prediction of obligatory exercise by exercise-related
imagery. Psychology and Addictive Behaviour , 15 , 152 154.
Rodgers, W., Gauvin, L. (1998). Heterogeneity of incentives for
physical activity and self-efficacy in highly active and moder-
ately active women excercisers. Journal of Social Psychology, 28 ,
1016 1029.
Rodgers, W., Munroe, K., & Hall, C. (2002b). Relations among
exercise imagery, self-efficacy, exercise behaviour and inten-
tions. Imagination. Cognition and Personality, 21 ,5565.
Rodgers, W., & Sullivan, M. (2001). Task, coping and scheduling
self-efficacy in relation to frequency of physical activity. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 31 , 741 753.
Schoenborn, C., & Barnes, P. (2002). Leisure-time physical activity
among adults: United States, 1997 98 . Hyattsville, MD: Na-
tional Center for Health Statistics.
Shephard, R. (1997). Aging, physical activity and health . Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Strauser, D. (1995). Application of self-efficacy theory in rehabi-
litation counselling. Journal of Rehabilitation , 61 ,711.
US Department of Health and Human Services (1991). Healthy
People 2000: National health promotion and disease prevention
objectives. Publication [PHS] 91-50212). Washington, DC:
Public Health Service.
Shephard, R. (1997). Aging, physical activity and health . Cham-
paign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Self-efficacy and imagery use 203
