Running motivations within different populations of Chilean urban runners

Background

In the past decade, the number of urban runners has considerably increased, specially considering its health-related benefits [1,2]. In Chile, running has been reported as the third most commonly used physical activity (11.9%) after soccer and physical fitness among physically active adults [3]. Motivation, a driving force to achieve personal goals [4], has been linked to exercise adherence and to the capacity of keeping a healthy life [5,6]. Many investigations have been conducted to study running motivations across runners [7–9] through different domains, such as health, personal goals, self-esteem, competition; founding a tendency from internal towards external factors among different experienced runners [10,11].

Even though running is an easily accessible activity, the knowledge of underlying motivational factors among runners could enhance promotion of physical activity participation, regarding that urban life may reduce an individual’s motivation for pursuing a better physical lifestyle. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyse motivations for sustaining a consistent running routine in different runner populations from Santiago de Chile using the Motivations of Marathoners Scales (MOMS-34). This is the first study examining the specific values of motivation in different runner groups in South America.

Methods

A cross-sectional study design using an online web-based survey was carried out. Urban runners over 18 years old were recruited from different sources in Santiago, including three municipal parks, two running races and four running clubs during October of 2015, collecting the emails of each interested participant. The parks were chosen randomly according to three different socioeconomic levels, and the sampling from the other two sources was non-probabilistic. The sample size was calculated expecting a 15% of marathon runners (according to the record from Santiago’s Marathon event in 2014 and 2015), with a confident level of 95% and significance set at 5%, estimating a sample size of 196 runners.

The online survey was delivered to all recruited runners (n = 517) using the Survey Monkey system to their email address. The survey collected information on: socio-demographics characteristics (sex, age and educational level), health (Body Mass Index and previous running-related injury in the last 12 months), training factors (weekly volume, frequency and hours of running training), characteristics associated to practice (years of running experience and runner’s self-perception: novice, recreational, track runner, road long distance runner, marathon runner, ultra-marathon runner and trail-runner) [12] and running motivation based on the 7 dimensions of the Motivations of Marathoners Scales (MOMS-34) [11], validated in its Spanish version [13]. This scale consists of 34 questions, grouped into 4 general categories: (1) psychological, (2) achievement, (3) social and (4) physical health reasons, which are divided into 7 specific dimensions: personal goals and competition, health-orientation, weight, recognition, affiliation, psychological goal, and meaning of life and self-esteem. Each dimension is reported on a 7-point Likert scale, where the subjects had to score from minor to major importance the motivation to run.

The motivational analysis was made according to sex and the runner’s self-perception previously described. Descriptive statistics and Spearman’s correlational measurements were analysed using STATA13.0. This study was approved by the Scientific Ethics Committee of Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile.

Results

The survey response rate was 46.6% (n = 241), where 47.3% were females, with a median age of 28 years (Interquartile Range [IQR] 23–39), Body Mass Index of 28 kg/m² (IQR 21.2–25.1), and 49.8% of runners reported more than 18 years of formal education. A previous running-related injury was reported in 54.4% of participants, occurring most frequently at the knee (25.8%) and ankle/foot (16.3%) segments. From the total of responses, 43.4% were self-reported as long distance runners (10–21km). Table 1 shows the description of socio-demographics, health and self-perception characteristics by sex.

Table 1. Description of socio-demographics, health and self-perception characteristics by sex.

	n	Total	Males (n = 127)	Females (n = 114)	p value
Age (years)^a	241	28 (23–39)	31 (23-40)	25.5 (23–35)	0.032*
BMI (kg/m^2)^a	241	28 (23–39)	24.1 (22.5–25.9)	22.3 (20.5–24.7)	0.0001*
Educational level^b	241		127	114	0.728
<8 years		4 (1.7)	1 (0.8)	3 (2.6)
Between 8–12 years		7 (2.9)	4 (3.1)	3 (2.6)
Between 12–18 years		110 (45.6)	58 (45.7)	52 (45.7)
>18 years		120 (49.8)	64 (50.4)	56 (49.1)
Previous injury (12 months)^b,c	131				0.192
Ankle/foot		41 (31.2)	25 (39.0)	16 (23.9)
Lower leg		28 (21.4)	12 (18.8)	16 (23.9)
Knee		63 (48.1)	33 (51.6)	30 (44.8)
Tight		23 (17.6)	10 (15.6)	13 (19.4)
Hip/pelvis		23 (17.6)	9 (14.1)	14 (20.9)
Lower back		23 (17.6)	10 (15.6)	13 (19.4)
Self-perception of runner [12]^b	221		116	105	0.001*
Novice		15 (6.8)	8 (6.9)	7 (6.7)
Recreational		45 (20.4)	17 (14.7)	28 (26.7)
Track		5 (2.3)	0 (0)	5 (4.7)
Road: long distance (10 km ≤42 km)		96 (43.4)	45 (38.8)	51 (48.6)
Marathon (42 km)		35 (15.8)	29 (25.0)	6 (5.7)
Ultra-marathon (>42 km)		4 (1.8)	2 (1.7)	2 (1.9)
Trail-runner/cross-country		21 (9.5)	15 (12.9)	6 (5.7)

Data presented with median (P₅₀) and Interquartile Range (IQR/P_25-75)^a, and absolute frequency and percentages (%)^b.

BMI: Body Mass Index; km: kilometres.

* p value < .05.

^a Mann–Whitney test.

^b Chi-2 test.

^c Multiple response.

Participants reported a median training frequency of 3 days/week (IQR 3–4), a median accumulative training volume of 30km/week (IQR 15–47) and a median of 3 years of running experience (IQR 2–5).

According to MOMS-34, the highest scores (>5 points) in both sexes were reported in the ‘Health-orientation’ and ‘Meaning-of-life and self-esteem’ dimensions, along with ‘Overcoming-personal-goals and competition’ in males. The lowest score for both sexes was ‘Recognition’. Table 2 shows the motivations of urban runners according to the Motivation of Marathoners Scales (MOMS-34) by sex. A positive weak correlation was observed between motivation-oriented-to-competition and training-volume (rho = 0.26; p < .05), along with a negative weak correlation between motivation-oriented-to-competition and age (rho= −0.27; p < .05). When analysing among different long distance runners, marathon, ultra-marathon and trail-runners exhibited ‘Meaning-of-life and self-esteem’ and ‘Psychological-goals’ as their main motivational dimensions. Figure 1 shows the radial graph of each score dimensions of MOMS-34 by type of runner.

Figure 1. Radial graph for each dimension’s score of the MOMS-34 by type of runner [12].

Table 2. Motivations of urban runners according to the Motivation of Marathoners Scales (MOMS-34) by sex.

	n	Total	Males (n = 118)	Females (n = 106)	p value
Health-orientation	224	5.3±1.4 5.8 (4.5-6.5)	5.3±1.4 5.5 (4.5-6.5)	5.4±1.5 5.9 (4.5-6.8)	.414
Meaning of life and self-esteem	224	5.1±1.4 5.5 (4.3-6.3)	4.9±1.5 5.0 (4.0-6.2)	5.4±1.4 5.7 (4.5-6.5)	.017*
Personal goals and competition	224	4.7±1.4 4.8 (3.5-5.8)	4.8±1.5 5.1 (3.5-6.0)	4.5±1.4 4.7 (3.5-5.7)	.076
Weight	224	3.9±1.8 4.0 (2.3-5.3)	3.5±1.8 3.2 (2.0-5.0)	4.2±1.7 4.3 (2.7-5.7)	.008*
Psychological goals	224	4.0±1.9 4.0 (2.3-5.3)	4.0±1.8 4.3 (2.7-5.3)	3.9±2.0 4.0 (2.0-5.7)	.842
Affiliation	224	3.5±1.5 3.4 (2.3-4.7)	3.4±1.5 3.3 (2.2-4.5)	3.6±1.6 3.7 (2.5-4.8)	.342
Recognition	224	1.9±1.1 1.3 (1.0-2.3)	2.0±1.3 1.5 (1.0-2.7)	1.8±1.0 1.3 (1.0-2.2)	.760

Data presented with median (P₅₀) and Interquartile Range (IQR/P_25–75) and mean ± standard deviation.

MOMS-34: Motivations of Marathoners Scales – 34.

* p value < .05, Mann–Whitney test.

Discussion

Runners motivations reported in this study were consistent with other findings, even within sex differences [8,13,14]. Health-orientation was the dimension with the highest score and presents a great opportunity for promotion and encouragement to maintain adherence to exercise. On the other hand, recognition was always the dimension with the lowest score, either by sex or type of runner, which implies that there is a low social motivation.

Different from previous studies, our research included a broad spectrum of runner types, and not only marathon runners [15]. The volume and frequency of training as well as the years of running experience were variables that contributed to the internal consistency of the self-classification, since less experienced runners (such as novice and recreational) reported lower years and weekly training workload. Also, more experienced runners (such as marathon, ultra-marathon and trail runners) reported the highest volumes, training frequency and years of practice. This internal consistency supports the heterogeneity of runner type and justifies the study of its motivations, as well as previous results of predictive models [16].

The main motivation for novice, recreational, track and road long distance runners was health-orientation; for marathon and trail runners was meaning of life and self-esteem, while for ultra-marathon runners was both psychological goals and meaning of life and self-esteem. The dominance of psychological reasons within this last population is consistent with the findings of Ogles et al. [10], where motivation has a changing pattern within the development of the marathon runner’s life that allows them to maintain this activity, which is associated with a great effort and sacrifice.

It is important to note that personal goals-competition dimension is one of the main motivations reported, in addition to those described above, and it is presented transversally among different runners. This is relevant for Chilean population, since possible strategies of adherence to exercise and promotion of physical activity could be approached through events or competitions of running and trail running, which would allow participation through accessible circuits and distances with a global interest.

Finally, our results could guide further studies to establish a balanced or quota sampling to identify greater representativeness of different types of runners, since their motivations are different.

Conclusion

The most important motivational dimension for all runners was ‘Health-orientation’ and the least one was ‘Recognition’, finding some differences across runner’s population. Additionally, goals and competition-based motivation appears particularly important to males.

Implications

Runner’s motivations are important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Knowing their habits and behaviours could help health-related professionals in choosing strategies that promote physical activity through running.

Acknowledgements

This work was unfunded, but we acknowledge to the School of Physical Therapy of Universidad del Desarrollo, for its support through the process.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.