Scheduling self-efficacy surpasses motivational constructs in explaining physical activity adherence in non-Hispanic Black men

Abstract

Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) men engage in less aerobic physical activity (PA) and are less likely to meet national guidelines than non-Hispanic White men, despite PA’s protective benefits against chronic disease. This study examined psychosocial factors associated with meeting PA guidelines among NHB men. A total of 134 participants (M = 36.7 years, SD = 9.8) were recruited via social media and completed validated measures of motivation, psychological needs, and self-efficacy. Forward stepwise logistic regression identified scheduling self-efficacy as the strongest independent correlate of meeting PA guidelines (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.49–3.57), above intrinsic motivation, autonomy, and competence. These findings suggest that the ability to manage time and integrate PA into daily routines may be more critical than motivation alone. PA interventions for NHB men may benefit from focusing on planning strategies, self-regulatory skills, and culturally relevant community support to improve engagement and reduce health disparities.

Keywords

physical activity engagement non-Hispanic Black men psychosocial factors scheduling self-efficacy self-determination theory health disparities leisure-time physical activity

Introduction

Aerobic physical activity (PA) is widely recognized as being critical to good health, offering numerous benefits such as reduced risk of chronic disease, improved mental well-being, and increased longevity. Current national guidelines recommend at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic, in addition to muscle-strengthening activities on two or more days per week (Piercy et al., 2018). The present study focuses specifically on the aerobic component of these guidelines, given its strong association with key health outcomes and its role in national surveillance data. Despite these well-documented benefits, engagement in aerobic PA remains suboptimal across populations, particularly in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) men. According to 2020 National Health Interview Survey data, about 48.8% of non-Hispanic White (NHW) men and 44.6% of NHB men reported meeting the national aerobic PA guidelines (Elgaddal et al., 2022). While this gap appears modest, more detailed analyses reveal that NHB men engage in 26% less non-work PA and 37% less leisure-time PA (LTPA) than NHW men yet perform 9% more work-related PA—likely due to employment in more physically demanding occupations (Saffer et al., 2013). Importantly, LTPA is more strongly linked to positive health outcomes, whereas work-related PA may offer limited or even adverse effects on health (Kukkonen-Harjula, 2007; Quinn et al., 2022), potentially exacerbating health disparities in NHB men.

These differences are especially concerning given the elevated burden of chronic conditions among NHB men. For instance, hypertension affects 58.4% of NHB men versus 50.1% of NHW men, with NHB men developing it earlier and achieving poorer blood pressure control (Fryar et al., 2024). NHB men also face double the risk of first-time stroke and experience higher stroke mortality (Benjamin et al., 2019). While myocardial infarction (MI) incidence is similar or slightly lower in NHB men, outcomes are worse, with lower rates of evidence-based treatment (Cram et al., 2009). Type 2 diabetes is more prevalent in NHB men compared to NHW (24.9% vs 17%, respectively), and NHB men are at greater risk for severe complications such as kidney failure and amputations (Bullard et al., 2018). Additionally, prostate cancer occurs nearly 1.5 times more often in NHB men and carries a significantly higher mortality rate compared to NHW men (Siegel et al., 2022).

Given the disproportionate burden of chronic diseases among NHB men and the critical role of PA in mitigating these risks, it is essential to examine the psychosocial barriers and facilitators associated with their PA engagement. PA reduces the risk of hypertension, stroke, and MI by enhancing cardiovascular function and lowering systemic inflammation, with benefits including a 5–7 mmHg reduction in blood pressure, and a 20%–30% decreased risk of stroke and MI (Chu et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2003; Winzer et al., 2018). PA has been shown to significantly reduce mental health variables including stress, anxiety, depression, feelings of psychological distress, and negative mood, while also improving self-esteem, mood, and overall well-being (Piercy et al., 2018; Rebar et al., 2015; Smith and Merwin, 2021). Furthermore, aerobic PA has been shown to be essential in strengthening mental and social well-being (Smith and Merwin, 2021).

Psychosocial factors such as self-efficacy, motivation, and self-regulation have been identified as key determinants of PA engagement (Biddle and Mutrie, 2007; Cortis et al., 2017; Dishman et al., 1985). Self-efficacy, defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a specific behavior, has been positively associated with PA participation, as higher confidence in one’s ability to exercise increases the likelihood of consistent engagement (Bandura, 1977). Similarly, motivation plays a crucial role in shaping PA behavior. Autonomous motivation, where individuals engage in PA due to personal enjoyment or perceived value, is a stronger correlate of sustained PA participation than controlled motivation, which is driven by external rewards or obligations (Duncan et al., 2010; Teixeira et al., 2012). According to Self-Determination Theory, supportive social environments can enhance autonomous motivation by satisfying psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Biddle and Nigg, 2000; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Teixeira et al., 2012).

Despite several studies on the psychosocial factors associated with PA in NHW, and NHB women, there is a paucity of information on the psychosocial correlates of PA in NHB men. The current study builds on existing research by examining both general psychosocial correlates of PA and the distinct roles of task, coping, and scheduling self-efficacy, three modifiable self-regulatory skills (McAuley, 1992). Task self-efficacy reflects confidence in performing the PA itself (e.g., jogging, lifting weights); coping self-efficacy involves managing barriers such as stress or fatigue; and scheduling self-efficacy pertains to the ability to prioritize and organize time for regular activity. These specific forms of self-efficacy may offer deeper insight into how NHB men navigate and sustain PA behaviors.

Given the aforementioned gaps and the limited focus on these psychosocial mechanisms in NHB men, the current study aimed to examine how self-determined motivation, psychological needs satisfaction, and distinct forms of self-efficacy relate to meeting aerobic PA guidelines in this population. We hypothesized that participants reporting greater satisfaction of psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), higher levels of intrinsic motivation, and greater task, coping, and scheduling self-efficacy would be more likely to meet aerobic PA guidelines. Conversely, we expected that lower need satisfaction, lower intrinsic motivation, and higher levels of controlled motivation (e.g., external or introjected regulation) would be associated with not meeting PA guidelines.

Methods

Participant recruitment and procedures

NHB men were recruited via targeted social media advertisements on Facebook, a widely used platform for engaging diverse demographic groups. Promotional posts directed potential participants to a Qualtrics survey, where they completed eligibility screening before accessing the full survey. While all respondents were based in the United States, geographic location was not restricted; participants were only required to read English. To qualify, individuals had to self-identify as NHB men between 18 and 80 years old, be proficient in written English, have internet access and an active email address, and report being able to walk ¼ mile without assistance, a criterion to ensure capability for ambulatory aerobic PA.

Eligible participants were asked to provide an email address to which the survey link was sent. Upon accessing the survey, they were first directed to an informed consent document, which required their consent before proceeding. All participants provided electronic informed consent prior to participation. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (IRB #22-06854-XM). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Individuals who declined consent were thanked for their time and exited the study.

Data collection took place between February and June 2022 using a comprehensive questionnaire that assessed demographics, PA history, and psychosocial determinants of PA through previously validated instruments: the Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3 (BREQ-3), the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES), and the Multidimensional Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES). To ensure data integrity, responses underwent automated checks, including IP address verification and reCAPTCHA screening to prevent submissions by “bots” (i.e., autonomous programs on the internet that can interact with systems or users). Upon survey completion, participants were compensated with a $10 electronic gift card from a national retailer.

Data collection and measures

This study employed a cross-sectional, exploratory design to investigate multiple psychosocial determinants of aerobic PA engagement among NHB men. Demographic data, including educational level and employment status were collected to provide a comprehensive profile of participants.

PA engagement was measured using six questions from the 2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) on LTPA, which classified respondents as meeting or not meeting PA guidelines (National Center for Health Statistics, 2019). The survey gathered data on the type, frequency, and duration of LTPA, including specific questions about vigorous and moderate-intensity activities. Example NHIS question: “How many times per week do you engage in vigorous physical activities that cause heavy sweating or large increases in breathing or heart rate?” Respondents selected from a range of frequencies (e.g., 0, 1–2, 3–4, 5+ times per week). Combined with responses about the duration of these activities, data were used to determine whether participants met national guidelines for aerobic PA.

To comprehensively assess psychosocial factors influencing PA engagement, three validated instruments were chosen for their relevance to motivation, psychological needs, and self-efficacy in the contexts of exercise. The internal consistency of the survey measures, as shown in Table 1, demonstrated acceptable to excellent reliability across subscales.

Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3 (BREQ-3): Measures six motivational subtypes on a 0–4 Likert scale (Markland and Tobin, 2004; Wilson et al., 2006). Example item: “I exercise because I enjoy it.” Anchors: 0 = Not true for me at all, 4 = Very true for me.

Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale (BPNES): Evaluates autonomy, competence, and relatedness on a 1–5 scale (Deci and Ryan, 2000; Vlachopoulos and Michailidou, 2006). Example item: “I feel competent when I exercise.” Anchors: 1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree.

Multidimensional Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (MSES): Assesses task, coping, and scheduling self-efficacy on a 10-point scale (Rodgers et al., 2008). Example item: “I am confident that I can schedule my exercise sessions each week.” Anchors: 0 = Not confident at all, 10 = Completely confident.

Table 1.

Internal consistency of psychosocial measures (Cronbach’s alpha).

Measure	Cronbach’s alpha
BREQ-3 (overall)	0.86
Intrinsic motivation	0.87
Identified regulation	0.81
Introjected regulation	0.77
External regulation	0.80
Amotivation	0.65
BPNES (overall)	0.91
Autonomy	0.82
Competence	0.80
Relatedness	0.78
MSES (overall)	0.88
Task self-efficacy	0.92
Coping self-efficacy	0.77
Scheduling self-efficacy	0.88

Note. Cronbach’s alpha values were interpreted using the following guidelines: ≥0.90 = excellent, 0.80–0.89 = good, 0.70–0.79 = acceptable, 0.60–0.69 = questionable, 0.50–0.59 = poor, and <0.50 = unacceptable (George and Mallery, 2019).

BREQ-3: behavioral regulation in exercise questionnaire-3; BPNES: basic psychological needs in exercise scale; MSES: multidimensional exercise self-efficacy scale.

Group comparisons between PA adherers and non-adherers were conducted using independent samples t-tests (see Table 3).

Statistical analysis

Analyses were conducted using IBM^® SPSS Statistics version 28 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics—including means, standard deviations, ranges, and frequencies—were used to summarize demographic characteristics and PA behaviors.

Prior to conducting inferential analyses, assumptions for t-tests and logistic regression were examined. The t-test data appeared normally distributed with homogeneity of variance between groups. For logistic regression, multi-collinearity diagnostics indicated that the correlates were not highly intercorrelated, and no extreme outliers were detected. These checks confirmed the appropriateness of the planned analyses.

To examine associations between psychosocial factors and meeting aerobic PA guidelines, forward stepwise logistic regression was used. This method was selected due to the binary outcome variable (meeting vs not meeting guidelines). Effect sizes were reported as odds ratios (ORs), interpreted according to conventional benchmarks: OR = 1.5 (small), 2.5 (moderate), and 4.3 (large; Cohen, 2013). Statistical significance and estimate precision were evaluated using p-values (α = 0.05) and 95% confidence intervals. Internal consistency for all psychological scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, with values ≥0.70 considered acceptable for reliability (Tavakol and Dennick, 2011).

Results

Participant characteristics and meeting of physical activity guidelines

Of the 1361 individuals screened, 91.9% met the inclusion criteria. A total of 838 respondents initiated the PA and psychosocial determinants survey, with 46% (n = 392) providing high-quality responses based on reCAPTCHA scores above 0.5 and duplicate scores below 1. Additional data validation steps included verification questions, such as asking participants for their age and birth year separately to ensure consistency, and screening for duplicate IP addresses. After removing low-quality responses, 134 valid responses remained, resulting in a final completion rate of 15.9%.

The mean age of participants was 36.7 years (SD = 9.8), with a self-reported body mass index (BMI) of 24.9 kg/m² (SD = 5.9). Full demographic details found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Participant demographics and PA engagement.

Variable	Value (n = 134)
Age (years, mean ± SD)	36.7 ± 9.8
BMI (kg/m², mean ± SD)	24.9 ± 5.9
Education level (%)	No college degree: 40.3
	Bachelors: 35.1
	Graduate: 24.6
Employment status (%)	Employed: 86.6
Employment status (%)	Unemployed: 13.4
PA engagement (%)	Met guidelines: 59.7
PA engagement (%)	Did not meet: 40.3

Note. All measures were self-reported via online surveys. Employed includes both full-time and part-time employment.

BMI = body mass index, derived from self-reported hight and weight; PA = physical activity; SD = standard deviation.

Psychosocial determinants of physical activity

Group comparisons, as detailed in Table 3, revealed significant differences in several psychosocial factors between individuals meeting and not meeting PA guidelines. Participants who met the guidelines reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and introjected regulation, as well as greater autonomy and competence. They also demonstrated higher scheduling and task self-efficacy. In contrast, no significant group differences were observed for relatedness, coping self-efficacy, or amotivation.

Table 3.

Group differences in psychosocial factors between PA adherers and non-adherers.

Variable	Mean (adherers; n = 80)	Mean (non-adherers; n = 54)	Cohen’s d	p-Value
Intrinsic motivation	3.4	2.8	0.72	0.001
Identified regulation	3.2	2.5	0.70	0.003
Introjected regulation	2.9	2.3	0.63	0.002
External regulation	1.8	2.4	−0.65	0.017
Amotivation	1.6	1.8	−0.23	0.128
Autonomy	4.1	3.6	0.62	0.001
Competence	3.9	3.3	0.66	0.003
Coping self-efficacy	5.7	5.4	0.19	0.201
Scheduling self-efficacy	8.7	6.2	1.12	<0.001
Task self-efficacy	5.7	6.2	−0.48	0.008

Note. Group differences were analyzed using independent samples t-tests. Higher scores reflect greater endorsement of each psychosocial factor. Cohen’s d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 represent small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are bolded.

PA: physical activity.

Factors associated with PA engagement

The forward stepwise logistic regression results, summarized in Table 4, confirmed scheduling self-efficacy as the strongest correlate of PA engagement (p < 0.001, OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.49–3.57). The final model correctly classified 64.9% of cases, with 79.7% accuracy for individuals meeting PA guidelines. Other variables, such as autonomy (p = 0.137), competence (p = 0.159), intrinsic motivation (p = 0.111), and introjected regulation (p = 0.062), were initially significant but did not remain in the final model after adjusting for scheduling self-efficacy.

Table 4.

Logistic regression results for PA engagement correlates.

Correlate	Odds ratio (OR)	95% CI	p-Value
Scheduling self-efficacy	2.31	1.49–3.57	<0.001
Intrinsic motivation	1.45	1.10–1.92	0.111
Identified regulation	1.62	1.21–2.14	0.062
Autonomy	1.25	0.89–1.75	0.137
Competence	1.3	0.94–1.81	0.159

Note. Odds ratios (ORs) reflect the likelihood of meeting PA guidelines associated with each correlate. ORs = 1.5, 2.5, and 4.3 represent small, moderate, and large effect sizes, respectively (Cohen, 2013). Significant correlates (p < 0.05) are bolded.

PA: physical activity.

These findings indicate that while psychological needs and motivation play an important role in PA engagement, scheduling self-efficacy is the most influential factor in determining whether individuals meet PA guidelines.

Discussion

This investigation into the psychosocial determinants of meeting aerobic PA guidelines among NHB men provided several insights that contributed to understanding PA behaviors within this population. As in previous research studies on the role of basic psychological needs and motivational states in understanding PA behaviors across various populations (Teixeira et al., 2012), our findings similarly highlight the association of intrinsic motivation and autonomy on meeting aerobic PA guidelines among NHB men. Contrary to initial expectations, intrinsic motivation, competence, and autonomy did not remain significant correlates in the final regression model. These findings potentially challenge core assumptions of Self-Determination Theory, which suggests that intrinsic motivation—engaging in activities for their inherent satisfaction and pleasure—plays a key role in maintaining health-promoting behaviors.

These findings contribute to the literature by identifying scheduling self-efficacy as a particularly salient correlate of aerobic PA adherence in NHB men, an insight that has received limited attention in previous research. Unlike many studies that emphasize general motivational constructs (e.g., intrinsic motivation or autonomy), this study highlights a practical, behaviorally specific factor that may be more directly actionable in real-world interventions. By centering on a culturally relevant and potentially modifiable factor, this work offers a novel direction for tailored intervention strategies in NHB men.

The forward stepwise logistic regression analysis identified scheduling self-efficacy as the strongest correlate of meeting PA guidelines. In practice, this finding means that an individual’s ability to manage time and overcome scheduling barriers may be more influential than intrinsic motivation in maintaining an active lifestyle. Data show that many NHB men balance work, family, and community responsibilities, leaving limited time for LTPA (Griffith et al., 2014). A lack of strategies to address time and environmental constraints has been cited as a major barrier to PA in this group (Cornish et al., 2017). To counter this, interventions should focus on building skills and providing support for integrating exercise into daily routines. For example, time-management training and structured planning tools (e.g., calendars, mobile apps with reminders) can help individuals carve out consistent workout times. Coaching or counseling interventions might guide participants in developing weekly exercise plans and problem-solving around conflicts (e.g., how to fit a brisk walk during lunch breaks). These approaches align with Social Cognitive Theory and have shown to be promising in increasing clients’ self-efficacy as they master scheduling challenges (Bandura, 2004).

A systematic review by Griffith et al. (2018) recommends that interventions consider how race and gender identity influence the motivation to be active in men of color, and tailor strategies accordingly (Griffith et al., 2018). Mobile health interventions are another promising avenue: smartphone apps and text-messaging programs have been used to support exercise by sending reminders, tracking progress, and fostering virtual support networks. Early trials in NHB populations show improvements in PA-related psychosocial outcomes with app-based lifestyle coaching (Brewer et al., 2022; Cyriac et al., 2021). Practitioners can leverage digital tools to enhance scheduling strategies, such as using calendar alerts for workouts, while also delivering culturally tailored encouragement at scale.

It should be noted that while intrinsic motivation and psychological needs (such as competence and autonomy) are theorized to drive sustained exercise (Deci and Ryan, 2000), in our study they did not emerge as significant independent correlates once scheduling self-efficacy was accounted for. This does not mean that enjoyment or personal value in exercise is unimportant—indeed, those factors are likely help initiate and maintain activity—but rather that practical barriers can overshadow motivation. In resource-constrained settings, a man might highly value exercise yet still fail to engage if he cannot find time or routine. Therefore, PA interventions for NHB men should couple efforts to boost motivation (e.g., helping participants connect exercise to their core values and health goals) with concrete time-management and problem-solving techniques. By doing so, both the “will” and the “way” of exercise behavior are addressed.

This study provides valuable insights into the psychosocial factors influencing aerobic PA engagement among NHB men; however, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the cross-sectional design prevents conclusions about causal relationships between the correlates and meeting aerobic PA guidelines. Second, reliance on self-reported data may have introduced reporting bias, as participants might have over- or under-estimated their aerobic PA compared to objective measurements. Third, aerobic PA was assessed using items aligned with national guidelines, which focus exclusively on LTPA. This approach does not capture other forms of activity—such as household, incidental, or transportation PA—which may be especially relevant for this population given their greater likelihood of engaging in physically demanding work. Although LTPA is more strongly associated with positive health outcomes, excluding these other domains may lead to an underestimation of total activity and an incomplete understanding of behavior patterns. Future research should incorporate broader assessments that account for all domains of PA to provide a more comprehensive and culturally relevant picture of PA engagement.

Despite these limitations, the findings suggest that psychosocial factors, particularly scheduling self-efficacy, may play an important role in supporting sustained engagement in aerobic PA among NHB men, indicating that time management and planning could be valuable components of future interventions. Future research should expand on these findings through longitudinal intervention studies to establish causal relationships and evaluate tailored strategies. The current findings underscore the need to design interventions that not only foster intrinsic motivation but also build practical skills for integrating PA into daily life. This could involve providing coaching to NHB men on effective time management skills and implementing strategies to overcome scheduling barriers, thereby supporting consistent engagement aerobic PA.

Conclusion

Despite the well-documented benefits of aerobic PA, NHB men continue to engage in PA at lower rates than other demographic groups, contributing to persistent health disparities. The current study identified scheduling self-efficacy as the most influential factor in meeting recommended levels of PA, emphasizing the importance of time management and structured planning in fostering consistent exercise engagement. While intrinsic motivation, competence, and autonomy contribute to PA behaviors, they did not independently predict whether the current participants met PA guidelines when scheduling self-efficacy was accounted for.

To address these findings, PA and public health interventions should move beyond simply promoting exercise benefits and focus on practical solutions for overcoming logistical and psychosocial barriers. Strategies such as personalized coaching, goal-setting support, mobile app-based reminders, and culturally relevant group programs may enhance both motivation and the ability to sustain PA participation. By strengthening scheduling confidence and integrating PA into daily routines, tailored interventions can help NHB men achieve sustained aerobic PA, ultimately reducing health disparities related to cardiovascular and metabolic diseases. The role of psychosocial factors- particularly scheduling self-efficacy should be considered when developing and refining PA programs for this population.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our sincere gratitude to Dr. Kelley Strohacker for her invaluable contributions to this study. Her expertise in psychological contructs and survey methodology provided critical insights that enriched the depth and rigor of our research.

ORCID iD

Alvin L. Morton

Ethical considerations

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville’s IRB approved the study (IRB #22-06854-XM), ensuring adherence to ethical standards for human research, including informed consent and participant confidentiality maintenance.

Consent to participate

All participants provided electronic informed consent prior to participation. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

This manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images, or videos).

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this research was provided by the Department of Kinesiology, Recreation, and Sport Studies within the College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences at the University of Tennessee Knoxville, which supported participant engagement through the provision of gift cards.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the author upon reasonable request. Due to privacy restrictions, the data are not publicly available. Interested researchers can contact the author to discuss the terms of access and usage.

References

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura

(2004) Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior 31(2): 143–164.

Benjamin

Muntner

Alonso

, et al. (2019) Heart disease and stroke statistics—2019 update: A report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 139(10): e56–e528.

Biddle

Mutrie

(2007) Psychology of Physical Activity: Determinants, Well-Being and Interventions. London, UK: Routledge.

Biddle

SJH

Nigg

(2000) Theories of exercise behavior. International Journal of Sport Psychology 31(2): 290–304.

Brewer

Jenkins

Hayes

, et al. (2022) Community-based, cluster-randomized pilot trial of a cardiovascular mobile health intervention: Preliminary findings of the FAITH! trial. Circulation 146(3): 175–190.

Bullard

Cowie

Lessem

, et al. (2018) Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in adults by diabetes type - United States, 2016. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 67(12): 359–361.

Chu

Al Rifai

Virani

, et al. (2020) The relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness, cardiovascular risk factors and atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis 304: 44–52.

Cohen

(2013) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. London, UK: Routledge.

10.

Cornish

McKissic

Dean

DAL

, et al. (2017) Lessons learned about motivation from a pilot physical activity intervention for African American men. Health Promotion Practice 18(1): 102–109.

11.

Cortis

Puggina

Pesce

, et al. (2017) Psychological determinants of physical activity across the life course: A “DEterminants of DIet and Physical Activity” (DEDIPAC) umbrella systematic literature review. PLoS One 12(8): e0182709.

12.

Cram

Bayman

Popescu

, et al. (2009) Racial disparities in revascularization rates among patients with similar insurance coverage. Journal of the National Medical Association 101(11): 1132–1139.

13.

Cyriac

Jenkins

Patten

, et al. (2021) Improvements in diet and physical activity-related psychosocial factors among African Americans using a mobile health lifestyle intervention to promote cardiovascular health: The FAITH! (Fostering African American Improvement in Total Health) app pilot study. JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth 9(11): e28024.

14.

Deci

Ryan

(2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): 227–268.

15.

Dishman

Sallis

Orenstein

(1985) The determinants of physical activity and exercise. Public Health Reports 100(2): 158–171.

16.

Duncan

Hall

Wilson

, et al. (2010) Exercise motivation: A cross-sectional analysis examining its relationships with frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 7: 1–9.

17.

Elgaddal

Kramarow

Reuben

(2022) Physical activity among adults aged 18 and over: United States, 2020. NCHS Data Brief (443): 1–8. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:120213.

18.

Fryar

Kit

Carroll

, et al. (2024) Hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control among adults ages 18 and older: United States, August 2021—August 2023. NCHS Data Brief 511: CS354233.

19.

George

Mallery

(2019) IBM SPSS Statistics 26 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. London, UK: Routledge.

20.

Griffith

Allen

Johnson-Lawrence

, et al. (2014) Men on the move: A pilot program to increase physical activity among African American men. Health Education & Behavior 41(2): 164–172.

21.

Griffith

Bergner

Cornish

, et al. (2018) Physical activity interventions with African American or Latino men: A systematic review. American Journal of Men’s health 12(4): 1102–1117.

22.

Kukkonen-Harjula

(2007) Physical activity and cardiovascular health—work and leisure differ. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health 33(6): 401–404.

23.

Lee

Folsom

Blair

(2003) Physical activity and stroke risk. Stroke 34(10): 2475–2481.

24.

Markland

Tobin

(2004) A modification to the behavioural regulation in exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 26(2): 191–196.

25.

McAuley

(1992) The role of efficacy cognitions in the prediction of exercise behavior in middle-aged adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 15(1): 65–88.

26.

National Center for Health Statistics (2019) Survey description, National Health Interview Survey, 2018. In: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, pp. 1–103.

27.

Piercy

Troiano

Ballard

, et al. (2018) The physical activity guidelines for Americans. JAMA 320(19): 2020–2028.

28.

Quinn

Kline

Nagle

, et al. (2022) Cardiovascular responses to physical activity during work and leisure. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 79(2): 94–101.

29.

Rebar

Stanton

Geard

, et al. (2015) A meta-meta-analysis of the effect of physical activity on depression and anxiety in non-clinical adult populations. Health Psychology Review 9(3): 366–378.

30.

Rodgers

Wilson

Hall

, et al. (2008) Evidence for a multidimensional self-efficacy for exercise scale. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 79(2): 222–234.

31.

Saffer

Dave

Grossman

, et al. (2013) Racial, ethnic, and gender differences in physical activity. Journal of Human Capital 7(4): 378–410.

32.

Siegel

Miller

Fuchs

, et al. (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022. A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 72(1): 7–33.

33.

Smith

Merwin

(2021) The role of exercise in management of mental health disorders: An integrative review. Annual Review of Medicine 72: 45–62.

34.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education 2: 53–55.

35.

Teixeira

Carraca

Markland

, et al. (2012) Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 9: 78.

36.

Vlachopoulos

Michailidou

(2006) Development and initial validation of a measure of autonomy, competence, and relatedness in exercise: The Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise Scale. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 10(3): 179–201.

37.

Wilson

Rodgers

Loitz

, et al. (2006) “It’s who I am… really!” The importance of integrated regulation in exercise contexts 1. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research 11(2): 79–104.

38.

Winzer

Woitek

Linke

(2018) Physical activity in the prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease. Journal of the American Heart Association 7(4): e007725.