Factors Affecting Physical Activity Adherence in Male Office Workers Based on Self-Determination Theory: The Mediating Effects of Psychological Need Satisfaction and Autonomous Motivation

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Despite the health benefit of regular physical activity, many adults often discontinue it within 3-6 months due to various obstacles. The purpose of this study was to investigate factors affecting physical activity adherence of male office workers based on self-determination theory by constructing a structural equation model. Methods: In total, 257 full-time male office workers who engage in regular physical activity participated. The participants from 15 companies completed a survey asking about perceived physical activity barriers, autonomy support, psychological need satisfaction in physical activity, autonomous motivation, and physical activity adherence. Data analysis was performed using the SPSS 28.0 and the AMOS 26.0 programs to verify the fit of the hypothetical model and identify the direct and indirect effects of variables on physical activity adherence for male office workers. Results: As a result, the path significance test results for the hypothetical model showed that five of the nine paths were significant. The results show that psychological need satisfaction in physical activity and autonomous motivation were significant variables that had a direct effect on physical activity adherence, while autonomy support from significant others and perceived physical activity barriers had a significant indirect effect through psychological need satisfaction and autonomous motivation, explaining 62.0%. Conclusions: Based on these findings, it is recommended to implement customized workplace-specific physical activity interventions to enhance autonomous motivation and the autonomy, competence, and relatedness aspects of psychological need satisfaction in physical activity.

Keywords: motivation; office workers; physical activity adherence; psychological need satisfaction; self-determination theory.

Figure 1

Hypothetical model.

Figure 2

Path diagram for the final model. x1 = Autonomy support; x2 = Perceived physical activity barriers; y1 = Relatedness; y2 = Competence; y3 = Autonomy; y4 = Autonomous motivations; y5 = Predisposing; y6 = Enabling; y7 = Reinforcing (Goodness-of fit-indicators: χ² = 51.53, p < 0.001, χ²/df = 2.577, RMR = 0.01, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.96, AGFI = 0.90, NFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, CFI = 0.97). * p < 0.01.