Exercise Motives and Gains Inventory (EMGI)

Abstract

The Exercise Motives and Gains Inventory (EMGI), incorporating and expanding upon the widely validated Exercise Motivations Inventory – 2 (EMI-2), is an advanced psychometric instrument designed to assess both prospective participation motives and realized experiential outcomes across physical activity domains. Developed through iterative empirical investigations by Bangor University researchers David Markland and Lew Hardy (1993), subsequently refined by David Markland and David K. Ingledew (1997), and expanded to incorporate realized outcome appraisals by Ingledew, Markland, and Strömmer (2013), the instrument comprehensively captures the multi-faceted nature of physical exercise behavior. The inventory operationalizes exercise motivation through a 51-item structure across 14 discrete, oblique first-order subscales: Stress Management, Revitalization, Enjoyment, Challenge, Social Recognition, Affiliation, Competition, Health Pressures, Ill-Health Avoidance, Positive Health, Weight Management, Appearance, Strength and Endurance, and Nimbleness. Responses are measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale anchored from 0 (“Not at all true for me”) to 4 (“Very true for me”). Psychometric investigations consistently confirm robust structural validity, gender invariance, and strong internal consistency across subscales, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients generally ranging from .83 to .95 (with health pressures yielding .69). By pairing prospective behavioral antecedents (motives) with retrospective experiential assessments (gains), the EMGI provides behavioral scientists, exercise psychologists, and healthcare practitioners with an empirically rigorous mechanism to evaluate motivational alignment, behavioral adherence, and psychological wellbeing across diverse active and clinical populations.

Keywords

Exercise Motives and Gains Inventory, Exercise Motivations Inventory-2, EMI-2, self-determination theory, physical activity motives, behavioral adherence, intrinsic motivation, health psychology, psychometrics, exercise adoption.

Authors

The development, structural validation, and longitudinal conceptualization of the Exercise Motivations Inventory and its subsequent extension into the Exercise Motives and Gains Inventory reflect the collaborative research programs of several prominent exercise and health psychologists:

• David A. Markland, Ph.D.: Emeritus Professor of Exercise Psychology at the School of Sport, Health and Exercise Sciences, Bangor University, Wales, United Kingdom. Dr. Markland specializes in the application of Self-Determination Theory to health-related behaviors, motivational interviewing, and psychometric evaluation of behavioral regulations. Contact: [email protected].
• David K. Ingledew, Ph.D.: Senior Lecturer in Psychology at the School of Psychology, Bangor University, Wales, United Kingdom. Dr. Ingledew’s research centers on health behavior adoption, personality traits as determinants of behavioral motives, and the dual-process architecture of motivational orientations and perceived experiential gains.
• Lew Hardy, Ph.D.: Professor of Sport Psychology at Bangor University. A pioneer in elite human performance, catastrophe theory in sport, and psychological measurement.
• Sofia S. Strömmer, Ph.D.: Behavioral scientist affiliated with the MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit at the University of Southampton, specializing in qualitative and quantitative modeling of behavioral change, dietary habits, and physical activity maintenance.

Purpose

The primary clinical and empirical objective of the Exercise Motives and Gains Inventory is to provide a granular, psychometrically sound diagnostic profile of an individual’s explicit reasons for initiating, maintaining, or avoiding physical exercise, while simultaneously assessing the actualized benefits (gains) accrued from participation. Prior to the conception of the original EMI (Markland & Hardy, 1993), prevailing psychometric instruments frequently suffered from three foundational limitations: (a) confounding the motives for structured exercise with motives for competitive sport; (b) restricting focus to narrow functional fitness or clinical rehabilitation parameters; or (c) presuming that all respondents were already physically active, thereby rendering instruments statistically invalid for non-exercising, sedentary, or clinical cohorts.

The EMI-2 and EMGI directly address these historical shortcomings. By framing items hypothetically (“Personally, I exercise [or might exercise]…”), the motives inventory permits unbiased administration across regular exercisers, sporadic participants, and completely sedentary populations. This facilitates meaningful comparative research on the motivational barriers separating non-initiators from sustained adherents. Furthermore, the inclusion of the parallel Gains Section (Ingledew, Markland, & Strömmer, 2013) introduces a dynamic evaluation framework. Within modern behavioral medicine, discrepancies between an individual’s prospective motivational expectations (e.g., rapid weight loss, social status) and their experienced retrospective gains (e.g., stress alleviation, vitality) are known to drive behavioral attrition, cognitive dissonance, and depressive dropout. The EMGI bridges this diagnostic gap, allowing clinicians and researchers to:

• Map personal motivational profiles onto continuous behavioral regulation spectrums (such as external, introjected, identified, integrated, and intrinsic regulations defined by Self-Determination Theory);
• Design personalized exercise prescription regimens matched to intrinsic vs. extrinsic psychological priorities;
• Predict long-term adherence by assessing congruence between anticipated motives and realized physical and psychological gains;
• Track shifting motivational dynamics across stages of change in cardiac rehabilitation, obesity interventions, and community-wide public health programs.

Psychological Construct

The EMGI operationalizes physical activity motivation as a multidimensional psychological construct comprising 14 discrete, first-order factors. These factors reflect distinct functional, psychological, somatic, and social incentives, which can be organized into higher-order conceptual categories:

1. Psychological and Emotional Well-being

• Stress Management (4 items: 6, 20, 34, 46): Reflects the deliberate utilization of exercise to alleviate cognitive strain, dissipate daily somatic tension, and provide mental space for cognitive recuperation (e.g., “Because it helps to reduce tension”).
• Revitalization (3 items: 3, 17, 31): Captures perceived restorative effects, somatic energy renewal, and dynamic vigor generated through physical exertion (e.g., “To recharge my batteries”).
• Enjoyment (4 items: 9, 23, 37, 48): Measures authentic intrinsic satisfaction, hedonic pleasure, and affective immersion derived from the physical execution of exercise (e.g., “Because I find exercising satisfying in and of itself”).
• Challenge (4 items: 14, 28, 42, 51): Assesses self-referential competence striving, skill acquisition, setting personal standards, and confronting self-imposed physical boundaries (e.g., “To measure myself against personal standards”).

2. Interpersonal and Social Dynamics

• Social Recognition (4 items: 5, 19, 33, 45): Represents other-directed extrinsic validation, social standing, social status signaling, and public acknowledgment of physical capability (e.g., “To gain recognition for my accomplishments”).
• Affiliation (4 items: 10, 24, 38, 49): Captures the desire for communal engagement, peer interaction, expanding friendship networks, and shared physical activity (e.g., “To make new friends”).
• Competition (4 items: 12, 26, 40, 50): Evaluates the drive to benchmark performance against external competitors, engage in direct athletic rivalry, and experience the thrill of winning (e.g., “Because I like trying to win in physical activities”).

3. Health and Medical Prophylaxis

• Health Pressures (3 items: 11, 25, 39): Reflects controlling or introjected health contingencies, such as following physician directives, rehabilitating injuries, or mitigating familial genetic vulnerabilities (e.g., “Because my doctor advised me to exercise”).
• Ill-Health Avoidance (3 items: 2, 16, 30): Measures preventive, avoidant somatic intentions targeted at circumventing future chronic disease, cardiovascular decay, and general physical deterioration (e.g., “To avoid heart disease”).
• Positive Health (3 items: 7, 21, 35): Gauges positive somatic optimization, vitality enhancement, and cultivating systemic bodily resilience (e.g., “To have a healthy body”).

4. Physical Appearance and Weight Control

• Weight Management (4 items: 1, 15, 29, 43): Measures deliberate energy-expenditure motives, lipid reduction, caloric expenditure, and body mass management (e.g., “Because exercise helps me to burn calories”).
• Appearance (4 items: 4, 18, 32, 44): Captures the drive to cultivate an aesthetically appealing physique, project youthfulness, and satisfy internalized physical aesthetic standards (e.g., “To look more attractive”).

5. Functional Fitness and Bodily Capabilities

• Strength and Endurance (4 items: 8, 22, 36, 47): Evaluates the functional enhancement of musculoskeletal force, muscular hypertrophy, and cardiovascular stamina (e.g., “To build up my strength”).
• Nimbleness (3 items: 13, 27, 41): Focuses on musculoskeletal flexibility, range of motion, postural mobility, and physical agility (e.g., “To stay/become flexible”).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the EMGI is grounded primarily in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), formulated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan, with supplementary alignment to the Transtheoretical Model (TTM) of behavior change (Prochaska & DiClemente) and dual-process cognitive theories of motivation.

Within SDT’s Organismic Integration Theory, human behavior is conceptualized along an autonomy continuum ranging from amotivation, through controlled forms of extrinsic motivation (external and introjected regulations), to autonomous forms of motivation (identified, integrated, and intrinsic regulations). While the EMI-2 was deliberately constructed as a multi-content inventory rather than a direct measure of regulatory styles (such as the Behavioral Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire; BREQ), its subscales map predictably onto this motivational continuum:

• Intrinsic Motivation correlates strongly with Enjoyment, Revitalization, and Challenge, satisfying the basic psychological needs for autonomy and competence.
• Identified and Integrated Regulations align with Positive Health, Strength and Endurance, and Nimbleness, where physical activity is embraced as personally meaningful and congruent with core self-values.
• Introjected Regulation manifests in subscales such as Appearance, Social Recognition, and Weight Management, which frequently reflect guilt avoidance, contingent self-esteem, or internal pressure to look acceptable.
• External Regulation is exemplified by Health Pressures, where behavioral initiation is mediated by external directives, such as medical advice or clinical fear appeals.

Ingledew and Markland (2008) further synthesized this framework with the Transtheoretical Model, demonstrating that extrinsic motives (e.g., appearance, weight control) frequently drive behavioral adoption in early stages (Contemplation, Preparation), whereas autonomous, intrinsic motives (enjoyment, stress management, revitalization) are essential for long-term behavioral maintenance (Action, Maintenance). The integration of perceived “gains” by Ingledew, Markland, and Strömmer (2013) introduced an expectancy-value feedback loop: when participants realize somatic and psychological gains in domains congruent with their core psychological needs, those gains internalize behavioral regulation, transforming fragile external exercise adoption into resilient, self-determined lifestyle maintenance.

Validity

The factorial, construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the instrument have been demonstrated through multiple structural equation modeling studies and empirical cross-validations:

• Construct and Factorial Validity: Markland and Ingledew (1997) conducted extensive confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across diverse male (n = 213) and female (n = 231) cohorts. The hypothesized 14-factor first-order oblique structure demonstrated strong model fit, successfully confirming that each subscale represents an independent, psychologically meaningful construct. Fit indices supported the structure across both genders, establishing configural and metric invariance.
• Convergent and Discriminant Validity: Significant differential correlations among subscales confirm divergent validity. For instance, the correlation between Enjoyment and Revitalization demonstrates expected theoretical convergence (r > .60), while correlation vectors between Enjoyment and Health Pressures hover near zero, illustrating that intrinsically enjoyable play is psychometrically distinct from compliance with clinical advice.
• Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity: Longitudinal research demonstrates that the subscales reliably predict exercise participation rates, programmatic attendance, and fitness gains. Studies by Ingledew and Sullivan (2002) linked body mass index (BMI) and body image dissatisfaction directly to elevated Appearance and Weight Management motives in adolescents, whereas sustained attendance in adult aerobic programs was selectively predicted by elevated scores on Enjoyment and Stress Management.
• Measurement Invariance: Rigorous multi-group CFA models confirmed factorial invariance across biological sex, revealing that although mean latent factor levels differ between men (who systematically report higher Competition and Strength motives) and women (who systematically report higher Weight Management and Nimbleness motives), the underlying measurement model, factor loadings, and uniquenesses operate with equivalent measurement properties across cohorts.

Reliability

The 14 subscales of the Exercise Motivations Inventory (and its gains counterpart) have consistently demonstrated high internal consistency and temporal stability across community, athletic, and clinical populations. In the benchmark validation study by Markland and Ingledew (1997), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the Motives Section subscales were documented as follows:

• Competition: α = .954
• Stress Management: α = .916
• Weight Management: α = .914
• Affiliation: α = .910
• Ill-Health Avoidance: α = .901
• Enjoyment: α = .899
• Nimbleness: α = .899
• Social Recognition: α = .878
• Positive Health: α = .877
• Strength and Endurance: α = .864
• Appearance: α = .859
• Challenge: α = .857
• Revitalization: α = .832
• Health Pressures: α = .686

Except for Health Pressures (α = .686), which comprises a heterogeneous set of external contingencies (doctor’s advice, family illness history, recovery from injury), all subscales exceed the conventional .80 benchmark for psychometric reliability, with several surpassing .90. Furthermore, test-retest reliability across 4- to 6-week intervals in healthy young adults produced intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from .76 to .89, establishing temporal stability when exercise environments remain stable.

Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the instrument was originally established through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on the initial 44-item EMI (Markland & Hardy, 1993), which identified 12 factors. Subsequent expansion and refinement yielded the 51-item, 14-factor EMI-2, thoroughly verified through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood and robust weighted least squares estimation (Markland & Ingledew, 1997).

In the seminal CFA validation, the 14-factor oblique model was tested against competing single-factor and restricted multi-factor models. The 14-factor model demonstrated good fit to the empirical data:

• Satorra-Bentler Scaled Chi-Square: χ²(1136) = 2212.18, p < .001;
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .910;
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .046 (90% CI [.043, .049]);
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = .057.

Standardized factor loadings across all 51 items were robust, with nearly all items demonstrating loadings exceeding λ = .70 onto their designated latent constructs, and no item loading below λ = .55. Cross-loadings were minimal, confirming simple structure. Subsequent higher-order factor analyses have occasionally extracted broader latent dimensions—such as Psychological Motives, Interpersonal Motives, Health/Fitness Motives, and Body-Related Motives—yet researchers widely recommend interpreting the 14 primary first-order factors to retain diagnostic precision.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Exercise Motives and Gains Inventory (EMGI) / Exercise Motivations Inventory – 2 (EMI-2)
• Authors: David A. Markland, Lew Hardy, David K. Ingledew, and Sofia S. Strömmer
• Construct Measured: Exercise participation motives (51 items) and experienced exercise outcomes/gains (51 items)
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire; available in paper-and-pencil format or computerized web administration
• Target Population: Individuals aged 16 years and older; suitable for regular exercisers, occasional participants, and sedentary individuals
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for the 51-item Motives Section; 20 to 25 minutes if administered alongside the Gains Section
• Item Count: 51 items per section across 14 discrete subscales
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type scale scored from 0 to 4:
  • 0 = Not at all true for me
  • 1 = Slightly true for me
  • 2 = Moderately true for me
  • 3 = Considerably true for me
  • 4 = Very true for me
• Subscale Item Mappings (Motives Section):
  • Stress Management: Items 6, 20, 34, 46
  • Revitalization: Items 3, 17, 31
  • Enjoyment: Items 9, 23, 37, 48
  • Challenge: Items 14, 28, 42, 51
  • Social Recognition: Items 5, 19, 33, 45
  • Affiliation: Items 10, 24, 38, 49
  • Competition: Items 12, 26, 40, 50
  • Health Pressures: Items 11, 25, 39
  • Ill-Health Avoidance: Items 2, 16, 30
  • Positive Health: Items 7, 21, 35
  • Weight Management: Items 1, 15, 29, 43
  • Appearance: Items 4, 18, 32, 44
  • Strength and Endurance: Items 8, 22, 36, 47
  • Nimbleness: Items 13, 27, 41
• Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
  • Calculate individual subscale scores by computing the arithmetic mean of the constituent items for each factor (sum of subscale items divided by the number of items in that subscale).
  • Mean subscale scores range from 0.00 to 4.00, preserving the original response scale metric for straightforward interpretation.
  • There is no composite “total score”; aggregating across the 14 subscales is theoretically invalid as it obscures distinct motivational dynamics.
  • In EMGI applications pairing Motives with Gains, discrepancy scores (Gain Score – Motive Score) can be evaluated to detect unmet outcome expectations or unexpected positive benefits.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Initial Publication Year: 1993 (Original EMI); 1997 (Revised EMI-2); 2013 (EMGI Motives and Gains integration).
• Licensing and Copyright Status: The Exercise Motivations Inventory – 2 and the Exercise Motives and Gains Inventory are distributed under open academic access for non-commercial research, institutional evaluation, and clinical practice.
• Permissions Information: Dr. David Markland and Bangor University permit free utilization of the instrument for scholarly, educational, and clinical investigations without formal royalty requirements, provided appropriate bibliographic citation is maintained. Commercial applications, monetization, or inclusion within proprietary diagnostic software suites require direct written authorization from the primary authors.
• Official Contact and Distribution Archive: Inquiries regarding the inventory may be directed to Dr. David Markland at Bangor University via [email protected]. Historical psychometric manuals and scoring documentation are archived via the Bangor University Exercise Motivation Portal.

References

• Ingledew, D. K., Hardy, L., & de Sousa, K. (1995). Body shape dissatisfaction and exercise motivations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 13(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640419508732214
• Ingledew, D. K., & Markland, D. (2008). The role of motives in exercise participation. Psychology and Health, 23(7), 807–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440701405704
• Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Ferguson, E. (2009). Three levels of exercise motivation. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, 1(3), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01015.x
• Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Medley, A. (1998). Exercise motives and stages of change. Journal of Health Psychology, 3(4), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910539800300403
• Ingledew, D. K., Markland, D., & Strömmer, S. S. (2013). Elucidating the roles of motives and gains in exercise participation. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 3(2), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1037/spy0000004
• Ingledew, D. K., & Sullivan, G. (2002). Effects of body mass and body image on exercise motives in adolescence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1469-0292(01)00037-3
• Markland, D. (1999). Internally informational versus internally controlling exercise motives and exercise enjoyment: The mediating role of self-determination. In P. Parisi, F. Pigozzi, & G. Prinzi (Eds.), Sport Science ’99 in Europe: Proceedings of the 4th Annual Congress of the European College of Sport Science (p. 238). Rome: University Institute of Motor Sciences.
• Markland, D., & Hardy, L. (1993). The Exercise Motivations Inventory: Preliminary development and validity of a measure of individuals’ reasons for participation in regular physical exercise. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(3), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(93)90219-S
• Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). The measurement of exercise motives: Factorial validity and invariance across gender of a revised Exercise Motivations Inventory. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2(4), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8287.1997.tb00549.x
• Markland, D., Ingledew, D. K., Hardy, L., & Grant, L. (1992). A comparison of the exercise motivations of aerobics participants and weight-watcher exercisers. Journal of Sports Sciences, 10(6), 609–610.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)