Recreational Sports Journal, 2018, 42, 145–159

https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.2017-0033
© 2018 NIRSA Foundation ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessing College Students’ Use of

Campus Recreation Facilities Through
Individual and Environmental Factors
Hassan M. Shaikh, Megan S. Patterson, Beth Lanning,
M. Renee Umstattd Meyer, and Clinton A. Patterson

Physical activity is related to overall well-being among college students. For

many college students, on-campus recreational facilities are the primary envi-
ronment for physical activity to occur. Social cognitive theory highlights the
relationship between individual factors, the environment, and behavior. This
study aimed to assess the relationship of individual-level factors, including self-
efficacy, exercise behaviors, and social physique anxiety, as well as students’
reported comfort in the recreational environment, with use of campus facilities.
To test these relationships, the researchers surveyed 189 undergraduate students
and conducted descriptive and linear regression analyses. Results suggest
students’ comfort in their recreational environment is critical to their use of
facilities, and, in turn, their engagement in physical activity. Suggestions for
future research and practice, particularly concerning recreational facility use, are
included in the discussion.

Keywords: college students, environment, physical activity, social cognitive

theory

Regular participation in physical activity (PA) helps prevent adverse health

outcomes, including weight gain, cardiovascular disease, and depression among
adults (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends adults engage in a minimum of
150 min of moderate aerobic activity and 2 days of muscle strengthening per week
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2014). However, American adults, on
average, fail to meet the current CDC recommendations (Martin, Morrow, Jackson,
& Dunn, 2000).
Like other adults, it is important for college students to be physically active.
Research shows that a student’s PA behaviors during college are effective
predictors of PA after college (Nelson, Story, Larson, Neumark-Sztainer, &
Lytle, 2008). By meeting CDC exercise requirements, college students are less
likely to struggle with depression, anxiety, and negative attitudes. Students are also

Shaikh is with Duke University, Durham, NC. M.S. Patterson and C.A. Patterson are with Texas A&M
University, College Station, TX. Lanning and Umstattd Meyer are with Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Address author correspondence to Megan S. Patterson at [email protected].

145
146 Shaikh et al.

likely to experience heightened psychological well-being, physical functioning,

levels of self-confidence, and interpersonal skills (Bray & Born, 2004;
Kilchenman, 2009). However, despite the documented benefits of PA, college
populations fall short of recommended PA levels (Fountaine, Liguori, Arupendra,
& Schuna, 2011). Studies show that over half of college students do not engage in
amounts of PA necessary for beneficial health outcomes (Bray & Born, 2004;
Irwin, 2004).
Recent studies show a strong relationship between the built environment and
PA levels (Frank & Engelke, 2016; Lightfoot & Blanchard, 2011). The built
environment consists of physical aspects of where people live and work, such as
sidewalks, open spaces, and buildings. Similar to how built environments of cities
affect their residents’ behaviors, sidewalks, grassy areas, and open spaces on
university campuses are important aspects of the built environment that contribute
to PA participation of college students (Alshuwaikhat & Abubakar, 2008).
Additionally, PA equipment is usually only available in college campus recreation
centers, making these facilities critical to PA participation of college students
(Kilchenman, 2009). Woosnam, Dixon, and Bookover (2006) found that over one-
third of incoming college students considered the recreation center—including
weight rooms, cardiovascular workout equipment, and pools—as an important
amenity when deciding which university to attend. Thus, it is imperative that these
facilities be assessed in relation to student PA levels.
According to the literature, social physique anxiety (SPA) can interfere with
college students’ exercise behaviors (Bowden, Dunsmore, & Briggs, 2005;
Kowalski, Crocker, & Kowalski, 2001) and their level of comfort in certain
environments (Crawford & Eklund, 1994; Hausenblas, Brewer, and Van Raalte,
2004). SPA is an individual-level construct that describes the anxieties one
experiences based on satisfaction/dissatisfaction of his/her body (Hart, Leary,
& Rejeski, 1989). Because body dissatisfaction is especially common among
college students (Dittmar, 2005; Vartanian et al., 2014), and the likely relationship
SPA has with a student’s behavior and their comfort in the environment, SPA
should be considered when investigating the connection between PA and recrea-
tional facility use on college campuses.
The social cognitive theory (SCT; Bandura, 1977) has been widely used to
understand PA behaviors in a variety of subpopulations (Doerksen, Umstattd, &
McAuley, 2009; Petosa, Suminski, & Hortz, 2003; Petosa et al., 2003). The SCT
posits that behaviors are a product of and interact with both individual and
environmental factors (Bandura, 1977; Maddux, Sherer, & Rogers, 1982).
Thus, individual-level factors (i.e., self-efficacy, SPA) are both influenced by
and impact someone’s environment, including their use of and comfort in the built
environment. This study will investigate exercise self-efficacy, comfort in the
recreational environment, and SPA in relation to use of campus recreation facilities
on a college campus.
The relationship between individual PA and use of campus recreation facilities
(CRFs) within college student populations is yet to be determined. While studies
demonstrate that exercise self-efficacy, environment, and SPA affect PA partici-
pation to some capacity, investigating these constructs in relation to collegiate PA
and CRF use could unpack a deeper understanding of student behaviors beyond
the individual level. As SCT suggests, the person, environment, and behavior

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

 Recreational Facility Use 147

are in constant relationship (Bandura, 1986), thus justifying the study of both
environmental factors (i.e., comfort in the environment) and individual factors
(i.e., social physique anxiety) in relation to facility use.
To address this gap in the literature, a cross-sectional study was conducted to
investigate how comfort in the recreational environment, exercise self-efficacy,
SPA, and PA behaviors are related with students’ participation in the use of CRFs.
The researchers hypothesized a priori that (a) students who indicate a greater sense
of comfort with their CRF are more likely to utilize the facilities, (b) students that
have lower SPA scores are less likely to use the CRF, (c) students reporting higher
exercise self-efficacy scores are more likely to use the CRF, and (d) students who
report greater amounts of PA are more likely to use the CRF.

Methods
Participants and Procedure
Undergraduate students were recruited from introductory health classes at a large,
private university. These classes provided a diverse participant group with
individuals ranging in ethnic background, enrollment classification, and sex.
Following institutional review board approval, students completed a questionnaire
during their assigned class times. All participants were informed that participation
was voluntary and that incentives/compensation were not provided. All partici-
pants provided informed consent. Only students with access to the CRF and
18 years of age or older were included.

Measures
A survey was distributed to students during scheduled class times. Survey
composition included demographic items (race/ethnicity, college classification,
social fraternity/sorority affiliation, and weekly use of the recreation center), three
previously-established instruments (PA participation, exercise self-efficacy, and
SPA), and seven newly-created items measuring respondents’ comfort with the
exercise environment. The seven items measuring comfort in the recreational
environment were designed using informal qualitative data provided by the study
sample. The entire survey was pilot tested and assessed for validity and reliability
prior to distribution. Twelve students completed the survey twice, with 1 week
between Time 1 and Time 2. Correlations were conducted on all items between
Time 1 and Time 2 scores to test for test-retest reliability. Items that resulted in a
test-retest reliability score of less than 0.7 were reexamined prior to data
collection. Two items were reworded for clarity and one item from the Social
Physique Anxiety Scale (SPAS) was removed from the survey due to high
correlation with another item (i.e., items were measuring the same factor).
When consulting the literature on the SPAS, results have been mixed, and
suggestions of item removal have been proposed (Crawford & Eklund, 1994;
Hart et al., 1989; Martin, Rejeski, Leary, McAuley, & Bane, 1997; Motl &
Conroy, 2000). The final questionnaire resulted in a Cronbach alpha of .910 and
was used for data collection in this study. Below are details of the validity and
reliability statistics for each instrument used.

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

148 Shaikh et al.

Physical activity participation. The Godin-Shephard Leisure Time Exercise

Questionnaire (Godin & Shephard, 1985), a four-item scale that assesses intensity
and duration of three types of PA during a 7-day period (strenuous, moderate, and
mild), was used to measure students’ PA participation (Godin & Shephard, 1985).
Examples of strenuous activities include running, vigorous swimming, and spin
cycling, and are indicated by the heart beating rapidly. Moderate exercises, those
that are not exhausting but still get the heart rate up, include fast walking, dancing,
and volleyball. Finally, mild exercise requires minimal effort, and includes
activities such as bowling, easy walking, and house cleaning. Participants report
how often he/she does different kinds of exercise for more than 15 min in a week.
Based on instructions from Godin and Shephard (1985), participants’ activity
counts were converted into a total leisure time exercise score by multiplying
episodes of strenuous activity by nine, moderate activity by six, and mild activity
by three, and summing the products.
Additionally, as recommended by Godin (2011) in his commentary on the
Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (LTEQ), the moderate and strenuous activity
counts of each participant were calculated to determine the percentage of students
that were participating in enough PA to provide some benefits to health (Godin,
2011). Students with a unit range of 14 to 23 were defined as moderately active and
received some health benefits due to their PA participation; students with a total
unit score at or above 24 were indicated as gaining substantial benefits from PA
(Godin, 2011).
Acceptable test-retest reliability has been previously established with the
Godin LTEQ, with coefficient ranges between .74 and .80 (Godin & Shephard,
1985; Jacobs, Ainsworth, Hartman, & Leon, 1993; Joseph, Royse, Benitez, &
Pekmezi, 2014). Test-retest reliability scores were acceptable (r = .698 for strenu-
ous activity, r = .819 for moderate activity, and r = .905 for mild activity).
In addition to the Godin LTEQ, two items measuring whether a person’s
activity is focused on cardiovascular training and/or strength training were
included. The items were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and read, “The majority of my physical activity is
focused on cardiovascular training [or strength training for the other item].”
Exercise self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was assessed using the Exercise Self-
Efficacy Scale (Garcia & King, 1991). The 15-item scale uses 4-point Likert
scale response options (1 = never confident, 2 = rarely confident, 3 = sometimes
confident, 4 = always confident) through which respondents indicate their confi-
dence in exercising despite potential barriers (e.g., when feeling anxious). The
scale has an established reliability of α = .90 in previous studies (Bandura, 1977;
Everett, Salamonson, & Davidson, 2009; Garcia & King, 1991), and acceptable
internal consistency in this sample (α = .89). The test-retest reliability score was
r = .872 for this sample. The 15 items are averaged to determine a total exercise
self-efficacy score for participants.
Social physique anxiety. The 12-item SPAS was used to assess respondents’
feelings of anxiety experienced in response to others’ evaluations of their physique.
The SPAS uses a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 2 = slightly, 3 = moderately,
4 = very, 5 = extremely) and asks respondents to characterize how well the
statements apply to them. Examples of statements from the SPAS include,

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

 Recreational Facility Use 149

“I am comfortable with the appearance of my physique/figure” and “When it comes

to displaying my physique to others, I am a shy person”. The SPAS has acceptable
internal consistency from previous research (α = .74; Maïano et al., 2010). In the
current study, the SPAS also demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .92).
Test-rest reliability scores were low for SPAS (r = .459), with specific items
ranging from r = .294 to r = .876. All items were reviewed before the survey
was distributed. Ultimately, the researchers reworded item 5 for clarity, changing
the item from, “There are times when I am bothered by thoughts that other people
are evaluating my weight or muscular development negatively” to “Sometimes
I think people judge my body/figure negatively.”
Comfort in the recreational environment. The researchers created a seven-item
scale measuring comfort in the recreational environment through the use of
informal qualitative data after determining no previously established scale was
available at the time of this study (see Table 1). A 5-point Likert scale was used to
assess comfort in the environment, with response options of 1 = strongly disagree,
2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. An internal consistency
of α = .62 was found within the sample, with a test-retest reliability score of
r = .724.

Data Analysis
All data were reviewed for accuracy and prior to analysis. Composite variables for
each construct were computed, and descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and
regression analyses were conducted using SPSS version 21 (IBM, Armonk, NY).

Results
Participant Demographics and Descriptive Statistics
One hundred and eighty-nine undergraduate students completed surveys between
September and November 2015. Respondents were 51.9% (n = 98) female and
48.1% (n = 91) male. The majority of the sample was White non-Hispanic (n =
136, 76.8%); 11.3% was (n = 20) Asian, 6.8% (n = 12) Black/African American,
and 5.1% (n = 9) Hispanic. The sample was largely upperclassman: 37.4% (n = 67)
juniors and 31.8% (n = 57) seniors. Freshman and sophomores accounted for 6.1%
(n = 11) and 24.6% (n = 44) of the sample, respectively. Almost half (n = 74,

Table 1 Items Measuring Comfort in the Recreational Environment

1. The campus recreational facility is my main location of physical activity.
2. The campus recreational facility is easily accessible from where I live.
3. I understand the layout of the campus recreational facility.
4. The fitness room inside the campus recreational facility is easily accessible.
5. Working out in the fitness room when it is crowded bothers me.
6. Having people watch me while I workout does not bother me.
7. I do not mind having to wait to use workout equipment.

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

150 Shaikh et al.

41.8%) were active in a social fraternity or sorority (Greek life). See Table 2 for all
demographic information.
Nearly the entire sample reported at least some PA, with only 1.7% (n = 3)
indicating no PA at all. The sample reported an average Godin LTEQ score of
47.93 (SD = 23.974, range 0–105), and 2.69 days (SD = 1.795) of strenuous
activity per week, 2.74 days (SD = 1.949) of moderate activity per week, and
3.51 days (SD = 2.788) of mild activity per week. About half the sample (n = 82,
45.3%) reported being “cardio-focused” in their workout routine, while 34.1%
(n = 61) reported being “strength-training focused.” Students reported that they
used the CRF an average of 1.93 days per week (SD = 2.022).

Bivariate Analysis
Being male (r = .162, p = .035) was related to CRF use; however, no other
demographic variables were statistically significant. Total PA (r = .249,
p = .001) days per week of strenuous activity (r = .461, p < .001) and focusing

Table 2 Demographic Information

Variable Frequency M SD
Sex (n = 189)
Female 51.9%
Male 48.1%
Race (n = 177)
White non-Hispanic 76.8%
Asian 11.3%
Black/African American 6.8%
Hispanic 5.1%
Class (n = 179)
Seniors 31.8%
Juniors 37.4%
Sophomores 24.6%
Freshmen 6.1%
Greek (n = 177) 41.8%
Active at least once per week (n = 176) 98.3%
Cardio focused 45.3%
Strength focused 34.1%
LTEQ score 47.93 23.97
Days of strenuous activity 2.69 1.80
Days of moderate activity 2.74 1.95
Days of light activity 3.51 2.79
Days of CRF use 1.93 2.02
Abbreviations: CRF = campus recreational facility; LTEQ = Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire
Score; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Note. n = total responses received for particular variable.

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

 Recreational Facility Use 151

on strength training (r = .288, p < .001) were also significantly related with CRF
use. Finally, comfort in the environment (r = .539, p < .001), greater exercise self-
efficacy (r = .445, p < .001), and low SPA (r = .203, p = .008) were significantly
associated with CRF use, with comfort in the environment being most strongly
related. See Tables 3 and 4 for all Pearson correlation coefficients.

Regression Analysis
A two-step regression was conducted to test independent variables on the outcome
variable, CRF use. To control for confounding variables, the first step only
included demographic variables (race, sex, sorority/fraternity membership, and
classification), followed by a second step that included SPA, exercise self-efficacy,
comfort in the environment, total PA, days per week of strenuous activity, focus on
cardiovascular exercise, and focus on strength training exercise. In step 1 (demo-
graphic variables), the regression model resulted in an R2 value of .172 (F[6,152] =
5.069, p < .001). The final regression model explained an additional 31.8% of
unique variance in number of days students used the CRF per week (F[13,152] =
10.293 p < .001, R2 = .491). Comfort in the environment (β = .448, t = 6.017,
p < .001), days per week of strenuous activity (β = .314, t = 2.781, p = .006),
and being Greek-affiliated (β = .143, t = 2.229, p = .027) were positive predictors
(α = .05) of facility use in this sample. Being White (β = −.340, t = −3.060,
p = .003), focusing on cardiovascular fitness (β = −.211, t = −2.810, p = .006),
and classification (β = −.157, t = −2.309, p = .022) were negative predictors of
facility use in this sample. No other variables were significantly related to use of
CRFs in this model. See Table 5 for the final regression model.

Discussion
This study successfully examined how comfort in the environment, exercise self-
efficacy, SPA, and total activity scores were related to college students’ use of
CRFs. The SCT consists of constructs that relate to a person’s likelihood to engage
in particular behaviors and suggests there is interplay between individual factors,
environment, and behavior (Glanz, Rimer, & Viswanath, 2008). Among PA
participation, exercise self-efficacy and SPA have been empirically supported
as correlates of PA behavior (Bandura, 1977; Lantz, Hardy, & Ainsworth, 1997;
McAuley & Blissmer, 2000). At the time of this research, however, these
constructs had not been assessed as correlates of PA facility use.
Results indicated that CRF use was associated with being male, greater total
PA, days per week of strenuous activity, focusing on strength training, high
exercise self-efficacy, lower SPA, and greater comfort in the recreational environ-
ment. Previous literature has reported men being more active than women
(Caspersen & Merritt, 1992, 1995), particularly in college student communities
(Butler, Black, Blue, & Gretebeck, 2004), which may attribute to their increased
use of CRFs compared to their female counterparts. Further, previous research also
supports greater participation in campus recreation, including facility use, among
male college students compared to females (Milton & Patton, 2011; Watson,
Ayers, Zizzi, & Naoi, 2006).

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

152
Table 3 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Demographic Variables and CRF Use
White Black Hispanic Asian Sex Classification Greek CRF Use
White –
Black −.439** –
Hispanic −.640** −.087 –
Asian −.135** −.018 −.027 –
Sex .042 .036 −.083 .057 –
Classification .013 −.067 .040 −.079 −.291** –
Greek .261** −.159* −.160* −.064 .089 .143 –

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

CRF Use −.141 .520 −.039 −.080 −.162* −.060 .063 –
Abbreviation: CRF = campus recreational facility.
**p < .01, *p < .05.
 Table 4 Pearson Correlation Coefficients of Exercise Variables and CRF Use
Days of Exercise Cardio Strength Comfort in CRF
Strenuous PA Self-Efficacy SPA Focused Focused Environment Use
Days of strenuous PA –
Exercise self-efficacy .670** –
SPA .248** .371** –
Cardio focused −.080 −.134 −.197** –
Strength focused .320** .380** .233** −.359** –
Comfort in environment .252** .406** .335** .118 .299** –

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

CRF use .461** .445** .203** −.148 .288** .539** –
Abbreviations: CRF = campus recreational facility; PA = physical activity; SPA = social physique anxiety.
**p < .01.

153
154 Shaikh et al.

Table 5 Two-Step Regression Analysis Predicting Campus

Recreational Facility Use
Step 1 Step 2
R2 = .172, F = 4.315, R2 = .491, F = 9.492,
p < .001 p < .001
Independent Variable β t p β t p
Sex −.237 −2.596 .004 −.068 −.967 .335
Classification −.171 −2.115 .036 −.156 −2.292 .023
Greek .138 1.748 .083 .144 2.225 .028
White −.562 −4.087 <.0001 −.336 −2.911 .004
Black −.177 −1.744 .083 −.128 −1.551 .123
Hispanic −.370 −2.995 .003 −.177 −1.696 .092
Asian .001 .016 .988 .009 .131 .896
LTEQ −.066 −.697 .487
Comfort in environment .447 5.990 <.0001
Exercise self-efficacy .110 1.165 .246
SPA −.119 −1.635 .104
Cardio focus −.242 −3.259 .001
Strength focus −.091 −1.250 .213
Days of strenuous PA .311 2.715 .007
Abbreviations: β = standardized beta; LTEQ = leisure time exercise questionnaire total score;
PA = physical activity; SPA = social physique anxiety.

Based on the SCT, it is not surprising that individuals who are more prone to
PA have higher confidence in their ability to exercise and who are more
comfortable in their environment, would use CRFs more often (McAuley,
1993). The results did show that strenuous activity was more strongly associated
with CRF use compared to mild, moderate, and overall PA. Mild and moderate
activities are more easily achieved in nontraditional fitness locations (i.e., walking,
house cleaning), which could be why strenuous activity is more strongly associated
with CRF use. Correlations also revealed a strong association between an exercise
regimen focused on strength training and CRF use, but not those that focus on
cardiovascular fitness. This could be due to the fact that focused cardiovascular
fitness (i.e., long distance running, cycling) is better achieved outdoors, whereas
strength-training regimens rely on the use of weight-lifting equipment often found
inside a PA facility.
Contrary to the a priori hypotheses, multivariate analyses revealed that the
only SCT construct related with CRF use in this sample was comfort in the
environment. The hierarchical regression analysis revealed that SPA and exercise
self-efficacy did not remain significantly related in the final model. Considering the
strong bivariate relationship between exercise self-efficacy and CRF use (r = .443,
p < .01), the prominence of exercise self-efficacy within the SCT (Bandura, 1977,
1997), and the consistency in which exercise self-efficacy is found to be a strong

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

 Recreational Facility Use 155

correlate and determinant of PA in previous research (Patterson, Umstattd Meyer,

Beaujean, & Bowden, 2014; Plotnikoff, Lippke, Courneya, & Sigal, 2010), it was
surprising that exercise self-efficacy did not remain in the final regression model.
In bivariate analyses, exercise self-efficacy was strongly correlated with both
comfort in the environment (r = .406, p < .01) and days of strenuous activity
(r = .670, p < .01), which may account for it not remaining in the final regression
model. Thus, exercise self-efficacy might have mediated the relationship between
comfort in the recreational environment and CRF use.
Though we did expect SPA to be related with CRF use, it was insignificant in
the final regression model. While some PA literature does suggest the importance
of SPA in PA, much of the research has been inconclusive (Bowden et al., 2005;
Hart et al., 1989; Lantz et al., 1997; Martin et al., 1997). However, while not as
strong as the relationship with exercise self-efficacy, SPA was significantly
correlated with comfort in the environment (r = .335, p < .01), suggesting another
possible mediating effect within the variables. It is possible that exercise self-
efficacy and SPA mediate the relationship between comfort in the environment and
facility use. These mediating effects should be investigated in future research using
appropriate study designs.
Being White, upperclassmen, and focusing on cardiovascular fitness were
related with lower use of CRFs. Research demonstrates that White adults are more
likely to engage in PA and use their built environment compared to ethnic
minorities, which is contrary to these findings (Hooker, Wilson, Griffin, &
Ainsworth, 2005; Li et al., 2008; Mathews et al., 2010). One possible explanation
could be that, according to institutional data, White students are more likely to live
off campus, which may promote use of outside facilities such as apartment
complex gyms and off-campus gyms rather than the CRF. However, this finding
warrants additional investigation. It is possible that upperclassmen are more
familiar with the local community than lowerclassmen, and thus utilize facilities
and spaces off-campus more often. Upperclassmen are also more likely to live off
campus in apartment complexes or residential communities that offer their own
facilities (López Turley & Wodtke, 2010; Moltz, 2008). Greek affiliation and more
days of strenuous activity were positively related with CRF use in this sample.
Previous research suggests that Greek students are more likely to be involved on
campus and more physically active compared to students who are not Greek
(Kimbrough & Hutcheson, 1998; Pike, 2000), which may explain their heightened
use of CRFs.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this study should be noted. First, because the study was
conducted using a self-report tool, there is a possibility that individuals over- or
underreported their PA participation. Future research might consider using more
objective measurement tools, such as an activity monitor, to track activity levels. In
addition, the use of a convenience sample and a cross-sectional design limits
the conclusions that can be made, and causality cannot be examined. While the
researchers feel confident the convenience sample was representative of the
general student population, it is possible that students enrolled in the health classes
are more prone to activity and comfort in their recreational environment. Future

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

156 Shaikh et al.

research should investigate the relationships between these constructs using more
rigorous study designs and sampling methods to determine causality and examine
mediating effects. Finally, it was discovered after data collection that student-
athletes were included in the sample. Student-athletes tend to participate in large
amounts of PA in athletics-specific facilities. In other words, athletes’ responses
will likely indicate high levels of PA and low use of CRFs, possibly skewing the
data. Because data was anonymous, it was impossible to determine which cases
were athletes, but we did look back over the health classes’ rosters and only found
10 athletes enrolled, two of which were absent the day data was collected. Thus, if
the eight athletes present did participate in the survey, their responses make up a
small proportion of the entire sample. Future research should consider identifying
the athletes in the sample, especially considering their experience with PA while in
college will be different than the general student population.

Implications for Future Practice

This study provides insight on who is using recreational facilities, and begins to
answer the question why or why not. Individual factors (self-efficacy, social physique
anxiety, exercise identity) are important in someone’s perception of their environ-
ment, and can impact whether a person decides to use the CRF. Health education and
wellness programming should consider these factors when doing outreach on
campus. Additionally, it was found that students’ comfort in their environment
highly related to CRF use, which could prompt recreational staff and administrators
to consider how to strategically make facilities more welcoming. For example, a
CRF might consider having multiple weight room options that meet various needs
(i.e., a quiet weight room, a female-only weight room, an Olympic lifting room, etc.).
These findings can also inform future plans as related to renovation discussions of a
facility, including potential evaluation of spaces in the building and on campus.
College and recreation administrators should consider creating and maintaining
environments that would be attractive to all kinds of students.

References
Alshuwaikhat, H.M., & Abubakar, I. (2008). An integrated approach to achieving campus
sustainability: Assessment of the current campus environmental management
practices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(16), 1777–1785. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2007.12.002
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. PubMed ID: 847061 doi:10.1037/0033-
295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. London, UK: Macmillan.
Bowden, R.G., Dunsmore, D.M., & Briggs, J. (2005). Changes in social physique anxiety
during 16-week physical activity courses. Psychological Reports, 96(3), 690–692. doi:
10.2466/pr0.96.3.690-692
Bray, S.R., & Born, H.A. (2004). Transition to university and vigorous physical activity:
Implications for health and psychological well-being. Journal of American College
Health, 52(4), 181–188. PubMed ID: 15018429 doi:10.3200/JACH.52.4.181-188

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

 Recreational Facility Use 157

Butler, S., Black, D., Blue, C., & Gretebeck, R. (2004). Change in diet, physical activity, and
body weight in female college freshmen. American Journal of Health Behavior, 28(1),
24–32. PubMed ID: 14977156 doi:10.5993/AJHB.28.1.3
Caspersen, C.J., & Merritt, R.K. (1992). Trends in physical activity patterns among older
adults: The behavioral risk factor surveillance system. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 24(4), 526.
Caspersen, C.J., & Merritt, R.K. (1995). Physical activity trends among 26 states, 1986–
1990. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 27(5), 713–720. PubMed ID:
7674876 doi:10.1249/00005768-199505000-00014
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Strategies to prevent obesity and other
chronic diseases: The CDC guide to strategies to increase physical activity in the
community. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). State indicator report on physical
activity, 2014. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Crawford, S., & Eklund, R.C. (1994). Social physique anxiety, reasons for exercise, and
attitudes toward exercise settings. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 16(1),
70–82. doi:10.1123/jsep.16.1.70
Dittmar, H. (2005). Body image - vulnerability factos and processes linking sociocultural
pressures and body dissatisfaction: An introduction to the second special issue on body
image. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1081–1087. doi:10.1521/jscp.
2005.24.8.1081
Doerksen, S.E., Umstattd, M.R., & McAuley, E. (2009). Social cognitive determinants of
moderate and vigorous physical activity in college freshmen. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 39(5), 1201–1213. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00478.x
Everett, B., Salamonson, Y., & Davidson, P.M. (2009). Bandura’s exercise self-efficacy scale:
Validation in an Australian cardiac rehabilitation setting. International Journal of Nursing
Studies, 46(6), 824–829. PubMed ID: 19261281 doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.016
Fountaine, C.J., Liguori, G.A., Arupendra, M., & Schuna, J.M. (2011). Physical activity and
screen time sedentary behaviors in college students. International Journal of Exercise
Science, 4(2), 102–112.
Frank, L.D., & Engelke, P. (2016). Multiple impacts of the built environment on public
health: Walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. International Regional
Science Review, 28(2), 193–216. doi:10.1177/0160017604273853
Garcia, A.W., & King, A.C. (1991). Predicting long-term adherence to aerobic exercise: A
comparison of two models. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13(4), 394–410.
doi:10.1123/jsep.13.4.394
Glanz, K., Rimer, B., & Viswanath, K. (2008). Health behavior and health education:
Theory, research, and practice (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Godin, G. (2011). The Godin-Shephard leisure-time physical activity questionnaire. Health
& Fitness Journal of Canada, 4(1), 18–22.
Godin, G., & Shephard, R.J. (1985). A simple model to assess exercise behavior in the
community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10(3), 141–146.
Hart, E.A., Leary, M.R., & Rejeski, W.J. (1989). Tie measurement of social physique anxiety.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 94–104. doi:10.1123/jsep.11.1.94
Hausenblas, H.A., Brewer, B.W., & Van Raalte, J.L. (2004). Self-presentation and exercise.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/10413200490260026
Hooker, S.P., Wilson, D.K., Griffin, S.F., & Ainsworth, B.E. (2005). Perceptions of
environmental supports for physical activity in African American and white adults
in a rural county in South Carolina. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2(4), A11. PubMed
ID: 16164815
Irwin, J.D. (2004). Prevalence of university students’ sufficient physical activity: A systematic
review. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3), 927–943. doi:10.2466/pms.98.3.927-943

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

158 Shaikh et al.

Jacobs, D.R., Ainsworth, B.E., Hartman, T.J., & Leon, A.S. (1993). A simultaneous
evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Medicine &
Science in Sports & Exercise, 25(1), 81–91. PubMed ID: 8423759 doi:10.1249/
00005768-199301000-00012
Joseph, R.P., Royse, K.E., Benitez, T.J., & Pekmezi, D.W. (2014). Physical activity and
quality of life among university students: Exploring self-efficacy, self-esteem, and
affect as potential mediators. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 659–667. PubMed ID:
23928820 doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0492-8
Kilchenman, J.R. (2009). The impact of college recreation center renovation on overall
participant utilization and frequency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Paper 1334).
Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
Kimbrough, W.M., & Hutcheson, P.A. (1998). The impact of membership in Black Greek-
letter organizations on black students’ involvement in collegiate activities and their
development of leadership skills. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(2), 96–105. doi:
10.2307/2668220
Kowalski, N.P., Crocker, P.R.E., & Kowalski, K.C. (2001). Physical self and physical
activity relationships in college women: Does social physique anxiety moderate
effects? Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(1), 55–62. PubMed ID:
11253320 doi:10.1080/02701367.2001.10608932
Lantz, C.D., Hardy, C.J., & Ainsworth, B.E. (1997). Social physique anxiety and perceived
exercise behavior. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20(1), 83.
Li, F., Harmer, P.A., Cardinal, B.J., Bosworth, M., Acock, A., Johnson-Shelton, D., &
Moore, J.M. (2008). Built environment, adiposity, and physical activity in adults aged
50–75. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(1), 38–46. PubMed ID:
18541175 doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.021
Lightfoot, K., & Blanchard, C. (2011). Does race or sex moderate the perceived built
environment/physical activity relationship in college students? Behavioral Medicine,
37(2), 54–59. PubMed ID: 21660773 doi:10.1080/08964289.2011.571305
López Turley, R.N., & Wodtke, G. (2010). College residence and academic performance:
Who benefits from living on campus? Urban Education, 45(4), 506–532. doi:10.1177/
0042085910372351
Maddux, J.E., Sherer, M., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). Self-efficacy expectancy and outcome
expectancy: Their relationship and their effects on behavioral intentions. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 6(2), 207–211. doi:10.1007/BF01183893
Maïano, C., Morin, A.J.S., Eklund, R.C., Monthuy-Blanc, J., Garbarino, J.-M., & Stephan,
Y. (2010). Construct validity of the social physique anxiety scale in a French adolescent
sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(1), 53–62. doi:10.1080/002238909
03381809
Martin, K.A., Rejeski, W.J., Leary, M.R., McAuley, E., & Bane, S. (1997). Is the social
physique anxiety scale really multidimensional? Conceptual and statistical argu-
ments for a unidimensional model. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 19(4),
359–367. doi:10.1123/jsep.19.4.359
Martin, S.B., Morrow, J.R., Jackson, A.W., & Dunn, A.L. (2000). Variables related to meeting
the CDC/ACSM physical activity guidelines. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,
32(12), 2087–2092. PubMed ID: 11128856 doi:10.1097/00005768-200012000-00019
Mathews, A.E., Laditka, S.B., Laditka, J.N., Wilcox, S., Corwin, S.J., Liu, R., : : : Logsdon,
R.G. (2010). Older adults’ perceived physical activity enablers and barriers: A
multicultural perspective. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 18(2), 119–140.
PubMed ID: 20440026 doi:10.1123/japa.18.2.119
McAuley, E. (1993). Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in older
adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16(1), 103–113. PubMed ID: 8433355 doi:10.
1007/BF00844757

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018

 Recreational Facility Use 159

McAuley, E., & Blissmer, B. (2000). Self-efficacy determinants and consequences of

physical activity. Exercise and Sport Sciences Review, 28(2), 85–88.
Milton, P.R., & Patton, B.J. (2011). Who enters campus recreation facilities: A demographic
analysis. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation and Tourism, 7,
11–29. doi:10.5199/ijsmart-1791-874X-7b
Moltz, D. (2008). Look who’s living on campus. Retrieved from https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2008/06/27/housing
Motl, R.W., & Conroy, D.E. (2000). Validity and factorial invariance of the social physique
anxiety scale. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 32(5), 1007–1017. PubMed
ID: 10795794 doi:10.1097/00005768-200005000-00020
Nelson, M.C., Story, M., Larson, N.I., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Lytle, L.A. (2008).
Emerging adulthood and college-aged youth: An overlooked age for weight-related
behavior change. Obesity, 16(10), 2205–2211. PubMed ID: 18719665 doi:10.1038/
oby.2008.365
Patterson, M.S., Umstattd Meyer, M.R., Beaujean, A.A., & Bowden, R.G. (2014). Using the
social cognitive theory to understand physical activity among dialysis patients.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 59(3), 278–288. PubMed ID: 25019310 doi:10.1037/
a0037002
Petosa, R.L., Suminski, R., & Hortz, B. (2003). Predicting vigorous physical activity using
social cognitive theory. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(4), 301–310.
PubMed ID: 12882424 doi:10.5993/AJHB.27.4.2
Pike, G.R. (2000). The influence of fraternity or sorority membership on students’ college
experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 41(1),
117–139. doi:10.1023/A:1007046513949
Plotnikoff, R.C., Lippke, S., Courneya, K., & Sigal, R. (2010). Physical activity and
diabetes: An application of the theory of planned behaviour to explain physical activity
for Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes in an adult population sample. Psychology and Health,
25(1), 7–23. PubMed ID: 20391204 doi:10.1080/08870440802160984
Vartanian, L.R., Smyth, J.M., Zawadzki, M.J., Heron, K.E., Sulamunn, R.M., & Coleman,
B.A. (2014). Early adversity, personal resources, body dissatisfaction, and disordered
eating. Eating Disorders, 47(6), 620–629.
Watson, J.C., Ayers, S.F., Zizzi, S., & Naoi, A. (2006). Student recreation centers: A
comparison of users and non-users on psychosocial variables. Recreational Sports
Journal, 30(1), 9–19. doi:10.1123/rsj.30.1.9
Woosnam, K.M., Dixon, H.E.T., & Brookover, R.S. (2006). Influence of campus recreation
facilities on decision to attend a South-Eastern University: A pilot study. Recreational
Sports Journal, 30, 70–76. doi:10.1123/rsj.30.1.70

RSJ Vol. 42, No. 2, 2018