1. Southampton Solent University
Faculty of Business, Sport and Enterprise
This dissertation is submitted in part fulfilment of the Degree of
Bachelor of Arts with Honours in Outdoor Adventure Management
at Southampton Solent University March 2015
BA (Hons) Outdoor Adventure Management
Gillam McClure
AN INVESTIGATION INTO GENDER
DIFFERENTIATION IN MOTIVATIONS OF OBSTACLE
COURSE RACERS
March 2015

2. Acknowledgements
I would like to express gratitude towards everybody who took part in this study
and helped me throughout completing this project. In particular I would like to
thank all the members of the online Obstacle Course Race Communities, event
directors, and Southampton Sweatshop Running Community members for taking
the time to provide me with the data and feedback required in order to carry
out the study.

3. Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate and determine what motivated
individuals to participate in Obstacle Course Races (OCRs) and whether motives
differ significantly enough between male and female athletes to be able to
conclude the unbalance of gender participation in this sport. In 2013, more
than 200,000 runners across the UK took part in OCR events, an 80% increase
on 2012 (Murphy, 2015, p15). With the rise and increase popularity of these
events, there seems to be the need for research regarding what really makes
people put themselves through such gruelling challenges, and what is therefore
making them so successful. There has wide research into what drives individuals
to participate in sports such as marathons, triathlons and ultramarathons,
which investigate motives surrounding aspects such as physical health, social,
psychological and achievement aspects. Gender in sport has also been a popular
topic for many years, and past research generally concludes that within
endurance and multidiscipline running events that female athletes are more
driven by social, psychological and health motives such as affiliation, self-
esteem, and weight loss, whereas male athletes are motivated more by
achievement motives such as competition and personal goal achievement. The
method of research used was based upon an existing method that has been used
many times within studies looking into motivation of runners, and especially
marathon runners. The Motivation of Marathoners Scale (MOMS) was analysed
and adapted to accommodate aspects that relate to modern day motives such
as participating to support a charity or another external body, and upon this
the Motivation for Obstacle Course Runners Scale (MOCRS) was created. This
method used aspects of qualitative and quantitative data collection which
allowed a wide range of data to be gathered by participants. The MOCRS was
posted in online OCR communities which resulted in 622 completed surveys, of
which 616 data sets where used, 341 males and 275 females aged between 16
and 65. This data was then analysed and compared in order to detract an overall
conclusion. Results indicated that regardless of age and gender, participants
regarded personal goal achievement, affiliation to OCRs and health orientation
motives as some of the most important. Competition was regarded more
important to male athletes than female athletes, but was not regarded as
important compared to these other motives. Alongside this, the most highly
mentioned motive, which was not represented clearly within the main method
of data collection, was the aspect of fun, excitement and uncertainty that
Obstacle Course Races bring. OCR participants clearly regard these aspects as
some of the most important features of the events and without them it seems
there would be a decline in participation numbers. Motives regarding physical
health, psychological coping and social factors may change over time as
participant individual views, values and perceptions change, but it seems that
aspects of fun and excitement will always be present and will forever be a basis
of OCR motivation.

4. Contents
1.0 Introduction 1
1.2 Main Aim of Study 4
2.0Literature Review 5
2.1 Motivation for participation in sport and physical exercise. 6
2.2 Motivation Differences in Gender 7
2.3 Popularity of Multidiscipline Events 9
2.4 Motivation of Marathoners Scale (MOMS) 10
2.4.1 MOMS Limitations 12
2.5 The Rise of Obstacle Course Races 12
3.0 Methodology 15
3.1 Measures 15
3.2 Research Design: Cross-sectional / Survey Design 17
3.2.1 Suitable Methods of Research 18
3.3 Participant Selection 19
3.4 Sampling 20
3.5 Procedures 21
3.5.1 Motivations of Obstacle Course Racers (MOCRS) 21
3.5.2 MOCRS Pilot Study 23
3.6 Ethics 24
4.0 Presentation and Analysis of Findings 25
4.1 Analysis of Items of Motivation 26
4.2 Analysis of Categories of Motivation: Perceived 27
4.3 Categories of Motivation: Calculation of Actual Ratings 28
4.4 Analysis of Inductive Data: Qualitative Feedback 29
4.4.1 Coding of Raw Data: Questions 4 and 11 30
5.0 Evaluation and Discussion of Results 35
6.0 Conclusion 39
6.1 Recommendations 40
7.0 References 41
8.0 Appendices 52
Appendix A-1: General categories and Sample Items for MOMS. 52
Appendix B-1: Completed Ethics Form. 53
Appendix B-2: Screen shot of Introduction to MORCS. 53
Appendix C-1: Graph 1 & Table 4: Total Participant Means and Standard Deviation
(SD). 54
Appendix C-2: Graphs 2 & 3: Total Item Means, Gender Differences & Standard
Deviation, Gender Differences. 55
Appendix C-3: Mean and SD scores for each item: Gender differences. 56
Appendix C-4: Independent T-test showing significance (Sig. (2-Talied)) between
genders mean scores. 57
Appendix C-5: Table 7: Motivation Category Totals for Gender Differences
(Perceived) 58
Appendix C-6: Significance of Mean Differences for Gender Category Means
(Perceived) 58
Appendix C-7: Table 9: Calculations of Individual Item Means according to Overall
Categories of Motivation 59
Appendix C-8: Coding of Qualitative Feedback: Questions 4 and 11 60

5. 1
1.0 Introduction
It is well known within many sporting events, particularly long distance running,
that male participants tend to outweigh female participants, and many studies
into performance and participation differences between genders show the clear
distinction between the development of the motor skills required for sports and
exercise. As a result of the development of these skills, males perform better
in motor tasks that require strength or speed (Knisel, et al 2009). However.
Gender differences in sports participation cannot only be put down to physical
developmental dissimilarities. There is in fact evidence that shows important
differences in psychological factors, such as males are generally more
motivated to participate in sports and physical education classes than women
(Knisel et al. 2009; Chen & Darst, 2002). On top of this, it is suggested that
males have higher or more accurate perceptions of their sporting abilities than
women do, and therefore are more inclined to participate (Biddle & Mavisl.
2011; Fredricks & Eccles, 2005).
There have been many studies that concentrate on what drives people to
participate in extreme running events such as marathons (Masters & Ogles,
1998-2003; Stoll, Wuerth, & Ogles 2000), triathlons (Croft, Gray & Duncan,
2007), ultra-marathons (Krouse, 2011; Knechtle et al, 2010) and adventure
races (Eichner, 2014; Winchardt, et al, 2011; Schneider et al, 2007; Dejager,
2006), not to mention the countless studies that focus on other general sports
motivation (Pelletier et al, 1995; Weinberg & Gould, 2014), and sports
participation and gender differences (Gill et al., 1996; Richard et al., 1997;
Vallerand, 2000; Koivula, 1999). Many of these studies have been carried out
with the intention of highlighting aspects such as training routines, dietary
plans, and even sport related injuries and recovery solutions. There has not,
however been much research into the background and motivations for
participant in, what is becoming the next big challenge for runners, Obstacle
Course Races (OCR’s).
Obstacle courses have been used for many years, dating back to the Roman
Empire (Lucian, 1961) when the earliest documentation of these events can be
traced. The use of these courses for enhancing, contesting, and assessing
physical fitness, for sporting, military, and physical education purposes is in

6. 2
fact ancient practice (Mullins, 2012). Typically, obstacle courses would be
based around running, jumping, climbing, and swimming, swinging from ropes,
and usually included a muddy element. In order to complete these types of
courses, the importance of a combination of endurance, strength, agility,
balance, coordination, and strategy cannot be underestimated. These are
factors that have been researched and studied with regards to military fitness,
armed forces preparation, and even leader implementation perspectives
(Bishop, 1999; Frykman, Harman & Pandorf 2001; Department of the Armed
Forces, 2011). In addition to the uses obstacle have for military purposes,
education curricula has also seen elements to enhance motor development, and
cognitive and emotional learning (Alberta Education, 2006; Dejager, 2006;
Docheff, 1999). Basic anatomy and physiology is another element that can be
taught using these approaches in education, identifying muscles and joints most
important to negotiating obstacles, and by assessing changes in heart rate,
sweating, and perceived exertion. Obstacle courses can also be used to develop
and improve skills that relate to problem solving, leading groups, working as a
team, and orienteering. Alongside these elements, they are also know to help
strengthen personal qualities such as self-confidence, courage, persistence and
self-efficacy (Mullins, 2012).
In recent years, obstacle courses have been developed and used in a much more
mainstream way. Not only have they seen the birth of OCR’s, but they have
been so vastly developed and build that these events often include over twenty
different kinds of obstacles, ranging from basic climbs and crawls under cargo
nets, to huge mud slides, running through electric wires, and even jumping
through fire (Tough Mudder, 2014; Spartan Race, 2014). It seems that even
extreme running long distances is no longer enough to test us anymore.
Popularity of the modern versions of Obstacle Course Racing has soared among
competitive athletes, fitness enthusiasts, and many others simply wanting to
challenge themselves. Over the last few years so popular have OCR’s become,
the need for publicising these events has reached television spots, and even
online forums. Forums such as Mudstacle even hold ongoing competitions in the
form of an OCR league table. This table displays individuals who have acquired
points for a whole array of OCR events, placing them within the Mudstacle
League. Some of the featured events of the Mudstacle league include the Nuts

7. 3
Challenge, Judgement Day, Grim Challenge, Hell Runner, Eliminator Race,
Brutal 10 and Rock Solid Race, just to name a few (Mudstacle, 2015). Each of
these kinds of races vary in not only their distance and number of obstacles,
but also their difficulty to complete. So much so that many of the events offer
alternatives if a participant cannot complete an obstacle. For example, forfeits
such as completing twenty Burpies may be sufficient enough to skip passed the
tire wall (The Nuts Challenge, 2014). The Warrior Dash is a short 3.0 to 3.5
miles and consists of 12 to 14 obstacles which the majority of participants
negotiate successfully and some speed, whereas Tough Mudder events are
usually around 10 to 12 miles and consist of 20 to 30 obstacles whereby an
average of only 78% of participants complete. On few occasions, these types of
events and the obstacles they present, have been known to not only cause
injury, but on more than one occasion death (Eichner, 2014). There is no doubt
that these events come with a high risk factor, which it has been suggested not
only comes with the physical challenges, but also the immense pressure to
perform (Roach & Solomon, 2010). The risks, however, is never a factor that is
taken lightly or played down by event organisers. There is a very real possibility
that participants may seriously injure themselves, which is why there are
insurance policies that participants can sign up to in order to cover them in such
an event (Mudstacle, 2014)
So why, despite these risks (Schneider, 2007), does the number of participants
in OCR’s continue increase year-on-year? (Williams, 2014; Murphy, 2014).
Motivation and participation in sports are both topics that are commonly
studied. Many theorist study how ones psychological and cognitive need to
develop and challenge themselves is one subconscious motivating factor for
sports participation, this is described as the self-determination theory (Reeve,
Deci & Ryan, 2004; Edmunds, 2005). Another theory linked closely to this, is the
achievement goal theory (Duda, 2001) which takes into account two driving
elements, task and ego. Task oriented participants may be aiming to simply
complete the event or job at hand, whereas ego oriented individuals are more
likely to be driven by the competition with others and are more interested in
being better than another person or other people (Ntoumanis, 2001).

8. 4
The relationship between motivation and participation is a strong link to be
made when it comes to sporting events. One more link to be made, however, is
the association of certain types of motivation to genders, and therefore the
connection of gender typing to participation (Koivula, 1999; Vilhjalmsson &
Krisjandottir, 2003). Within running specific exercises and events, there is a
clear difference in participation numbers between genders, but why is this?
Could this most likely be down to what motivates people, and do these motives
differ visibly as a comparison between sexes?
1.2 Main Aim of study
The main aim of this study was to investigate what motivates individuals to take
part in Obstacle Course Races before attempting to determine what differences
and similarities occur in motivation between male and female participants. The
top motivators will then be identified and discussed.
The study that follows took place over the course of six months and looked at
participants samples located around the UK. Participants where contacted via
forums, social media, and email, and where asked to complete the Motivation
of Obstacle Course Racers Scale (MOCRS) in order to determine what motivates
individuals to take part in Obstacle Course Races.

9. 5
2.0 Literature review
The following review provides a critical evaluation of existing literature that is
relevant to the topic of motivational and participation differences between
genders in obstacle course racing. It will provide the context for the research
by critically discussing and referencing previous work in the fields surrounding
the topic. The area of study covered in this research include motivation within
sports, concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation; achievement goal theory
and self-determination; gender differences in motivation; popularity of multi-
discipline running events; and existing instruments of measuring motivation.
Within these topics the key points will be discussed and analysed, and gaps
and limitations will be debated.
It has been shown that sport participation on a regular basis can have a positive
effect on not only physical health but also on psychological health and
enhancement, emotional well-being (Panedo & Dahn, 2005; Scully & Kremer,
1998; Strohle, 2009), positive mood states (Biddle, 2007) and stress, anxiety
and depression (Taylor, 2000). Fox (1999) presents evidence that exercise can
only be effective on improving mental well-being due to improved mood and
self-perceptions, but exercise is affective as treatment for clinical depression
and anxiety. Furthermore, Koivula (1999) suggested that physical exercise
works to enhance a positive impact on body image, self-concept and self-
esteem which is determined by the rating of our self-description; it is a
judgement of the abilities, qualities, traits, and values that make up self-
concept. It is important to understand not only how exercise and physical
activity can have a positive effect on these aspects, but also how these aspects
may be what motivates participants of sports and exercise.
The importance of motivation to the developmental outcomes and influences
on sport behavioural variables such as persistence, learning, and performance
have been shown as invaluable (Vallerand, Deci, & Ryan, 1987; Pelletier et al.,
1995, 2013). Weinberg and Gould (2014) suggest that behaviour within sporting
activities is the result of “complex interaction between environment (especially
social environments) and the personal makeup of an athlete”. This suggest that
motives to participate in sports are predominantly external in nature. However,
Bouchard et al (2006, 12) suggests that leisure activities are defined as “an
activity undertaken in an individual’s discretionary time” and is based upon an

10. 6
individual’s needs and interests. This view suggests internal motives for
participation. Both recognise that ‘sport’ is a form of physical activity that
naturally involves competition at some level, which is regarded as a form of
internal motive.
2.1. Motivation for participation in sport and physical exercise.
Motivation to participate in sports and exercise in general are based upon the
perceived benefits of the individual (Koivula, 1999). Motives may range from
not only physical health aspects, but also to weight control and appearance,
stress and mood management, competition and enjoyment, and fun and
excitement. As perceptions in nature change not only with individuals but also
over time, motives to participate will always be diverse and different according
to participants, which will almost certainly be influenced by aspects of age and
gender (Tappe & Duda, 1989). Not only do motives differ, but also the strength
of these motives vary depending on perceptions.
A lot of sports psychology literature supports aspects of achievement
motivational theories and suggests that mastery or task orientation is dominant,
emphasising intrinsic motivational values opposed to those that are extrinsic in
nature such as win orientation (Gill et al., 1996). Much of this literature
suggests that participants of sports and exercise seek to learn skills, want to be
generally physically active, and most importantly pursue fun and enjoyment.
Roberts & Treasure (2001) motives fall into one of two characteristics of human
nature. Psychological drivers are said to appeal to our mechanistic nature,
where participants are motivated by aspects of psychological coping linked to
aspects such as stress, anxiety and depression. On the other hand, cognitive
theories relate to actively processing and interpreting physical achievement,
leading to initiating action. Masters & Ogles (1993) concluded that there are
nine main categories of motivation for marathon runners, a template that has
been used in many studies since looking at sporting events of a variety of
discipline. Personal goal achievement, health orientation, weight concern, life
meaning, self-esteem and confidence, psychological coping, and competition
are forms of intrinsic motivation. Recognition from others and affiliation to an
event are extrinsic motives. Using their Motivation for Marathoners Scale

11. 7
(MOMS), many of these studies have deducted that participants of age and
gender differences vary in how they regard the importance to these. In 2000,
Ogles and Masters indicated that older runners are more motivated to run for
broad health orientation, weight concern, life meaning, and affiliation with
other runners. Younger runners are more inclined to participate for reasons
related to personal goal achievement.
2.2 Motivation Differences in Gender
It is no secret that gender values are dictated by society, which dictates what
is acceptable and therefore must have an effect perceptions and what
motivates individuals (Bem, 1974, 1981). It is often suggested that there is more
pressure on social aspects of motivation in women such as weight loss and other
body related drivers, and in men competition and competence is expected to
be of high importance. Bond & Batey (2005) report that women within
recreational sport are more driven by the desire to lose weight, become fit and
/ or gain social affiliation. This is known as the “Social Motivation Model”.
However, Bond also highlights that there are many female recreational athletes
who are driven though achievement goal” motives which are often associated
with male participants. It is suggested that older participants and females often
rate competition less important than younger and male participants. Whereas
social motives are perceive with more importance in older and female
participants, and weight loss more important to younger female participants
(Koivula, 1999). Krouse (2011) found that women tend to place exercise needs
below those of their spouse or children, and that mothers are less likely to
participate altogether.
Perceptions on gender within sport, whether certain sports are suited to either
gender, and how these perceptions and stereotypes affect participation, have
been some of the most examined topics in sport psychology (Chalabaev et al,
2013). The main two methods of identifying this have been to use Bem’s model
of gender (Bem, 1974, 1981), and Eccles’ (1983) expectance-value model.
Bem (1981, p1) suggests that there is always a ‘generalised readiness to process
information on the basis of sex-linked associations’, meaning that the way
genders are perceived often dictates the outlook of a situation, or the decisions

12. 8
that an individual may make. She draws upon the idea that boys and girls, men
and women, are expected to conform to certain traits and personalities, and to
acquire certain skills and attributes. This process is called sex or gender typing
(Barry, Bacon & Child, 1957). Bem uses the Gender Schema as a platform to
base her research. The schematic process is one that enables the individual to
make meaning of and give structure to the vast array of information and stimuli
being received. The readiness in which that stimuli is used and invoked is what
Nisbett & Ross (1980) refers to as the cognitive availability. This readiness is
suggested to vary between individuals, and within the gender schema theory,
proposes that males and females absorb and register certain stimuli differently,
therefor basing their actions and decision on what they deem matches his or
her preferences, attitudes, behaviours, and personality attributes against the
prototypes stored within. Furthermore, decisions made are based on motives
that serve ones self-esteem, regulating the individual’s behaviour in order to
conform to the cultures’ definition of ‘maleness’ and ‘femaleness’ (Kagen,
1964; Kohlberg, 1966). Ryan & Branscombe (2013) challenge the gender schema
concept, suggesting that it is not enough for society to decide what is feminine
and masculine, and that the schemata is based on un supported characteristics.
They highlight that the test is unreliable due to the very stereotypical
characteristics and items used within the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI),
therefore causing confusion between what is classed as a personality trait and
what is a gender trait. Ryan and Branscombe (p172) go on to question “…if
gender is culturally determined, then how can we explain why, within the same
culture, some people become strongly gender typed and others do not?” Koivula
(1999) studied the differences in motivation and participation due to gender
typing, and suggests that because of the vast variety of motives for taking part
in sports, there tends to an obvious split in participation between genders. His
study used that Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) to identify some of these
motives. Chalabaev et al (2013) studied gender typing and sex stereotypes in
sports and exercise, and used two main approaches to the study: the situational
approach which suggests that the mere presence of stereotypes within sports
and exercise is sufficient enough to affect individuals (stereotype threat
theory); and the stereotype content model which suggests that stereotypes

13. 9
about certain groups may be uncertain and may therefore serve to confirm the
current situation.
2.3 Popularity of Multidiscipline Events
Traditionally, endurance and multidiscipline events were seen as competitive
sports. Recently however, participants of these sports tend to cite social
aspects as of high importance. Does this mean these events have become more
recreational?
The increase in the popularity of running over that past 30 years has led to a
huge incline in the number of multi-discipline running in more recent years
(Buist et al. 2010). These kinds of events cover a whole variety of disciplines
and terrains, such as road running, trail running, triathlons (Crofts, 2009;
Crofts, Schofield & Dickson, 2012) adventure races (Mattsson, 2011; Dejager,
2006) marathons (Ogles, Masters, Richardson, 1995; Masters & Ogles, 1993;
Ogles & Masters, 2000, 2003) and even ultramarathons (Krouse et al., 2011;
Doppelmayr & Molkenthin, 2004).
Arguably two of the most recognised disciplines within running and multi-
discipline sports are marathons and triathlons. The popularity of these events
is ever increasing, attracting runners who are not only looking to compete, but
also recreational runners. Masters & Ogles (1993) state that the most obvious
motive for participation in Marathons is for health and fitness reasons, but
participating in these events is not easy, so why is participation in these events
increasing year on year? (Lakinger, 2008; Crofts, Schofield & Dickson, 2012).
Lakinger (2008) studied motivational factors of marathon running, using the
Motivation of Marathon Runners Scale (MOMS) which was developed by Ogles
and Masters in 1995. Her study aimed to look at reasons outside of health and
fitness for individuals to participate in marathons, and to determine whether
age, gender, and ability have an effect on this. Running, especially over longer
distances, is often associated with psychological effects such as decreased
depression levels (Griest et al., 1979), reduced trait anxiety (Wilson & Raglin,
1997) and increased positive moods (Morris & Salmon, 1994). Lakinger highlights
that this may not be all so positive, and that running has in fact been suggested
to be a negative addiction, a way of coping with daily stressors the same way

14. 10
as some people use drugs and alcohol, also experiencing withdrawal symptoms.
The study showed that those most ‘addicted’ to running experienced lower
levels of anxiety and depression traits than those who ran recreationally. This
may not, however, be solely down to running in itself. The ability to be mentally
strong and stick to the rigorous training plans and to stay strong may be the
underlying factor. The results from Lakinger’s study were drawn from 677
participants, of which 324 were male and 353 were female. The outcomes
showed that the top three reasons for participating in marathons was self-
esteem, followed by personal goal achievement and health orientation.
The MOMS has also been used to study motivation levels between elite and non-
elite triathletes, varying in age, gender and ability, not dissimilar to Lakinger’s
study. Crofts, Schofield & Dickson (2012) used a slightly altered version of the
MOMS which helped to determine that personal goal achievement, competition
and health orientations were the main motivators. This study was only based
upon results drawn from 34 athletes, compared to Lakinger’s 677, but the
outcomes are almost the same with one exception. Comparing these two studies
shows that general motivation for these kinds of events have clear similarities,
and therefore suggest that this form of data collection, and that the method of
using the Motivation of Marathoners Scale is a credible one.
2.4 Motivation of Marathoners Scale
Ogles and Masters Typology of Marathon Runners (2003) aims to provide
statistically derived groupings of marathon runners based on their motives to
participate. In order to test their hypothesis that “marathon runners are
heterogeneous in terms of their motives for running and that definable
subgroups could be identified” (2003, p69) they used their earlier produced
procedure, the Motivation for Marathon Runners Scale (MOMS) (1993). The scale
consists of 56 items that are rated according to importance in participating in
a marathon. These items are then later divided into nine sub categories that
further define motivational purposes.
The MOMS itself was based upon previous studies that had already investigated
the motives of long distant runners (Carmack & Martens, 1979; Curtis & McTeer,
1981; Johnsguard, 1985, 1989; Masters and Lambert, 1989; Summers et al,

15. 11
1982, 1983), where many other forms of measuring motivation were used but
the validity of these procedures had been questioned (Ogles & Masters, 1993).
Up until this point, there had not been an instrument in existence that
measured the psychometric qualities needed to assess the broad range of
motivations of marathon runners, which proved to be a limitation that produced
inaccurate results. Within the broad divisions of the scale, nine specific reasons
for participating where identified and catalogued, deriving from previous
existing publications. Psychological motives that were recorded included
maintaining or enhancing self-esteem, a sense of life meaning, and problem
solving or coping with negative emotions. Physical motives were identified as
running for general health and weight concern, and social motives as to affiliate
with other runners, and to receive recognition or approval from others. Finally,
achievement motives were identified as running for competition, and personal
goal achievement motives (Masters & Ogles, 1993). Table 1 illustrates these
nine specific reasons and how they derived from previous publications.
Appendix A-1 lists examples of the individual elements that make up the nine
specific reasons for participating in marathons. Previous studies provided Ogles
and Masters with 21 items that they would then add another 91 items onto for
participants to rate in importance for running a marathon. This allowed them
to form the nine scales, which consisted of the most reliable and important
items from previous studies (Masters & Lambert, 1989). After initially testing
the scale, it was decided that 24 of the items where redundant and would be
eliminated. Initial testing of the scale meant Ogles and Masters where able to
identify any weaknesses in the system before administering it to the first
sample of candidates.
The scale was tested on two samples to assure validity and reliability. The first
sample was presented to 482 runners; 387 men (80%) and 95 women (20%). The
runners where aged between 16 and 63 years (M = 37.5, SD = 9.21), and twenty
percent were competing in their first marathon (n = 98). The second sample
was presented to 712 runners, 61 of which were men (84%) and 111 where
women (16%). The age range for this sample was 16 to 79 years, and again,
twenty percent (n = 145) where running in their first marathon. As the figures
show, sample sizes for each of the studies where significant and covered a large
age range, strengthening the validity and reliance of the instrument.

16. 12
2.4.1 MOMS Limitations
The Motivation of Marathoners Scale (Masters & Ogles, 1993) was built upon
previous studies and instruments of measuring motivation within long distance
runners. The four areas of motivation covering psychological motives, physical
motives, achievement, and social motives are still relevant for use today, but
do not seem to address motives that relate to participating for the sake of
others. For example, to help friends or family participate, or to raise money
for an external cause.
Jeffery (2010) conducted a study that looked into motivations for marathon
runners for the purpose of a charity or cause. Jeffery highlights that running
marathons for charitable causes really started to take of in the late 80’s, where
training programs would state that running for a cause would be motivation
enough to participate in a marathon. It could be suggested that deeper
meanings linked with running for charities could fall under affiliation,
recognition, and even health motives. Masters & Ogles (1993) discussed that
motivation for marathons did not seem to be heavily influenced by social
factors, but this may be an outcome of the items being too broad in their
meaning. Therefore, the very fact that fundraising for a cause covers such a
wide array of reasons for doing so, it would make sense to include items within
the MOMS that clearly cover this. Finally, both studies carried out to test the
validity of the MOMS where done so with quite a heavy imbalance of participants
in the sample. Within both samples, only 20 percent of participants (n = 98, n
= 111) where women. Therefore, neither sample results can claim to be
representative of males and females equally.
2.5 The Rise of Obstacle Course Races
Adventure races (AR) (or expedition racing) are multi-discipline endurance
races that incorporate usually 3 or more disciplines such as mountain biking,
trekking, navigation, running, kayaking, canoeing, climbing, archery,
orienteering, swimming and high elements on rope courses. Races can vary from
6 hours to expedition-length events that can last up to 10 consecutive days
(Mattsson, 2011; Ranchordas, 2012). AR’s take place mostly in rural setting
where the terrain is suitable for these disciplines, but have also been known to

17. 13
be located in urban areas where the terrain can be more extreme, requiring
participants to scale buildings and navigate. These challenges are set up to test
the determination and fitness of teams of individuals, whereby all participants
must endure the physical and psychological challenges in order to complete the
race. Ultra-endurance events are just one way in which people are challenging
themselves to above and beyond, to push their boundaries and break the
barriers that the organism is capable of. Similar goals apply to those who
participate in Obstacle Course Races (OCR’s), albeit facing very different
challenges and hurdles.
Mullins (2012) provides background information to explain that the use of
obstacle courses to test and enhance physical fitness is not a system that has
only recently come to light. In fact, obstacle courses have been found to be
used for sporting, military, and even physical education purposes that date back
as early as the Roman Empire. Within her article, Mullins seeks to answer four
questions, of which two question what makes obstacle course challenges so
popular, and another ask what traits and abilities characterise top performers.
Mullins also provides research on what effective training should entail, and
what characterizes well-designed obstacle courses.
Obstacle courses and their individual elements were most commonly used for
training purposes. These types of training programs are still used heavily for
military training purposes (www.marines.com, www.army.mil), of which one of
the main elements that is favoured is mud. Lucian (1961) noted that using mud
helped to cushion landing of individuals, and also helps to develop strength.
Mullins supports further readings by stating that participants in these kinds of
strength training sessions would engage in a great diversity of activities, which
include a range of more modern day elements, including running, jumping,
swimming, and climbing just to name a few. This relation to modern day
obstacle course races is mentioned in a number of other articles on the subject.
In fact, Williams (2014) indicates that obstacle racing draws on elements of
modern day disciplines such as expedition adventure racing, trail running, and
parkour. Roach and Solomon (2013) add triathlons to this list. One of the main
aspects that is highlighted, not only in Mullins’ paper, is how combinations of
endurance, strength, agility, coordination, balance and strategy are required
for these events, especially for the more serious, higher level participants. Of

18. 14
course, all participants, no matter their ability, must be of an ability that allows
them to complete most of, of not all of, the obstacles. In fact, Chandler (2014)
suggests that obstacle races are a means of catapulting novice athletes into
better shape.
Obstacle Course Racing may have originated from army training regimes,
targeting athletes who would be tested to the same demands of physical
strength and ability as those in army style training; but OCR’s have in the last
four or five years become so popular to everyday individuals, that they could
now also been seen as recreational events, following in the footsteps of
marathons and other multi-discipline sports.

19. 15
3.0 Methodology
The following section will provide a clear explanation of the method(s) used to
collect and analyse all the data relevant for the current study. It will
concentrate mainly on the rationale behind the data collection and the study
itself, whilst referring to theoretical methodology literature relevant to the
study topics. The topic to be discussed is what motivates people to participate
in Obstacle course Races (OCR), and whether or not a significant link can be
made between certain motives and gender. In order to do this, a sample group
of current OCR participants was targeted in order to determine what motivates
them to enter these events. The study will then take these motives and
compare the outcomes between genders in order to establish if a pattern
emerges. A mixed-method of quantitative and qualitative data collection was
used, compared, and critically analysed in order to determine the most suitable
method and if / how they complemented each other (Bryman & Bell, 2011;
Gratton & Jones, 2010). There have been many studies conducted regarding
motivation and gender participation within similar events such as marathon
running (Ogles, Masters, Richardson, 1995; Ogles & Masters, 1993, 2000, 2003)
and adventure running (Mattsson, 2011; Dejager, 2006), but up until now
Obstacle Course Running has not been considered to the same extent within
these boundaries. The succeeding segments of this study discuss what methods
where used to do this, what steps were taken to identify suitable procedures
and how they were adapted, and the sample of participants that were targeted
within the overall approach.
3.1. Measures
The data for this study was collected using measures of mixed methods. Much
of the instrument used for data collection uses a positivist approach, relying on
quantitative data in order to determine how individuals rank the items of
motivation. In terms of data analysis, this deductive method is precise and
means variable can be easily controlled (Gratton & Jones, 2010), which is not
only generally more straightforward to plan, but also allows the researcher to
predict possible outcomes. The data can be easily analysed without the need
of interpretation. Many of the previous studies mentioned that have

20. 16
investigated similar events to OCRs use a deductive approach, setting out
specific variables that are then ranked in order to score motivation levels. This,
however, may be one explanation as to the very reason Masters & Ogles (1993)
felt the need to adapt existing methods in order to create their own, more
relevant one. This can certainly be said for the approach used within this study
(MOCRS). As already briefly discussed, and discussed in more detail further on,
the Motivation of Obstacle Course Racers Scale (MOCRS) was produced off the
back of the existing method of Motivation for Marathoners Scale. The rationale
behind this was that the deductive nature of the MOMS did not accommodate
all of the up to date aspects related to motivation for running long distance and
multidiscipline events (see 3.1, p15). To achieve this, an inductive approach
was adopted. Using forms of interpretivism and collecting qualitative data
meant any missing items related to motivation, such as running for charity
(Jeffery, 2010; Nettleton & Hardey, 2011), could be added to the MOCRS. It was
decided that an Inductive approach would be sustained throughout the data
collection stage of which the second data set would serve to either support or
challenge the outcome of the deductive approach. This would also help to test
the overall validity of the instrument. Interpretivism is a much more common
approach with sports-related research and social studies due to the belief that
discoveries can be made using these methods which cannot with methods of
natural sciences (Elias, 1986). Gratton & Jones (2010) highlights that sports is
a social phenomenon and that those who watch or play sports are acted upon
by external social factors that cannot be measured using positivist approaches
alone. Further use of an interpretivist approach, such as that used by Koivula
(1999), will be utilised within the same instrument to allow the outcomes from
the scaling tool to be either supported or challenged, which will permit the
overall method to be tested further for validity. Mixing methods of both
deductive and inductive methods, also known as ‘Realism’, challenges the more
scientific, positivist approach and allows aspects of interpretivism to be
combined in order compose a more relevant and reliable study.

21. 17
3.2 Research Design: Cross-sectional / Survey Design
In order to conduct a reliable and time efficient method of data collection, a
cross-sectional design was implemented. Gratton and Jones (2010) identify this
design allow a random sample to be identified meaning there are less
boundaries and constraints on what individuals would be specifically targeted.
The use of this design, however, would in this case be used to identify a sample
specific to OCR events. The first step to this design was to decide what
questions needed to be answered. In order to investigate what motivates people
to participate in an OCR, the first question that needed answering would be
what existing studies are relevant and how do they conduct similar studies?
Many of the previous studies identified looked at and used deductive methods
of data collection utilising a Likert scale scoring system that would determine
importance of individual motives (2.1, p6). Before deciding upon a method that
would be suitable, the validity and reliability would need to be questioned (2.4,
pp10, 11) and proven to be credible. The Motivation of Marathoners Scale
(MOMS) (Masters & Ogles, 1993) came out as the most relevant and reliable
method that currently existed with the intention of measuring motivation of
runners. This tool has been used in a number of studies looking at motivation
within runners of different disciplines, and was itself adapted off the back of
other methods (3.5.1, p21) that preceded its time. Limitations of this
instrument include a lack of consideration of not only the recent growth in
distance runs (Deaner, 2013), but also the birth of adventure runs and obstacle
course runs which require extra consideration for an altogether different fitness
level (Schmidt, 2013). In order to adapt and update the MOMS, an initial
Netnographic approach was conducted, recording inductive, qualitative
feedback which then allowed any absent categories of motives to be added to
the instrument. This inductive approach proved the MOMS to be mostly current
in terms of its items of motivation. It did suggest, however, that there should
be more of an emphasis on motives to participate in order to support external
bodies such as charities. Recent studies (Jeffery, 2010; Nettleton & Hardey,
2011) highlight the importance and motivation behind entering events in order
to support a charity or external body, and how the number of people
participating for these reasons is in constant growth, especially with the
increase in the number of charitable bodies in the UK (Charity Commissions,

22. 18
2014). These methods combined would help produce a data collection tool that
was based on updated information, and feedback specific to the topic being
studied. It would also test and confirm the validity of the MOMS which would
be used.
3.2.1 Suitable Methods of Research
There are many areas of study that this research document takes into account,
such as gender and gender typing, age, and personal motivation, each of which
require different forms of data analysis. For example, motives alone were
measured not only using a rating scale method, but also using open ended
questions encouraging diverse feedback. Therefore, a mixed methods approach
was used in order to collect strong reliable data. There have been many past
studies into very similar topics such as marathon running (Ogles & Masters,
1993, 2000, 2003; Ogles, Masters, Richardson, 1995), Adventure racing
(Dejager, 2006), gender typing in sports (Bem, 1981; Koivula, 1999), and sports
motivation (Pelletier et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 1997; Humpel, Owen, Leslie,
2002), many of which have used a mixture of qualitative and quantitative
methods. Bem’s Sex-Role inventory (1974) used a qualitative cluster method in
order to determine how genders process information. She used a scoring system
as a tool to identify sex-typed individuals on the basis of their self-concepts or
self-ratings of their personal attributes. However, concerns over the validity
Bem’s approach arose later in the 1970’s when it was suggested that roles of
men and women had changed within society and were outdated (Holt & Ellis,
1998), and later research suggests that gender typing should not be based upon
one overall general framework such as Maccoby & Jacklin (1974), but should be
narrowed so that cognitive and social behaviours should be assessed separately
(Eagly, 2013). Ogles and Masters’ (1993) Motivations of Marathoners Scale
(MOMS) uses a deductive method of analysis, utilising a scaling system based
around motives, of which data can be quantified and analysed. This approach
raises concerns that relate to the limitations of the items within the scale
themselves and how representative and up-to-date they are (see 2.4.1, p12).
Koivula (1999), on the other hand used mainly quantitative data collection in
an inductive approach, which utilised questionnaires that participants filled

23. 19
out. He was then able to identify trends and categorise the feedback given
before analysing it. This is a lengthy process, and has many time limitations as
well as possibility for non-specific data. Arguably, both methods have their
advantages and disadvantages, but it is commonly believed that a mixed-
method approach is best used when studying social situations. This method is
often referred to a realism and incorporates ideas of both positivism and
interpretivism in order to construct more meaningful conclusions (Smith, 2010).
3.3 Participant Selection
In order to make this study relevant to the current UK OCR community, the
targeted participants were constructed according to their interest and
experience in participating in obstacle course races (n=623) and where
identified within OCR communities currently existing in the UK. Each
participant had either previously participated in at least one OCR, or where
interested in doing so. This would not only provide data on motives for currently
participating, but also on what factors would attract an inexperienced OCR
participant to do so. This was an important factor when considering participants
although motives can be categorised to determine a driving force (Farrell, et
al, 2004), they are extremely subjective and dynamic, meaning ones motives
may change or adapt according to pre or post-experience (Filo, Funk & Hornby,
2009). Although participants would all have different individual experiences of
OCR events, they would all be using the same instrument of measurement,
which would therefor allow similarities to be made between motives and
gender. Out of the 622 participants, 6 did not complete the whole survey and
for that reason their results were discarded, meaning results were analysed
from 616 participants. A target response total was 622 participants, stratified
by firstly by age and gender, as well as their current experience of partaking in
OCR events according to how many they had previously completed.
Few boundaries can be drawn from participation selection within this study.
One which can be identified is the imbalance of gender participation within the
process. However, this difference is not as great as one would have expected
prior to undertaking this process as gender participation in sports and running
events generally show a much wider gap between males and females. Another

24. 20
limitation that may arise is that the participation selection may be seen as too
wide and not specific to only participants who have previously experienced and
OCR event. This, however would not address the dynamic nature of motivation
according to experiences in as much depth as required. Furthermore, this would
not be a representative sample of the growth and popularity in the OCR
community (Murphy, 2014).
3.4 Sampling
Within this study, two modes of survey administration was used. The
Motivations of Obstacle Course Racers Scale (MOCRS) was emailed and posted
via online social media to OCR event organisers and online OCR community
groups such as ‘Obstacle Course Racing (UK.OCR)’ within the UK. There was no
predetermined sample size as participants of the MOCRS where self-selected,
allowing freedom of participation which may also encourage higher levels of
interest in the topic of study itself. The respondents were informed that the
study aimed to investigate motives of OCR participants and how these motives
may have a common theme when compared between genders. Little
information was given about the current OCR climate and its growing
popularity, and participants were informed that all information would remain
anonymous. The sampling procedure took place over the course of a four week
period, during a time of year when obstacle course racing is extremely popular
and many of the big events take place (Mudstacle, 2014). This method of
sampling was chosen because online forms of communication such as email and
social media platforms are constantly expanding, and prove to be a much more
efficient way of disbursing information in the form of surveys and
questionnaires. Furthermore, social media platforms such as Facebook
encourage users to discuss topics with strangers that they may not otherwise
wish to do. Krasnova et al. (2010) suggests that online social media encourages
its users to self-disclose information that other platforms do not. It was this
ease of interaction that instigated this sampling method.
This, however, may come with some limitations. As stated by Bryman and Bell
(2011), this format means we can’t be sure of how representative the sample

25. 21
is, and we cannot control who answers them regarding gender and age. This
may lead to an imbalance in results and therefore not the most reliable data.
3.5 Procedures
3.5.1 Motivations of Obstacle Course Racers Scale (MOCRS)
The main procedure used to collect data for the study was a result of extensive
research into currently existing methods used in investigations into motives for
participating in similar sporting activities such as adventure running (Mattsson,
2011; Dejager, 2006), triathlons (Crofts, 2009; Crofts, Schofield & Dickson,
2012), marathon running (Ogles & Masters, 1993, 2000, 2003; Ogles, Masters,
Richardson, 1995; Lakinger, 2008), ultramarathons (Krouse et al., 2011;
Doppelmayr & Molkenthin, 2004), as well as general sport motivation (Guay,
Vallerand, Blanchard, 2000; Pelletier, 1995, 2013; Dwyers, 1988; McAuley,
Duncan, Tammen, 1989). As discussed previously (see 2.0, p?) many different
methods of measuring motivation have been used in past studies, methods such
as Guay, Vallerand, and Blanchard’s Situational Motivation Scale (SMS) (2000)
which has also been used on many occasions for assessing motivation within
businesses (Rich, Lepine, Crawford, 2010; Van Yperen, Hagedoorn, 2003). Other
instruments that appear in many studies (Vallerand, 1997; Biddle, Mutrie, 2007;
Mageau, Vallerand, 2003) include the Sports Motivation Scale (Pelletier et al.,
1995, 2012), and the Sports Intrinsic Motivational Scale (Dwyer, 1988).
However, the most commonly used for studies into the most relevant events
such as marathons and multidiscipline runs is Ogles and Masters’ (1993)
Motivations of Marathoners Scale (MOMS).
Due to its relevance to the topics being studies and proof of validity, as
discussed previously (see 2.4, p?), the MOMS has been used a number of times
in many different studies since 1993 when it was created and today (Ogles,
Masters, 1993, 2000, 2003; Ogles, Masters, Richardson, 1995; Krouse et al,
2011), including studies that have adapted the scale in order to make it more
relevant and reliable for the purpose of sports or activities other than marathon
running. LaChausse (2006) and Brown and O’Connor (2009) adapted the scale
in order to use it to measure motivation within cycling. This in itself helps to
validate the tool and supports its flexibility of use and reliability.

26. 22
For use in this study, concerning motivation for participants in obstacle course
races (OCR), the MOMS was adapted according to feedback given by current
members of online OCR communities. The original 56-item instrument created
by Ogles and Masters became an instrument consisting of 64 items that would
need to be rated in the same way as the MOMS format. Due to recent studies
concerning running for charity (3.1) the extra 8 items that where added would
refer specifically to the importance of participating for the support of others,
requiring participants to rate their motives on items such as “To support a
cause” and “To support another participant”. Furthermore, 9 specific
categories for motivation became 10, with the addition of “Support others”.
Participants would be required to assess how important each item when
participating in OCRs using a scale of 1 to 7. A lowest score of 1 would indicate
that the item is “not a reason” to participate, and a maximum score of 7 would
indicate that the item is “a very important reason” for participation, and the
scores between represent relative degrees for each reason. Those 64 items
would then each correspond to one of the 10 specific categories of motives for
participating in an OCR. A scale score represents the average of responses to
the items constituted that scale.
A set of quantitative questions were also added before and after the scale. This
would not only allow participants to provide feedback to questions such as
“What two elements most appeal to you about OCRs?”, but would mean that
the feedback provided could be analysed and compared to the quantitative
results that would be gathered separately. This would not only act to help test
the validity of the MOCRS, but would also mean perceptions of self-motivations
for OCRS could be tested using two different approaches. This would help
strengthen or contradict the results. To do this, Miles and Huberman’s (1994)
three stage approach was used. The results would be reduced and organised,
discarding irrelevant information and identifying trends and similarities in the
data reduction stage. Next, in the data display stage, the reduced data would
be displayed in table and charts to aid draw conclusions. Finally, in order to
draw conclusions, the data in was then analysed and the initial conclusion was
verified according to previous findings and statements made. The final
conclusion to this process would then be compared to the conclusions drawn
from the deductive (quantitative) method of data collection.

27. 23
3.5.2 MOCRS Pilot Study
Questions concerning age, gender, number of OCRs completed, being a member
of a fitness club, and asking for their views on what most appeals to them about
an OCR where added as an introduction to the scale. This method also provided
feedback on the instrument itself for validity and reliability reasons during a
trial run. This document was then presented in the first sample to 15 runners
(6 female, 9 male) who varied widely in terms of running and OCR experience,
and age (24 to 42). Several of the members held graduate degrees and were
familiar with the structure the instrument and motivational theories. All 15
members were asked to review the instrument and provide feedback on the
items and structure itself, as well as the ambiguity and wording used. The test
subjects suggested that the structure of the instrument and the questions
should be rearranged and that some of the questions themselves weren’t clear
as to what they were asking. Therefore, age and gender questions where moved
to the end of the questionnaire, and minor changes in wording where made.
The scale itself was not scrutinised too much other than to say that some of the
items where very similar. These comments, however, where not based on
background knowledge of the procedure by which the MOMS was originally built
and therefore was not changed.
Following the development, pilot test and adaptations of the Motivations of
Obstacle Course Racers Scale (MOCRS), sources of information for data
collection where then identified. Initial methods for this involved contacting
fitness clubs and race organisers in order to ask permission to get the MOCRS
sent out to their members and participants. These contacts consisted of local
running clubs such as the Sweatshop Running Communities that are spread
across the UK, which would allow for feedback from all ability levels, as well
as from all experience levels reflective of OCR running. Unquestionably the
most effective and relevant sources of data collection would be recognised as
current members of OCR communities, and the most efficient way to contact
members across the UK would again be to use a Netnographical approach
through online social media (OSM) groups and forums. Apart from the ease at

28. 24
which OSMs permit members self-disclose (Krasnova et al., 2010), OSMs and
their constant growth in the age of technology allow information to be shared
worldwide within minutes through the likes of platforms such as Facebook and
Twitter. It is because of this that a search for OCR groups was conducted within
the Facebook platform and relevant communities where contacted. This
method allowed members to willingly post further feedback on the research
topic itself outside of the MOCRS instrument presented.
3.6 Ethics
In order to make this study an ethical one, an Ethics Policy form was completed
prior to any information being collected (appendix B-1). The nature in which
Netnography was used within this research paper meant all posts reviewed
within the Mudstacle forum where submitted from members who would be
anonymous and at no point would they be asked to disclose any personal details.
Langer and Beckman’s (2005) paper supports this and proposes that
Netnography as a method of data gathering is an effective way of “conducting
covert research” (p189), and suggest that Netnography allows the researcher
to gather information that other methods may not, without disclosing personal
details. The MOCRS also follows ethical guidelines, such as those outlined by
Silverman (2013), by informing any possible participants of the survey that only
participants ages 16 years and older should contribute, and that all feedback
will be kept anonymous (appendix B-2). Furthermore, questions regarding age
and those asking for further written feedback are not ‘required’ (*) fields.

29. 25
4.0 Presentation and Analysis of Findings
What follows is a presentation and analysis of the results that were produced
in the study using the Motivation of Obstacle Course Racer Scale (MOCRS), which
will then lead to the point where a conclusion can be clearly identified and
discussed.
The final sample (n = 616) included 341 males (55.4%) and 275 females (44.6%),
competing in a number of different events across the UK. Of these participants,
407 (66.2%) stated that they were part of some form of fitness club, or attended
classes in order to train and keep fit. Clubs and classes included gyms (n = 247,
60.6%), running clubs (n = 104, 25%), boot-camp and cross-fit type groups (n =
118, 29%), OCR specific groups (n = 9, 2%), Triathlon clubs (n = 13, 3%), and
other classes or clubs (n = 41, 10%). On average, contributors to the survey had
previously partook in 8 OCR events. Their experience was recorded according
to the number of OCR events already accomplished prior to completion on the
MOCRS (table 2):
Table 2: Number of OCR's completed
Percent (%) n
0 4.9 30
1 to 5 51.5 318
6 to 15 28 173
16 to 25 9.4 58
26 to 35 3.7 23
36 to 45 1.3 8
46+ 1.1 7
Table 3: Age of respondents
Percent (%) n
16-25 14.3 85
26-35 43.2 256
36-45 31.9 189
46-55 9.3 55
56-65 1.3 8
66-75 0 0
76+ 0 0
Type of event Number (n =) Percentage (%)
10k runs 75 17
Half Marathon 57 13.5
Trail / off road runs 24 5.7
Cross-country runs 12 2.85
Adventure & Ultra runs 7 1.6
5k runs 34 8
Marathons 15 3.5
Other 38 9

30. 26
Alongside this, participants where asked whether they regularly took part in
other fitness events, and if so what kinds. 421 (68.7%) stated that they do, with
10km runs and Half Marathons being the most popular among these (table 4).
Others mentioned include trail, cross-country, adventure and ultra runs, 5km
runs, marathons, and other events. The average age of the participants was 35,
ranging between 16 and 65 as shown in table 3. In this case there were no
participants of 66 and over.
4.1 Analysis of Items of Motivation
The MOCRS uses a method of deductive data in the form of items of motivation
that where scored in terms of importance. The following is an analysis of the
quantitative data that derived from this.
As graph 1 and table 5 illustrate (appendix C-1), with a means score of 6.34 (SD
= 1.036), the single item (42) rated as most important to all participants (n =
616) was “to push myself beyond my current limits”, closely followed by “to
compete with myself” (item 10) scoring a mean of 6.18 (SD = 1.209). With a
means score of 2.33 (SD = 1.696), the lowest scoring item (53) in terms of
importance was “so people look up to me”. The second bottom score was for
“to solve problems” (item 47), with a mean 0f 2.40 (SD = 1.721).
Comparing total mean scores between genders, however, show some
differences in what the contributors considered to be motives of high and low
value to participating in OCRs. As graphs 2 and 3 show (appendix C-2), both
male and female participant regard participating “to push myself beyond my
current limits” (item 42) as the most important motive (n = 6.32, 6.36; SD =
1.015, 1.063). However, the lowest valued motive for men revealed itself to be
“to become less anxious” (item 11, n = 2.34, SD= 1.788), which shows a
significant difference (appendix C-3) to how women scored it (n = 3.10, SD =
2.133, sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000). Whereas women least valued participating “to
beat someone I’ve never beaten before” (item 60, n = 2.13, SD = 1.642), which
was significantly different (appendix C-4) to the men’s means score (n = 2.86,
SD = 2.052, sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000).

31. 27
4.2 Analysis of Categories of motivation: Perceived
Each of the 64 items of motivation fall into one of the 10 categories of
motivation, of which the means for each would later be calculated in order to
find out which category is most important as motives for OCR participants.
Before that, however, participants of the survey were asked to rate each of the
10 categories of motivation according to what they perceived as the most
important. This method later allowed their perceived ratings to be compared
to the actual ratings. The following analysis is a presentation of what the
participants perceived to be their most important reason for entering OCR
events.
Graph 4: Motivation Categories Means (Perceived)
Table 6: Motivation Category Totals (Overall) Means & Standard
Deviation (Perceived)

32. 28
As table 6 and graph 4 show, an overall total mean (n = 5.82, SD = 1.391) for
the motivation category of “achieve a personal goal” concludes that the
participants of the MOCRS considered this as the most important of the 10
categories of motivation. Individually (table 7: appendix C-5), males scored this
with a means of 5.67 (SD = 1.491) and females scored it similarly with a means
of 6.00 (SD = 1.234). Male participants rated “health orientation” second to this
(n = 4.66, SD = 1.878) but female participants regarded “to boost self-esteem
and confidence” (n = 4.95, SD = 1.920) a more important means of motivation.
As appendix C-6 illustrates, there wasn’t a significant difference in how both
males and females rated “health orientation” (sig. (2-tailed) = 0.282). There
was, however, a gender significance between the mean scores for “to boost
self-esteem” (sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000) and “achieve a personal goal” (sig. (2-
tailed) = 0.002). In all cases, “recognition from others” rated as the least
important means of motivation (n = 2.87, SD = 1.822) with no significance
between genders (sig. (2-tailed) = 0.861 (table 7)), and was the only category
to achieve a mean score of below 3.0.
Other significant differences (appendix C-6) in how participants rated
categories of motivation included “weight concern” (sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000; m
= 3.25, f = 3.91), “competition” (sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000; m = 4.28, f = 3.45),
“psychological coping” (sig. (2-tailed) = 0.006; m = 3.07, f = 3.53) and “support
others” (sig. (2-tailed) = 0.000; m = 3.46, 4.10).
4.3 Categories of Motivation: Calculation of Actual Ratings
Each of the individual items of motivation (n = 64) corresponded to an overall
category of motivation (n = 10). The mean scores for these items were
calculated to produce an overall mean score for each category (Table 9,
appendix C-7), which identifies the overall importance of each category of
motivation.

33. 29
Graph 5: Overall Categories of Motivation: New Mean Scores (Actual)
Graph 5 displays that as a result of how each participant rates items of
motivation, “for personal goal achievement” came out as the most important
area of motivation (n = 5.40). Regarded as the least important category was “to
receive recognition from others” (n = 2.30). “Competition” reasons came out
least important for women (n = 2.63), where male participants regarded “to
receive recognition from others” (n = 2.8) and “to support others” (n = 2.8)
equally least important.
4.4 Analysis of Inductive Data: Qualitative Feedback
The following sections display and analyse the feedback given to the questions
asked that required qualitative feedback. The feedback was firstly organised
into table format as raw data and then coded according to trends relating to
the categories of motivation (appendix C-7). All participants completed
question 4, but only 123 opted to provide further feedback in question 11 and
thoughts on their motives to complete OCRs. As highlighted below, much of the
feedback provided in both questions refer to the same categories of motives.

34. 30
4.4.1 Coding of Raw Data: Questions 4 and 11
As illustrated in appendix C-7, comments relating to personal goal achievement
were most commonly mentioned. Words and phrases such as “challenge”,
“personal achievement”, and “pushing limits” where frequently used in order
to explain some of the most important elements to participating, demonstrated
in the two quotes below.
“…the cold and mud. There's some sort of perverse pleasure in
being freezing cold and up to your chest in mud. I prefer OCR in
the winter months. It's a psychological challenge I guess that I
enjoy overcoming.” – (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:168) Male,
26 to 35
“The Mental aspect i.e. how do I overcome This Obstacle I just
came to?” – (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:49) Male, 56 to 65
These quotes refer to the challenge of overcoming the extreme physical
conditions and obstacle that OCR’s often relate to. The next two quotes,
however, refers still to challenges and personal achievement, but on a more
psychological basis.
“Overcoming fear; Pushing the body to the limits” - (Anonymous,
2015, appendix C-7:71) Male, 36 to 45.
“The physical and mental challenge of making your body run the
distance and cover all the obstacles while overcoming the little
voice in your head saying you can't.” (Anonymous, 2015, appendix
C-7:104) Female, 16 to 25.
One of next most frequently referred to categories of motivation was affiliation
to OCRs. Elements such as “team”, “camaraderie”, “atmosphere”, friendly”,
“social” and “like-minded people” where commonly used. Participants often

35. 31
spoke about the lack of pressure to compete, the excitement surrounding OCR
events, and how meeting with like-minded people felt.
“Love the sense of community you get at an event with everyone
helping each other out regardless of ability. Love the sense of
community you get at an event with everyone helping each other
out regardless of ability.” (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:364)
Female, 26 to 35.
“The atmosphere on the day is incredible and the moment you
cross that finish line is indescribable.” – (Anonymous, 2015,
appendix C-7:369) Female, 16 to 25.
“There’s no pressure to get a time as I signed up as part of a team
to finish together. Where else is it the norm for a 45 year old
female to get covered in mud (and love it)?!” – (Anonymous, 2015,
appendix C-7:378) Female, 36 to 45.
“The fact that there is a growing community of like-minded people
helps to feed the self-justification for engaging in this sport, it's
great!” - (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:266) Male, 45 to 56.
Perhaps interestingly, there were many comments and phrases of elements that
did not fall into any of the 10 categories of motivation, and therefore became
a separate code of their own. Much of these included elements such as “mud”,
“variety”, “excitement”, and most of all “fun”. It appears that the element of
fun is one of the most important motivators for participants of OCRs. In fact,
many of the participants referred to the sense of being taking back to
childhood, or being a “big kid” and getting muddy, or just being a fun
alternative to other forms of exercise.
“Fun - running in different parts of the countryside with
likeminded people, people laughing and smiling despite the fact
they may be soaked to the skin, covered in mud with scratched
knees having run 10 miles. Running is fun, obstacles are fun feeling

36. 32
like you deserve a big meal and a pint is fun” – (Anonymous, 2015,
appendix C-7:205) Male, 26 to 35.
“Obstacles because they are fun and make me feel like a big kid
again…” – (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:220) Male, 26 to 35.
“But most of all laughing so hard it hurts when you’re up to your
neck in muck, thinking there's nowhere else I would rather be at
the this moment in time.” – (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:456)
Male, 36 to 45.
Few participants spoke about recognition from others, weight loss, and
supporting other participants. Competition related motives were mentioned
but rarely as a standalone reason to compete.
“…where men and women of all ages can compete against one
another fairly.” – (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:71) Male, 36
to 45.
“And being good at them. I like them and like that I can
compete” - (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:99) Male, 26 to 35.
“Encourages me to do a wide variety of training to be able to
compete” ” - (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:251) Female, 26
to 35.
Further review of feedback provided in question 11 relate more to factors
regarding health orientation, psychological coping, and life meaning. Many
participants revealed reasons that drive them to enter an OCR, several of which
are personal and often quite private motives. Results show much of a crossover
with many of the categories of motivation. The most common mixes of motives
derive from those of psychological coping, health orientation and bringing a
sense of meaning to life.

37. 33
“…After he passed l had a long talk with Brian and told him l would
make him proud...and l can finally feel l am doing that and know
he is still with me and guiding me and happy with the path l am
walking, l also know that my new hub Andy and l got together
thanks to Brian's and our Guardian Angels help.” – (Anonymous,
2015, appendix C-7:100) Female, 46 to 55
The quote above was the latter part of a self-confided piece of feedback which
talked about how after many difficult years and the need to overcome number
of personal obstacles, how OCR event have helped this participant achieve not
only some meaning to life, but also how they have provided a way of
psychologically coping with these obstacles. As the appendices show, many of
the participants refer to personal difficulties and how OCRs have helped them
overcome or at least escape them temporarily.
“Previous episodes of depression and a serious suicide attempt
in the past, found exercise in general helped with mood
improvement…friend dragged me along to my first OCR last
year, it's now my motivation and drive to continue to exercise
and to continue running OCR's. Never felt more mentally well”
– (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:80) Male, 26 to 35
“I was on drugs drank and had been disowned by my family, and
now doing OCRs has not only brought me self-esteem after
completing races that no one thought i could. Most importantly
I am about to do my 4th OCR race and I have my dad, step mum
and little brother coming, as well as my mum and my two eldest
kids to support me. That hasn't happened in 37 years, both my
parents being in the same place supporting me apart from the
odd occasional sports day at school. For that alone is one of the
reasons i love doing OCR now.” - (Anonymous, 2015, appendix
C-7:77) Male, 36 to 45

38. 34
It seems that when allowed to provide more open feedback without being
constricted to parameters, participants where more inclined to disclose motives
that related to more personal issues and obstacles that they have had to find
some sort of psychological coping for. The quote above could arguably fall into
a number of motivational categories. The participant talks about boosting his
self-esteem towards improving his life meaning as a way of coping
psychologically.

39. 35
5.0 Evaluation and Discussion of Results
Now that both sets of data have been coded and analysed, further results can
be drawn by comparing them. There are a number of similarities and links that
can be made when looking at the overall set of data from the methods used.
The following is will critically discuss the finding in relation to the initial aims
and objectives, and previous literature explored.
Firstly it is clear that the most important factors of motivation for participants
of Obstacle Course Races are categorised within personal goal achievement.
Based upon previous literature discussed, this aligns with other studies into
sports and exercise motivation where aspects of achievement motivational
theories have often come out on top (Gill et al., 1996). It is to no surprise that
this also mirrors the outcome of Masters & Ogles’ (1993) motivation of marathon
runners study where achievement theories where also regarded as most
important. What might come as a bit of a surprise is that previous studies into
motivation for general sports and exercise suggest that women are less
motivated by achievement motives such as competition and personal goal
achievement than men, but results show that female participants initially
perceived this (n = 6.0) as more important than men (n = 5.67). Further analysis
based upon the actual means for motivational categories supported earlier
studies, however, with men marginally rating it higher than women. To add to
this, when given the opportunity to provide further feedback, participants also
spoke about aspects of OCR events that related to personal goal achievement
as again being the most important factor, with little divide between male and
female members.
Social and physical health motivators such as affiliation to events, recognition
from others, weight concern, and health orientation have been aspects of
motivation that many studies have related to female participants, and that men
find a lot less important compared to competition which men typically rate
higher than women (Krouse. 2011; Bond, 2005; Bem, 1974, 1981; Koivula,
1999). This study, however, indicates that this may not be the case for
individuals taking part in OCR events. Affiliation to OCR’s and Health
Orientation, resulted in being rated and talked about equally between men and
women. This may be due to the very nature OCR event. As there have not yet

40. 36
been any studies into motivation for these events, findings are based upon
literature from events such as marathons and triathlons, which are in nature
more of an individual’s sports. OCR’s, as illustrated below, tend to have a more
social atmosphere whether or not you are participating as an individual or a
team, where participants help and support each other no matter what.
“Getting together and having fun with friends…” – (Anonymous,
2015, appendix C-7:42) Female, 26 to 35
“The great atmosphere between everyone and most people
always lend a hand if needed.” – (Anonymous, 2015, appendix
C-7:54) Male, 36 to 45
Competition motives also do not seem to be a high motivator for the majority
of participants. Competition was regarded one of the lowest motivators (n =
3.0), with women (n = 2.63) regarding it significantly less important than men
(n = 3.30). Factors relating to this where mentioned within the MOCRS but rarely
as stand-alone reasons to partake in OCR’s.
It has always been understood that exercise and sports can have hugely positive
effects on psychological aspects of health and coping, and self-esteem
(Lakinger, 2008; Crofts, Schofield & Dickson, 2012; Griest et al., 1979; Morgan,
1979; Conboy, 1994; Rudy and Estock, 1990; Panedo & Dahn, 2005; Skully &
Kremer, 1998; Strohle, 2009; Biddle, 2000; Taylor, 2000; Fox, 1999;
Koivula,1999), and results from this study indicate that participants find OCR’s
beneficial towards improving with some of these difficulties. Aspects related to
boosting self-esteem (n = 4.48) and health orientation (n = 4.44) are of high
importance. Other motivators associated with psychological aspects, such as
Life Meaning and Psychological Coping, where clearly important factors
amongst many participants who provided further feedback. As highlighted
previously, this enabled individuals to disclose information which would be
regarded as private and sensitive, relating to psychological obstacles that they
have had to face. In 2014, the University of Chicago found that fitness and

41. 37
sports activities correlate with emotional resilience and the ability to stay
positive in stressful situations (Murphy, 2015, p36)
Perhaps the most significant finding from the study is that through methods of
allowing qualitative written feedback, it is clear that one of the most important
motivators to all participants that is perhaps overlooked within the MOCRS
instrument use, is to simply have fun. Although there is literature to suggest
that enjoyment, excitement and fun are sometimes what drives individuals to
sports in general is (Gill et al., 1996), recent literature on more relevant
subjects do not seem to highlights these as significant motives. It could possibly
be argued that Ogles and Masters (1993) attempted to capture these elements
within their instrument (MOMS) with regards to items of Affiliation; or maybe
marathons are simply not regarded as exciting, fun and enjoyable in the same
way that other sports are. In fact, many participants spoke about how OCR’s
provide the “unknown”, and a “change from boring running”; obstacle that are
“different” and “add interest” to the challenge. There is even research that
suggests that the feeling of enjoyment have a much stronger motivational pull
than the belief in the health benefits of running challenges (Murphy, 2014, p38).
Other common motives included the mud which, as mentioned earlier on in the
literature review (2.0), is one of the very elements that define an Obstacle
Course, whether it be for training purposes or recreational purposes. Many
participants referred to feeling like a “big kid” or being reminded of their
childhood while climbing, crawling, and getting muddy. Again there is no clear
link to how else these elements could be defined within Ogles and Masters MOMS
instrument or the developed MOCRS instrument used in this study. It is clear
from the feedback provided that members of the OCR community who
participate in these events regard these factors as some of the most important,
if not the most important of why they chose to involve themselves in these
events as demonstrated below.
“The enjoyment of it being not just a straight run, this makes
it more interesting, and lastly FUN! It's just great fun!” –
(Annonymous, 2015, appendic C-711) Female, 36 to 45
“The getting muddy and getting wet, it's not every day you can
go around jumping into muddy water and throwing yourself

42. 38
over walls and dragging yourself through tunnels. It's fun
because you don't get to do it normally. Brings out the big kid
in everyone” - (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:43) Female, 16
to 25
“The unpredictability - not knowing what obstacle is around the
next corner” - (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7:93) Male, 26 to
35
“OCRs are fun they get you doing all the things that were fun
as a child.
Its regression back to your childhood care free days of climbing
and getting muddy” - (Anonymous, 2015, appendix C-7175)
Male, 36 to 45

43. 39
6.0 Conclusion
There may be many studies that suggest that gender plays a significant part in
what motivates individuals to participate in certain running events and other
sporting activities (Bem, 1974, 1981; Bond, 2005; Krouse, 2011; Koivula, 1999;
Chalabaev et al, 2013; Eccles, 1983) but that divide does not seem to be a clear
one when it comes to participants of Obstacle Course Races. Both male and
female participants alike, and spread across all age categories, rated factors
related to personal goal achievement and fun and enjoyment as the most
important to them, as well as social factors. In fact, although there may be
many different methods in which to investigate motivation for sports and
activities, the topic of motivation will never be a clear cut one and categories
of motivation will always overlap, often making outcomes unclear. For
example, competing in an OCR event reasons for fun and excitement could be
regarded as part of the affiliation to OCRs; or competing in an event could
certainly be linked to theories of personal goal achievement. Competition and
reasons for competing have often been values that suggest higher rates of male
participation in events (Gill, 1996), yet this study does not show a high enough
significant difference in competitive values of OCR runners to be able to assume
the same conclusions. In fact, the OCR culture and community is one in which
participants are regarded by their peers as equal, no matter their ability,
gender, age, or background. OCRs provide the opportunity for people from all
walks of life to come together and support each other, which is clearly an
aspect shared across the board of OCR communities. OCR participants may take
part in these events to seek some forms of personal achievement, but there is
no doubt that Obstacle Course Races can be regarded as some of the friendliest,
most exciting, and most fun running and multidiscipline events there are or
ever have been.
Multidiscipline sports such as OCRs are becoming more and more popular and
are only going to continue to grow, and they seem to be providing challenges
and fun, catering for individuals of all abilities, meaning differences in
motivation related to gender and age may not be a clear distinction to be made
for much longer. From this study it can be clearly concluded that gender does
not have a significant effect on motivation for OCR participants, and that the

44. 40
most widely spread motive for these events is the pure fun and sense of
excitement and variety that they provide.
“You do it for the buzz, for the satisfaction, building confidence,
achievement, the immense sense of fun, and fulfilment” –
(Parsons, 2014, p34)
6.1 Recommendations
The following are recommendations based upon the results gathered using the
methods previously discussed, and suggests what aspects could be improved
upon or done differently taking into account how data supports or challenges
past literature.
1. Although regarded as the most suitable method of determining
motivation for Obstacle Course Races, and despite the adaptions that
were made to the Motivation of Marathoners Scale (Ogles & Masters,
1993), more work should be done in order to include items relating to
aspects such as fun, excitement, variety, and change. The method does
not currently clearly include these aspects of motivation that are so
obviously important to those who participate in OCR events.
2. In future studies regarding motivation for Obstacle Course Racers,
factors other than gender and age should be considered as there does
not seem to be significant differences between these variables. For
example, there may be more definition of motives related to more
cultural aspects, elite athletes versus recreational athletes, and even
motives to travel to these events that take place not only within the UK
but around the world.
3. As the results also indicate, many OCR participants attend fitness clubs
and regularly undertake other exercise activities or take part in
alternative hobbies. Consequently, a beneficial study may involve
determining motivational relationships and, or, shifts between OCRs and
other sports that the participants regularly undertake.

45. 41
7.0 References
ANDREU-CABRERA, E, GONZALEZ, MC, RUIZ, JR, CHINCHILLA-MIRA, JJ. Play and
childhood in ancient Greece. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2010;5(3):339-347.
ANONA. 2006. Alberta Education. Daily Physical Activity: A Handbook for
Grades 1-9 Schools. Edmonton, Alberta: Alberta Education, Learning and
Teaching Resources Branch.
ANON. 2010. Department of the Army. Army Physical Readiness Training.
Available at
t:http://www.usarak.army.mil/ncoa/doc/TC%2032%2020%20%28PRT%29%20%2
83%29.pdf. Accessed October 21, 2011
ANON. 2014. Charity Commissions. Recent Charity Register Statistics: Charity
Commissions. Viewed Online 14/01/15. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-register-
statistics/recent-charity-register-statistics-charity-commission.
BATALHA, L. and K.J. REYNOLDS, 2013. Gender and Personality: Beyond Gender
Stereotypes to Social Identity and the Dynamics of Social Change. The SAGE
Handbook of Gender and Psychology, 165
BEM, S.L., 1981. Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing.
Psychological review, 88(4), 354
BIDDLE, S.J. and M. ASARE, 2011. Physical activity and mental health in children
and adolescents: a review of reviews. British journal of sports medicine,
45(11), 886-895
BIDDLE, S.J. and N. MUTRIE, 2007. Psychology of physical activity:
Determinants, well-being and interventions Routledge
BISHOP, PA. 1999 Physiological determinants of performance on an indoor
military obstacle course. Milit Med.

46. 42
BOND, K. and J. BATEY, 2005. Running for their lives: A qualitative analysis of
the exercise experience of female recreational runners. Women Sport Phys Act
J, 14, 69-82
BOUCHARD, C., S.N. BLAIR and W. HASKELL, 2006. Physical activity and health
Human Kinetics
BOWLER, G., 2010. Netnography: A method specifically designed to study
cultures and communities online. The Qualitative Report, 15(5), 1270-1275
BROWN, T.D., J.P. O’CONNOR and A.N. BARKATSAS, 2009. Instrumentation and
motivations for organised cycling: the development of the Cyclist Motivation
Instrument (CMI). Journal of sports science & medicine, 8(2), 211
BRYMAN, A. and E. BELL, 2011. Business Research Methods 3e Oxford university
press
BUIST, I. et al., 2010. Incidence and risk factors of running-related injuries
during preparation for a 4-mile recreational running event. British journal of
sports medicine, 44(8), 598-604
CARMACK, M.A., & MARTENS, R. 1979; Measuring Commitment to Running: A
Survey of Runners’ Attitudes and Mental States. Journal of Sports Psychology.
CHALABAEV, A. et al., 2013. The influence of sex stereotypes and gender roles
on participation and performance in sport and exercise: Review and future
directions. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 136-144
CHANDLER, A., 2014.
Obstacle Course Races Increase in Popularity, Athletes Thirst for Higher Level
of Competition [online] [viewed April 2013]. Available from:
http://www.nasm.org/docs/default-source/press-
releases/pressrelease_cesrace_052013.pdf?sfvrsn=6
CHEN, A. and P.W. DARST, 2002. Individual and situational interest: The role of
gender and skill. Contemporary educational psychology, 27(2), 250-269

47. 43
CROFT, S.J., C.C. GRAY and J.F. DUNCAN, 2007. MOTIVES FOR PARTICIPATING
IN TRIATHLON–AN INVESTIGATION BETWEEN ELITE AND NON-ELITE
COMPETITORS IN AN AUSTRALIAN SETTING. HEALTH, 34(2.5), 6.3
CROFTS, C., G. SCHOFIELD and G. DICKSON, 2012. Women-only mass
participation sporting events: does participation facilitate changes in physical
activity? Annals of Leisure Research, 15(2), 148-159
CURTIS, J., & MCTEER, W. 1981. The motivation for Running. Canadian Runner.
DEANER, R.O., 2013. Distance running as an ideal domain for showing a sex
difference in competitiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(3), 413-428
DEJAGER, D. Adventure racing CORE: A non-traditional approach to the physical
education lesson. JOPERD. 2006; 77(6):25-29.
DOCHEFF, D. and C. DAVIS, l.(1999). The obstacle course: Building fitness and
skill with fun. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 70(7), 18-23
DOPPELMAYR, M. and A. MOLKENTHIN, 2004. Motivation of participants in
adventure ultramarathons compared to other foot races. Biol.Sport, 21(4), 319-
323.
DUDA, J.L., 2001. Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries
and clarifying some misunderstandings. Advances in motivation in sport and
exercise, 129, 182
DWYER, J.J.M. (1988). Development of the Sports Intrinsic Motivation Scale
(SIMS). Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention.
EAGLY, A.H., 2013. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
interpretation Psychology Press
EDMUNDS, J.K., 2005. Testing the utility of self-determination theory in the
exercise domain: new methodological directions and practical implications.
EICHNER, E.R., 2014. Tough Mudder Injuries, Triathlon Drownings, and Team
Rhabdomyolysis in the Navy. Current sports medicine reports, 13(2), 66-67

48. 44
ELIAS. 1986. Cited in: GRATTON, C. and I. JONES, 2010. Research methods for
sports studies Taylor & Francis
FISHEL, E., Tough Mudders go through grime and punishment [online] [viewed
April 20th 2013]. Available from: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-04-
20/sports/bs-sp-outdoors-tough-mudder-0421-20130420_1_tough-mudder-
ashley-pinakiewicz-british-special-forces
FOX, K.R., 1999. The influence of physical activity on mental well-being. Public
health nutrition, 2(3a), 411-418
FREDRICKS, J.A. and J.S. ECCLES, 2005. Developmental benefits of
extracurricular involvement: Do peer characteristics mediate the link between
activities and youth outcomes? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 507-
520
FRYKMAN, PN, HARMAN, EA, PANDORF, CE. 2001 Correlates of Obstacle Course
Performance among Female Soldiers Carrying Two Different Loads. Natick, MA:
Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Defence Technical
Information Centre.
GILL, D.L. et al., 1996. Competitive orientations and motives of adult sport and
exercise participants.
GRATTON, C. and I. JONES, 2010. Research methods for sports studies Taylor
& Francis
GREIST, J.H. et al., 1979. Running as treatment for depression. Comprehensive
psychiatry, 20(1), 41-54
GUAY, F., R.J. VALLERAND and C. BLANCHARD, 2000. On the assessment of
situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale
(SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, 24(3), 175-213
FARRELL, R.J., CROCKER, P.R.E., MCDONOUGH, M.H., SEDGWICK, W.H. 2004.
The driving force: motivation in special Olympians. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 21(2)

49. 45
FILO, K., D.C. FUNK and G. HORNBY, 2009. The role of web site content on
motive and attitude change for sport events. Journal of Sport Management,
23(1)
HOLT, C.L. and J.B. ELLIS, 1998. Assessing the current validity of the Bem Sex-
Role Inventory. Sex Roles, 39(11-12), 929-941
HUMPEL, N., N. OWEN and E. LESLIE, 2002. Environmental factors associated
with adults’ participation in physical activity: a review. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 22(3), 188-199
JEFFERY, K.A., 2010. A Qualitative Study of the Motivations of Runners in a
Cause-Based Marathon-Training Program.
JOHNSGUARD, K. 1985. The Motivation of the Long Distance Runner. Journal of
Sports Medicine.
JOHNSGUARD, K. 1989. The Exercise Prescription for Depression and Anxiety.
New York.
KAGAN, J., 1964. Acquisition and significance of sex typing and sex role
identity. Review of child development research, 1, 137-167
KNECHTLE, B. et al., 2010. INTRA-AND INTER-JUDGE RELIABILITIES IN
MEASURING THE SKIN-FOLD THICKNESSES OF ULTRA RUNNERS UNDER FIELD
CONDITIONS 1, 2, 3. Perceptual and motor skills, 111(1), 105-106
KNISEL, E. et al., 2009. Sport motivation and physical activity of students in
three European schools. International Journal of Physical Education, 46(2),
KOHLBERG, L., 1966. A Cognitive-Developmental Analysis of Children's Sex-role
Concepts and Attitudes.
KOIVULA, N., 1999. Sport participation: Differences in motivation and actual
participation due to gender typing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 360-380
KOZINETS, R.V., 2010. Netnography: The marketer’s secret weapon. Netbase
Solutions, Inc

50. 46
KRASNOVA, H. et al., 2010. Online social networks: why we disclose. Journal
of Information Technology, 25(2), 109-125
KROUSE, R.Z. et al., 2011. Motivation, goal orientation, coaching, and training
habits of women ultra-runners. Journal of strength and conditioning research
/ National Strength & Conditioning Association, 25(10), 2835-2842
LACHAUSSE, R.G., 2006. Motives of competitive and non-competitive cyclists.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 29(4), 304
LAKINGER, D., 2008. Motivational factors of marathon running.
LANGER, R. and S.C. BECKMAN, 2005. Sensitive research topics: netnography
revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8(2), 189-203
LUCIAN. (1961) Anacharsis, or athletics. In: Lucian in eight volumes: With
English translation by A.M. Harmon of Yale University. Harmon AM, trans.
London: William Heinemann, 1-61,
MACCOBY, E.E. and C.N. JACKLIN, 1974. The psychology of sex differences
Stanford University Press
MAGEAU, G.A. and R.J. VALLERAND, 2003. The coach–athlete relationship: A
motivational model. Journal of sports science, 21(11), 883-904
MASTERS, K.S., B.M. OGLES and J.A. JOLTON, 1993. The development of an
instrument to measure motivation for marathon running: The Motivations of
Marathoners Scales (MOMS). Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 64(2),
134-143
MASTERS, K.S. and B.M. OGLES, 1998. Associative and dissociative cognitive
strategies in exercise and running: 20 years later, what do we know? Sport
Psychologist, 253-270
MASTERS, K.S., & LAMBERT, M.J. 1989. The Relations between Cognitive Coping
Strategies, Reasons for Running, Injury, and Performance of Marathon Runners.
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.

51. 47
MATTHEW B. MILES and A. MICHAEL HUBERMAN, 1994. Qualitative data analysis:
An expanded sourcebook Sage
MCAULEY, E., T. DUNCAN and V.V. TAMMEN, 1989. Psychometric properties of
the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory
factor analysis. Research quarterly for exercise and sport, 60(1), 48-58
MORRIS, M. and P. SALMON, 1994. Qualitative and quantitative effects of
running on mood. The Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 34(3),
284-291
MUDSTACLE, 2014. Events Page. [online][viewed 10/2015] Available from:
http://www.mudstacle.com/events
MUDSTACLE, 2014. Mudstacle League. [online][viewed 10/2015] Available from:
http://www.mudstacle.com/league
MUDSTACLE, 2014. Insurance and Membership. [online][viewed 10/2015]
Available from: http://www.mudstacle.com/membership
MULLINS, N., 2012. Obstacle Course Challenges: History, Popularity,
Performance Demands, Effective Training, and Course Design. Journal of
Exercise Physiology, 15, 100-128
MURPHY, S., 2014. Get Your Hands Dirty. Runner’s World Magazine, December,
p15.
MURPHY, S., 2014. Running Commentary. Runner’s World Magazine. December,
p38.
MURPHY, S., 2015. Running Commentary. Runner’s World Magazine. January,
p36
NETTLETON, S. and M. HARDEY, 2006. Running away with health: the urban
marathon and the construction of 'charitable bodies'. Health (London, England:
1997), 10(4), 441-460

52. 48
NEWSHAM-WEST, R.J. et al., 2010. Pre-race health status and medical events
during the 2005 World Adventure Racing Championships. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 13(1), 27-31
NEWSHAM-WEST, R.J. et al., 2010. Pre-race health status and medical events
during the 2005 World Adventure Racing Championships. Journal of Science and
Medicine in Sport, 13(1), 27-31
NHS, 2014, Online. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/physical-
activity-guidelines-for-adults.aspx. Viewed on 13/11/14.
NISBETT, R.E. and L. ROSS, 1980. Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings
of social judgment.
NTOUMANIS, N., 2001. Empirical links between achievement goal theory and
self-determination theory in sport. Journal of sports sciences, 19(6), 397-409
NUTS CHALLENGE, 2014. [online][viewed 10/2015] Available from:
http://www.thenutschallenge.co.uk/
PARSONS, M., 2014. Glam Rock. Obstacle Race Magazine. May, p34
OGLES, B. and K. MASTERS, 2000. Older vs. younger adult male marathon
runners: participative motives and training habits. Journal of Sport Behaviour,
23(2), 130-143
OGLES, B.M. and K.S. MASTERS, 2003. A typology of marathon runners based on
cluster analysis of motivations. Journal of Sport Behavior, 26(1), 69-85
OGLES, B., K. MASTERS and S. RICHARDSON, 1995. Obligatory running and
gender: an analysis of participative motives and training habits. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(2), 233-248
PELLETIER, L.G. et al., 1995. Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation,
extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale
(SMS). Journal of sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-35