CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 285Behavioral Health and InterventionsPhysical Activity and HealthMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports

Exercise habit formation in new gym members: a longitudinal study

Kaushal, Navin, Rhodes, Ryan E.·2015·Journal of Behavioral Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s10865-015-9640-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Reasoned action approaches have primarily been applied to understand exercise behaviour for the past three decades, yet emerging findings in unconscious and Dual Process research show that behavior may also be predicted by automatic processes such as habit. The purpose of this study was to: (1) investigate the behavioral requirements for exercise habit formation, (2) how Dual Process approach predicts behaviour, and (3) what predicts habit by testing a model (Lally and Gardner in Health Psychol Rev 7:S137-S158, 2013). Participants (n = 111) were new gym members who completed surveys across 12 weeks. It was found that exercising for at least four bouts per week for 6 weeks was the minimum requirement to establish an exercise habit. Dual Process analysis using Linear Mixed Models (LMM) revealed habit and intention to be parallel predictors of exercise behavior in the trajectory analysis. Finally, the habit antecedent model in LLM showed that consistency (β = .21), low behavioral complexity (β = .19), environment (β = .17) and affective judgments (β = .13) all significantly (p < .05) predicted changes in habit formation over time. Trainers should keep exercises fun and simple for new clients and focus on consistency which could lead to habit formation in nearly 6 weeks.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In new gym members, exercising at least four bouts per week for about 6 weeks was the minimum requirement to establish an exercise habit. Habit and intention predicted exercise behavior equally over 12 weeks, while consistency, low behavioral complexity, environment, and affective judgments predicted habit formation over time.

Key findings

  • Habit plateaued by week 6 (42–49 days), with 48% of the sample achieving habit formation; the SRBAI habit cut-off score was 2.80/5.
  • In trajectory analysis, habit (b = .23, p = .001) and intention (b = .23, p = .007) were equivalent predictors of exercise behavior; neither was significant at baseline.
  • Trajectory predictors of habit change were consistency (b = .21, p < .001), low behavioral complexity (b = .19, p < .001), environment (b = .17, p = .008), and affective judgments (b = .13, p = .003).
  • High frequency (≥4 days/week) predicted habit (b = .24, p < .001), while low frequency (<4 days/week) did not (b = .09, p = .42); by week 12, 63.8% of the high-frequency group versus 22.6% of the low-frequency group had achieved habit.

Methods

  • Longitudinal 12-week study of 111 new gym members (from 144 interested; 77% consented), aged 18–65, who had joined a gym/recreation centre within the past 2 weeks; surveys at baseline, week 6, week 9, and week 12.
  • Measures included the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire for exercise behavior, the Self-Report Behavioral Automaticity Index for habit, an open intention item, modified Subjective Exercise Experience Scale for affective reward, and single/adapted items for consistency, environment comfort, and behavioral complexity.
  • Analyses used Linear Mixed Models in SPSS 20.0, survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier), ROC analysis for habit cut-off, and tests of time × frequency interaction and habit antecedents as predictors of habit formation.

Limitations

  • The paper states: there was variability in participants’ exercise history despite being new gym members; habit was assessed only at baseline, week 6, week 9, and week 12, so more frequent assessment in the first 6 weeks could better capture habit formation; the Lally and Gardner model did not specify measurement, so the study used a mixture of validated and customized items; future research should use objective measurement.
  • Evident in the text: exercise behavior and habit were self-reported, and the sample was 70% female, mean age 47.7 years, mean BMI 25.8, and largely postsecondary educated, which may limit generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10865-015-9640-7

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 19 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § Exercise habit formation in new gym members: a longitudinal study · p. 1

    Exercising for at least four bouts per week for 6 weeks is the minimum requirement to establish an exercise habit.

    “It was found that exercising for at least four bouts per week for 6 weeks was the minimum requirement to establish an exercise habit.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Exercise habit formation in new gym members: a longitudinal study · p. 1

    Habit and intention are parallel predictors of exercise behavior across time in trajectory analysis.

    “Dual Process analysis using Linear Mixed Models (LMM) revealed habit and intention to be parallel predictors of exercise behavior in the trajectory analysis.”
    • Also stated in: § Dual Process approach · p. 6 · plain
      “The trajectory model found habit habit, b = .23 ( p = .001) and intention, b = .23, ( p = .007) to be equivalent in strength for predicting exercise behavior across time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion · p. 8

    Intention predicted exercise behavior over time (b = .23).

    “The present study did not find habit or intention to significantly predict exercise behavior during baseline; however, both constructs became significant predictors over time with equal effect sizes ( b = .23, respectively) in support of our hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Dual Process approach · p. 6

    In the baseline model, habit was not a significant predictor of exercise (F(1, 101) = .22, p = .64).

    “The baseline model did not find habit F (1, 101) = .22, p = .64; or intention F (1, 101) = .90, p = .34 to be a significant predictors of exercise.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § Discussion · p. 8

    Habit predicted exercise behavior over time (b = .23).

    “The present study did not find habit or intention to significantly predict exercise behavior during baseline; however, both constructs became significant predictors over time with equal effect sizes ( b = .23, respectively) in support of our hypothesis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 13
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 15

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Discussion · p. 8

    Exercise habit plateaued at week 6 (42-49 days), with 48% of the sample achieving habit formation.

    “In terms of the time required to establish an exercise habit, the present research found that exercise habit plateaued on the 6th week (42-49 days) of the study with 48 % of the sample achieving habit formation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Dual Process approach · p. 6

    The ICC was .76, suggesting about 76% of total variation from the predictors was due to individual differences.

    “The ICC intercept/(intercept + residual) = .76, suggesting that about 76 % of total variation from the predictors was due to individual differences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Dual Process approach · p. 6

    The Chi squared difference for random intercept in the Dual Process model was not significant [chi2(1, N = 111) = 1.96, p = .37], so participants' random starting points did not significantly change the model.

    “The Chi squared difference was not significant [ v 2 (1, N = 111) = 1.96, p = .37]. Thus, participants' random starting points did not significantly change the model (Field, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Field, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Habit cut-off score · p. 7

    The SRBAI cut-off scores at weeks 6, 9, and 12 were 2.52, 2.76, and 3.01, respectively, averaging 2.80.

    “Cut-scores for week 6, 9 and 12 were 2.52, 2.76, and 3.01 respectively which averaged a cut-off score of 2.80.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Frequency required for habit formation · p. 7

    The high frequency group demonstrated stable habit scores and maintained habit scores ≥3/5 across the 12 weeks.

    “The figure shows that those in the high frequency group demonstrated stability of habit scores and maintenance of habit ( C 3/5) scores across the 12 weeks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Habit cut-off score · p. 7

    The baseline SRBAI cut-off was 2.91, with a sensitivity of 0.70 and 1-specificity of .18.

    “The baseline cut-off was 2.91 with a sensitivity of 0.70 and 1-specificity of .18.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Habit stabilization, cut-off score, and required frequency · p. 6

    A quadratic polynomial for time was used to test habit change across 12 weeks, which was significant (F(1, 233) = 14.96, p = .001).

    “A quadratic polynomial for time was then used to test habit change across 12 weeks, which was found to be significant F (1, 233) = 14.96, p = .001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Frequency required for habit formation · p. 7

    At week 12, 63.8% of high-frequency and 22.6% of low-frequency participants achieved habit.

    “By week 12, the values for high and low frequency groups were 63.8 and 22.6 % respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Habit stabilization, cut-off score, and required frequency · p. 6

    In the habit stabilization LMM, the random intercepts Chi squared difference was not significant [chi2(1, N = 111) = .06, p = .68], so a random intercept model did not improve fit.

    “Testing of random intercepts revealed that the Chi squared difference was not significant [ v 2 (1, N = 111) = .06, p = .68]. Thus, a random intercept model did not improve fit (Field, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Field, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 1

    Habit correlates r = .43 with physical activity behavior, similar to the intention-behavior relationship.

    “Overall, habit has demonstrated predictive validity in the physical activity domain; for example, a recent meta-analysis found it to correlate r = .43 with behavior which is similar to the magnitude of the intention-behavior relationship (Gardner et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gardner et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 1

    Conscious intention and unconscious processes operate parallel on behavior (Dual Process approach).

    “It has been proposed that conscious intention and unconscious processes operate parallel on behavior which is known as a Dual Process approach (see Evans, 2008 for review).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Evans, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 1

    Social cognitive theorists propose intention to be the strongest predictor of behavior.

    “Based on previous conscious rational models, social cognitive theorists propose intention to be the strongest predictor of behavior, thus suggesting intention as the primary conscious motive for behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Rogers, 1974; Rosenstock, 1974).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Ajzen, 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rogers, 1974

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Rosenstock, 1974 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 1

    Habit has a reciprocal relationship with behavior, where habit affects behavioral repetition but repetition also strengthens habit formation.

    “Habit is thought to have a reciprocal relationship with behavior (Gardner, 2014), where habit affects behavioral repetition but that repetition also strengthens habit formation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Gardner, 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 1

    Research in unconscious processes has ranked habit as possibly the strongest unconscious determinant of behavior.

    “By contrast, research in unconscious processes have ranked habit as possibly the strongest unconscious determinant of behavior (Sheeran et al., 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sheeran et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Exercise behavior · p. 3

    The GLTEQ has 2-week test-retest reliability of 0.74 for total physical activity and 0.80 for frequency of activity.

    “The 2week test-retest reliability of the measures of total physical activity and the frequency of activity have been estimated to be 0.74 and 0.80, respectively (Godin et al., 1986).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Godin et al., 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction · p. 2

    It took on average 66 days to develop a health related habit (healthy eating, drinking and exercise) among a small student sample.

    “the researchers found that it took on average 66 days to develop a health related habit (healthy eating, drinking and exercise) among a small student sample.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lally et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Discussion · p. 9

    The study used a mixture of previously validated scales and customized items to measure the antecedents of the habit model.

    “The present study used a mixture of previous validated scales and customized items to this model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation
    § Participants and procedure · p. 3

    The 12-week longitudinal design was based on the average time required to develop habit in a prior research study (66 days).

    “We used a 12 week longitudinal design based on the average time required to develop habit in a prior research study (66 days) (Lally et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lally et al., 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Discussion · p. 9

    The Lally and Gardner (2013) habit model proposes four antecedents of habit that have individually been found to correlate with habit.

    “Second, the habit model proposed by Lally and Gardner (2013) presents a strong case of four antecedents of habit which have individually been found to correlate with habit in various studies (Gardner et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lally and Gardner (2013) source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gardner et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationown data
    § Discussion · p. 9

    The present finding could provide a novel approach to assess if the environment supports the development of habit.

    “Hence the present finding could provide a novel approach to assess if the environment supports the development of habit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Analysis plan · p. 5

    Time parameters were grand mean centered before analysis to reduce multicollinearity.

    “Before any analysis was conducted, the time parameters were grand mean centered to reduce multicollinearity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Behavioral complexity · p. 4

    The behavioral complexity measure had internal consistencies baseline (alpha = .80), week 6 (alpha = .76), week 9 (alpha = .73), and week 12 (alpha = .77).

    “The internal consistencies in the present study were: baseline ( a = .80), week 6 ( a = .76), week 9 ( a = .73), and week 12 ( a = .77).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Discussion · p. 9

    Negative feelings from unfavourable experiences could prompt conscious deliberation before performing the behavior.

    “It is likely that negative feelings which stem from unfavourable experiences could prompt conscious deliberation for the individual before performing the behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § Discussion · p. 9

    The findings align with public health guidelines suggesting that an exercise habit can be achieved in 4-5 bouts with 30/40 min per session.

    “Fortunately, these findings are also aligned with public health guidelines suggesting that an exercise habit can be achieved in 4-5 bouts with 30/ 40 min per session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
24 of 24

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No study has examined a time by frequency effect on habit formation.

    “Currently, no study has examined a time 9 frequency effect on habit formation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The enrolment spike during the New Year followed by a large drop-out of gym members is a well-known trend but is not clearly understood.

    “This was a relevant population for this study as the enrolment spike during the New Year followed by a large drop-out of gym members is a well-known trend but is not clearly understood.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The single-item measure of temporal consistency validly assesses temporal consistency of exercise.

    “Temporal consistency had not been assessed in previous research at the time of the study. Hence, a measure was created to assess this construct.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The single-item measure of comfort in the exercise environment validly assesses environmental support for exercise automaticity.

    “an item worded ''How comfortable do you feel in your exercise environment'' which was scored on a five point Likert scale (1 = not very comfortable to 5 = very comfortable) was used to assess if the environment supported the process of behavior.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 101) = 0.22reported p = .64 · recomputed p = .640

    “F (1, 101) = .22, p = .64”

  • ConsistentF(1, 101) = 0.9reported p = .34 · recomputed p = .345

    “F (1, 101) = .90, p = .34”

  • ConsistentF(1, 99) = 8.78reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “F (1, 99) = 8.78, p = .004”

  • ConsistentF(1, 233) = 14.96reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F (1, 233) = 14.96, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • ConsistentF(1, 106) = 13.36reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1, 106) = 13.36, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Baseline environment cue is both marked significant and described as nonsignificant

    Minor

    Table 3 marks the baseline environment-cue B value with an asterisk, while the results text says cues were not significant at baseline.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. IBM. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kaushal, N., & Rhodes, R. E.
Affiliations
University of Victoria (CA)
Corresponding author
Kaushal, Navin
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Behavioral Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-04-08
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
652-663
ISSN
  • 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3521
DOI
10.1007/s10865-015-9640-7
OpenAlex
W2012941021
Semantic Scholar
b1b18306ac4f3fa2f46292e7617491a099140699
Cited by
285
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
20.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Keywords
exercise habit formation, gym members, dual-process theory, automatic processes, exercise intention, behavioral complexity, affective judgment, exercise behavior change
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Habits, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Reward, Social Environment, Exercise, Intention, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review