The Sooner, the Better: Exercise Outcome Proximity and Intrinsic Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that outcomes are highly valued when they are expected sooner rather than further into the future (Ainslie, 1975), limited research effort has been devoted to understanding the role of exercise outcome proximity. The purpose of this study was to examine how temporal proximity to positive outcomes influences exercisers' intrinsic motivation. We expected that focusing people on temporally proximal exercise outcomes would increase intrinsic motivation, especially among low-frequency exercisers. METHODS: This online experimental study was completed by 135 community exercisers (Mage = 31.11, SD = 10.29; 62% female) who reported an average of 4.86 exercise bouts per week (SD = 2.12). Participants were randomly assigned to a condition that primed temporally proximal positive exercise outcomes (i.e. experienced during or directly following an exercise bout) or temporally distal outcomes (i.e. experienced after days, months, or years of regular exercise). Participants then reported perceptions of behavioral regulation in exercise. RESULTS: As expected, the proximal exercise outcome condition elicited increased intrinsic regulation among those participants who exercised less frequently (i.e. 1 SD below the mean). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals the importance of considering proximity as an important dimension of exercise outcomes-particularly when promoting intrinsic motivation among relatively infrequent exercisers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".