Using Imagery to Enhance Three Types of Exercise Self‐Efficacy among Sedentary Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine if task, coping, and scheduling self‐efficacy (SE) for exercise could be influenced using guided imagery interventions in an experimental design controlling for overt exercise experiences. Healthy women ( N = 205, M age = 31.47) who did not exercise regularly were randomly assigned to guided imagery sessions targeting a specific type of SE or to a nutrition information control group. All participants attended a 12‐week cardiovascular exercise program. The influence of the various imagery interventions on the three types of self‐efficacy over time were assessed with two doubly multivariate ANOVAs: one from baseline to 6 weeks and the other from 6 to 12 weeks. The analyses were conducted for 61 participants who completed the exercise intervention. The first analysis demonstrated that task, coping, and scheduling SE were differentially influenced over time in response to the different imagery interventions. The results of the second analysis were non‐significant, revealing that the main changes in SE were observed within the first half of the 12‐week intervention. This study demonstrates that task, coping, and scheduling SE can be seen as independent from one another and that mental imagery interventions are an effective means for influencing exercise‐related cognitions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".