Can the Affective Response to Exercise Predict Future Motives and Physical Activity Behavior? A Systematic Review of Published Evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consistent with hedonic theories of behavior, the affective response to physical activity has been posited as an important determinant of future physical activity; yet, we are unaware of an overview of evidence regarding this relationship. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review the published literature regarding whether the affective response to physical activity relates to future physical activity behavior and key motivational constructs. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. A positive change in the basic affective response during moderate intensity exercise was linked to future physical activity, but postexercise affect had a null relationship. Affective responses during and after exercise had a relatively negligible relationship with intention, mixed results for self-efficacy, and a reliable correlation with affective judgments about future physical activity. DISCUSSION: The findings support the basic premise of hedonic theory. Practical application studies with a focus on sustained behavioral interventions are warranted.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it