Personality, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and Exercise: A Unique Role for Extroversion's Activity Facet<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to determine if the theory of planned behavior (TPB) mediated the relationship between selected personality traits (i.e., extroversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness) and exercise behavior using structural equation modeling. Based on previous research, it was hypothesized that extroversion (E) would have a significant direct effect on exercise behavior while controlling for the TPB. A secondary purpose was to explore whether the facets of these personality domains had significant effects on TPB constructs or exercise behavior while controlling for the general personality domains. Female undergraduate students (N= 301) completed measures of the TPB, the Five‐Factor model of personality, and a 1‐month exercise behavior follow‐up. Model 1 resulted in a direct effect of E on exercise behavior. Model 2 suggested a significantly better fit when direct effects of E's activity facet were freed for estimation. Moreover, freeing these effects rendered the effects of general E nonsignificant. It was concluded that the direct effect of E on exercise behavior found in previous research might be explained entirely by the activity facet of E.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".