Translating Exercise Intentions into Behavior: Personality and Social Cognitive Correlates
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
The purpose of this study was to detail the variability found in the exercise intention-behavior relationship and investigate social cognitive and personality correlates of successful intention translation. Participants were 300 undergraduate students who completed measures of exercise social cognition (theory of planned behavior), personality (five-factor model) and a two-week follow-up of exercise behavior. Results suggested intention translation at a frequency of zero was significantly more successful than intending to exercise at all other weekly frequencies. Moreover, intending to exercise one or two times per week resulted in better intention translation than intending to exercise four or more bouts per week. Discriminant function analysis and follow-up F-tests found instrumental attitude, affective attitude and perceived behavioral control (PBC) discriminated between nonintenders, unsuccessful intenders and successful intenders. Further, extroversion predicted unsuccessful intenders versus successful intenders. Results underscore the importance of attitude, PBC and extroversion as action control constructs in the exercise domain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it