Relations among Exercise Imagery, Self-Efficacy, Exercise Behavior, and Intentions
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 the present study was to determine whether exercise imagery contributed to the prediction of exercise behavior and intentions over and above self-efficacy. Whereas self-efficacy has been demonstrated to be a robust predictor of exercise intentions and behavior such a role of imagery has not been examined. Imagery, however, has been postulated to be a potential source of self-efficacy beliefs, therefore, it is possible that the influence of these two variables might not be independent. Recently, different types of self-efficacy (task, coping, and scheduling) and different types of imagery (appearance, technique, and energy) have been proposed and associated with different levels of exercise involvement. The relative influence of these types of self-efficacy and imagery was assessed in two samples of exercisers ( n = 388, n = 223) using hierarchical regressions. Results indicated that scheduling and coping efficacy were important predictors of exercise behavior, and that two types of self-efficacy and appearance imagery were significant predictors of behavioral intention. These results offer support for different functions of the different types of self-efficacy and imagery. They also suggest that influence of self-efficacy and imagery on behavioral intentions is not redundant.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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