Pride and physical activity: Behavioural regulations as a motivational mechanism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between fitness-related pride and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). A secondary aim was to examine behavioural regulations consistent with organismic integration theory (OIT) as potential mechanisms of the pride-MVPA relationship. DESIGN: This study used a cross-sectional design. METHODS: Young adults (N = 465; Mage = 20.55; SDage = 1.75 years) completed self-report instruments of fitness-related pride, motivation and MVPA. RESULTS: Both authentic and hubristic fitness-related pride demonstrated a moderate positive relationship with MVPA, as well as positive associations to more autonomous regulations. Behavioural regulations mediated the relationship between both facets of pride and MVPA with specific indirect effects noted for identified regulation and intrinsic motivation. CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings demonstrate the association between experiencing fitness-related pride and increased engagement in MVPA. The tenability of OIT was also demonstrated for offering insight into explaining the association between pride and physical activity engagement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".