Self‐Efficacy as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Causal Attributions and Exercise Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purposes of this study were to examine whether the attribution–intention link was mediated by self‐efficacy and whether the attribution–behavior link was mediated by self‐efficacy. As a secondary purpose, we examined whether the attribution–behavior link was mediated by exercise intentions. These relationships were tested prospectively at multiple time points. Participants were 260 adult exercisers (M age=32 years) enrolled in 12 weeks of structured exercise classes. Social cognitive measures were assessed at early and midprogram; attendance was tracked for the first and second half of the program. Hierarchical multiple regression procedures indicated support for self‐efficacy as a mediator of the relationship between attributions and behavior. Secondary analyses revealed support for intention as a mediator of the attribution–behavior relationship. Finally, additive relationships in support of social cognitive theory also were detected. The attribution/self‐efficacy/behavior link is important for adherence interventions and should be investigated further in both asymptomatic and symptomatic populations.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".