Impulsive Approach Tendencies towards Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviors, but Not Reflective Intentions, Prospectively Predict Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the determinants of non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT) is crucial, given its extensive health benefits. Some scholars have assumed that a proneness to react differently to environmental cues promoting sedentary versus active behaviors could be responsible for inter-individual differences in NEAT. In line with this reflection and grounded on the Reflective-Impulsive Model, we test the assumption that impulsive processes related to sedentary and physical activity behaviors can prospectively predict NEAT, operationalized as spontaneous effort exerted to maintain low intensity muscle contractions within the release phases of an intermittent maximal isometric contraction task. Participants (n = 91) completed a questionnaire assessing their intentions to adopt physical activity behaviors and a manikin task to assess impulsive approach tendencies towards physical activity behaviors (IAPA) and sedentary behaviors (IASB). Participants were then instructed to perform a maximal handgrip strength task and an intermittent maximal isometric contraction task. As hypothesized, multilevel regression analyses revealed that spontaneous effort was (a) positively predicted by IAPA, (b) negatively predicted by IASB, and (c) was not predicted by physical activity intentions, after controlling for some confounding variables such as age, sex, usual PA level and average force provided during the maximal-contraction phases of the task. These effects remained constant throughout all the phases of the task. This study demonstrated that impulsive processes may play a unique role in predicting spontaneous physical activity behaviors. Theoretically, this finding reinforces the utility of a motivational approach based on dual-process models to explain inter-individual differences in NEAT. Implications for health behavior theories and behavior change interventions are outlined.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".