Self-Presentational Efficacy: Its Influence on Social Anxiety in an Exercise Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the influence of self-presentational efficacy on social anxiety in an exercise context. Participants for this study were 68 female exercisers. Self-presentational efficacy was manipulated in two groups, high and low efficacy. Individuals in the low efficacy group showed higher levels of three measures of social anxiety (social anxiety in exercise classes M = 17.69, physical appearance anxiety M = 17.69, and social physique anxiety M = 30.89) than those in the high efficacy group (social anxiety in exercise classes M = 12.34, p < .001, physical appearance anxiety M = 12.71, p < .013, and social physique anxiety M = 25.87, p < .003). Furthermore, participants in the low efficacy group (M = 3.47) indicated that they were looking less forward to the upcoming aerobics class compared to those in the high efficacy group (M = 6.68, p < .001). Thus it appears that self-presentational efficacy has a potent influence on social anxiety in exercise contexts. Potential applications to exercise settings and future research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".