Moderators of the intention-behaviour relationship in the physical activity domain: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intention is theorised as the proximal determinant of behaviour in many leading theories and yet intention-behaviour discord is prevalent. The purpose of this review was to retrieve, theme and appraise the variables that have been evaluated as the potential moderators of the intention-behaviour relationship in the physical activity (PA) domain. Eligible studies were selected from English peer-reviewed journals and had to report an empirical test of moderation of intention-PA (I-PA) with a third variable. Fifty-seven studies passed the inclusion criteria and these represented 38 different potential moderators of I-PA. Intention stability proved to be the most consistent moderator of I-PA, suggesting that much of the discordance may be from motivational flux between initial intention and eventual behaviour. Anticipated regret and conscientiousness also had evidence as the moderators of I-PA. Perceived control/self-efficacy, planning, extraversion, habit and environmental proximity to recreation showed some evidence for moderation, while gender, agreeableness, openness, body mass index and ethnicity did not appear to moderate I-PA. The findings demonstrate that traditional intention theories may need augmentation to better account for the evidence present in I-PA discordance.
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 | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".