The Relationship Between Psychological Needs, Self‐Determined Motivation, Exercise Attitudes, and Physical Fitness<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between psychological need satisfaction (competence, autonomy, and relatedness), exercise regulations, and motivational consequences proposed by Self‐Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The secondary purpose was to explore changes in these constructs over the course of a 12‐week prescribed exercise program. Results indicated competence and autonomy were positively correlated with more self‐determined exercise regulations, which in turn were more positively related to exercise behavior, attitudes, and physical fitness. Multiple regression analyses revealed that exercise behavior mediated the relationship between self‐determined motives and physical fitness, and both identified and intrinsic exercise regulations contributed significantly to the prediction of attitudes. Paired‐sample t tests supported modest to large changes in need satisfaction constructs, as well as identified and intrinsic regulations over the 12‐week exercise program. These results suggest that SDT is a useful framework for studying motivational issues in the exercise domain.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".