MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143842012 · doi:10.1123/jsep.29.5.645

Testing Self-Determined Motivation as a Mediator of the Relationship between Psychological Needs and Affective and Behavioral Outcomes

2007· article· en· W2143842012 on OpenAlexafffund
Meghan H. McDonough, Peter R.E. Crocker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsSelf-determination theoryPsychologyCompetence (human resources)AutonomySocial psychologyIntrinsic motivationAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyPositive relationship

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-determination theory suggests that when psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met, participants experience more self-determined types of motivation and more positive outcomes. Limited research has examined this mediational role of self-determined motivation in adult physical activity participants, and very few studies have included assessments of relatedness. This study tested the hypothesis that self-determined motivation would mediate the relationship between psychological need fulfillment and affective and behavioral outcomes. Adult dragon boaters (N = 558) between the ages of 19 and 83 completed a questionnaire on motivational aspects of dragon boating. Competence, relatedness, and autonomy all significantly predicted self-determined motivation, but self-determined motivation only partially mediated their relationship with positive and negative affect. These findings demonstrate the importance of all three needs in adult activity motivation and suggest that the relationships between needs, self-determination, and outcomes may be complex.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations196
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207