Understanding the Reasons behind Anticipated Regret for Missing Regular Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticipated affective reactions to missing physical activity (PA), often labeled anticipated regret, has reliable evidence as a predictor of PA intention and behavior independent of other standard social cognitive constructs. Despite this evidence, the sources of regret are understudied and may come from many different reasons. The purpose of this study was to theme the reasons for why people responded to anticipated regret over missing regular PA for 2 weeks. Participants were a random sample of 120 university students who were primed on the public health definition of PA, completed measures of regret, and were asked to list their reasons for regret. Ninety-five percent of participants expressed that they would regret not being active and gave a total of 357 reasons. The dominant theme (n = 247; 69%) was a missed opportunity to obtain the benefits of PA, followed by shame/guilt for not being able to follow-through with one's goals or self-categorized role (n = 99; 28%) with a final theme of perceived pressure from others (n = 11; 3%). From a practical perspective, the diversity of these reasons suggest that more clarity on the source of regret should be present in assessment, while building from both attitude and identity theories may help understand how regret motivates PA in future intervention.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".