Cognitive and Motivational Factors Associated with Sedentary Behavior: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excessive time spent in sedentary behavior (SB) is associated with numerous health risks. These associations remain even after controlling for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (PA) and body mass index, indicating that efforts to promote leisure time physical activity alone are insufficient. Cognitive and motivation variables represent potentially modifiable factors and have the potential of furthering our understanding of sedentary behavior. Hence, a systematic review was conducted to synthesize and critique the literature on the relationship between cognitive and motivational factors and sedentary behaviors. In April 2016, four electronic databases (Psych info, Pub Med, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science) were searched and a total of 4866 titles and abstracts were reviewed. After meeting inclusion criteria, study characteristics were extracted and the methodological quality of each study was assessed according to the Downs and Black Checklist. PRISMA guidelines for reporting of systematic reviews were followed. Twenty-five studies (16 cross-sectional, 8 longitudinal and one examining two populations and employing both a cross-sectional and prospective design) assessed 23 different cognitive and motivational factors. Seventeen studies were theory-based and 8 did not employ a theoretical model. Results showed that among SB-related cognitions, risk factors for greater sedentary time included having a more positive attitude towards SB, perceiving greater social support/norms for SB, reporting greater SB habits, having greater intentions to be sedentary, and having higher intrinsic, introjected, and external motivation towards SB. Protective factors associated with lower sedentary time included having greater feelings of self-efficacy/control over SB and greater intentions to reduce SB. Among PA-related cognitions, protective factors for lower SB included a more positive attitude towards PA, having greater social support/norms for PA, greater self-efficacy/control for PA, higher PA intentions, and higher intrinsic and identified motivation towards PA. In addition, feeling more supported and empowered in general was related with lower levels of SB. The average methodological quality score for included studies was 69% (SD = 9.15%; range 35-80%). In conclusion, a number of cognitive and motivational factors were identified that were associated with sedentarism. These findings have come from reasonably high quality studies. To further extend our understanding of the relation between cognitive and motivational factors and SB, more longitudinal, theory-driven studies examining cognitions and motivation from a sedentary perspective are required.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".