Outcome expectations as a mediator of individuals' self-efficacy and action planning: A self-efficacy theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has shown that action planning (AP) for physical activity is a behaviour in itself and has its' own psychosocial variables. Guided by self-efficacy theory (SET), the purpose of this study was to examine the mediating role of outcome expectations on the relationship between individuals' change in self-efficacy and AP. Inactive individuals (N = 177, 57% white, 56% males, Mage = 29.7 [SD=9.92]), who had the intention to increase their physical activity in the next 6 months, answered an online questionnaire. They read one of two randomized AP messages (i.e., gain or loss framed) and were asked about their self-efficacy pre- and post-message, their outcome expectations post-message, and given an option to create an action plan. No group differences were found on AP [X 2 (1, N = 177) = 0.12, p = .73]; therefore, the message groups were collapsed for this analysis. Residual changes in self-efficacy predicted outcome expectations post-message [b = 0.62, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.45, 0.78] and outcome expectations predicted AP [b = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.07, 0.72]. The significant indirect effect showed that outcome expectations mediated the relationship between change in self-efficacy and AP behaviour [B = 0.24, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.49] as per SET. SET can therefore help further our understanding of how to promote AP in inactive adults. Future interventions aimed at improving AP could focus on fostering AP specific psychosocial variables such as those in SET.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".