Examining simultaneous relationships between need satisfaction, behavioural regulations, and exercise behaviour across five exercise contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study examined the simultaneous relationships between the psychological needs, behavioural regulations, and future exercise behaviour across five exercise contexts: yoga, crossfit, running, walking, and spin. Specifically, a model was tested with direct effects of the psychological needs and behavioural regulations on future exercise behaviour, direct effects of psychological needs on behavioural regulations, and indirect effects of the psychological needs on future exercise behaviour through the behavioural regulations. Method: Adult participants from yoga (n=116), crossfit (n=156), running (n=138), walking (n=92), and spin (n=133) completed the Psychological Need Satisfaction in Exercise Scale and the Behavioural Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire-3 at baseline, and then self-reported exercise behaviour two weeks later. Relationships among constructs were examined with path analysis of the full sample and when grouped by exercise context using Mplus. Findings: The results supported the hypothesized path model. The full sample path analysis found direct effects of competence and relatedness to the behavioural regulations; direct effects of the behavioural regulations to exercise behaviour; and indirect effects of competence and relatedness to exercise behaviour through the behavioural regulations. The context specific path analysis indicated some differences in the pattern of direct effects. For example, in yoga and walking contexts relatedness had the strongest direct effects to autonomous forms of regulations, whereas in crossfit, running, and spinning contexts competence had the strongest direct effects. Discussion: The findings are consistent with theoretical tenets of self-determination theory, and highlight the importance of considering exercise context when examining the relationships among self-determination theory variables and behaviour.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".