“What Goes Around Comes Around”: Antecedents, Mediators, and Consequences of Controlling vs. Need-Supportive Motivational Strategies Used by Exercise Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research into the factors associated with the use of different motivational strategies by exercise professionals is of empirical and practical utility. PURPOSE: Grounded in self-determination theory, this study sought to analyze putative antecedents, mediators, and work-related well- and ill-being consequences of two types of motivational strategies reported by exercise professionals. METHODS: Participants were 366 exercise professionals (193 males; experience = 7.7 ± 5.8 years). Questionnaires assessing psychological need satisfaction frustration, self-determined work motivation, motivational strategies (need-supportive vs. controlling), emotional exhaustion, and personal accomplishment were completed online. Path analysis was used to test the hypothesized model. RESULTS: (5) = 9.174, p> .05; CFI = .984; TLI = .936; RMSEA = .048; SRMR = .022] showed need satisfaction as positively associated with supportive strategies and personal accomplishment (β between .267 and .399) and negatively with emotional exhaustion (β = -.145). Need frustration was negatively associated with work motivation and personal accomplishment (β = -.315; -.176), and positively with controlling strategies and emotional exhaustion (β = .195; .226). Furthermore, supportive strategies and work motivation were positively associated with personal accomplishment (β = .134; .184), whereas controlling strategies were positively associated with emotional exhaustion (β = .178). CONCLUSIONS: Findings have theoretical implications, providing evidence of need satisfaction and frustration as being differently associated with work-related motivation, type of strategies used, and work-related emotional outcomes. Practical implications convey the importance of these variables in relation to the standard of motivational strategies provided and their role on work-related well- and ill-being indicators.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".