Physical activity and physical self-concept: Does the fulfilment of ongoing psychological needs matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The link between the physical self and markers of well-being and health behaviours has been demonstrated within existing literature (see Wilson, Mack, & Sabiston, 2011 for a review). Grounded in Basic Psychological Needs Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2002), the present investigation examined whether psychological need satisfaction served as one mechanism underpinning the relationship between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and physical self-concept. Adopting a longitudinal design young adults (N= 147) completed questionnaires assessing MVPA, physical self-concept (PSDQ-PSC; Marsh, Richards, Johnson, Roche, & Tremayne, 1994) and perceived psychological need satisfaction in exercise contexts (PNSE; Wilson, Rogers, Rodgers, & Wild, 2006) on three occasions separated by three weeks. Serial mediation analyses with bootstrapped methods (Hayes, 2012) were adopted to test study objectives. Significant total (c1) and direct effects (c1’) of MVPA at Time 1 on PSDQ-PSC scores at Time 3 (β = .0050, t = 2.60, p = .01 and β = .0036, t = 2.26, p = .03 respectively) were noted. Examination of the specific indirect effects demonstrated that PNSE scores at each of the three time points mediated the MVPA Time 1 - PSDQ-PSC Time 3 relationship (a1a4a5b3 = .001; CI = .0001 to .0023). Contexts that afford individuals the opportunity to engage in exercise at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity, as well as, provide authentic and on-going support for psychological needs as identified by Deci and Ryan (2002), appear advantageous for the promotion of physical self-concept in young adults.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".