What motivates Japanese adults to exercise? An application of Basic Needs Theory and Organismic Integration Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Grounded in Basic Needs Theory (BNT) and Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between satisfying psychological needs when exercising with autonomous/controlled motives for exercise. Methods: Participants (nMale = 324; nFemale = 379) were Japanese adults who completed a survey containing instruments assessing competence, autonomy, and relatedness when exercising and motives for exercise participation within a cross-sectional, non-experimental design. Results: Bivariate correlations supported positive associations between satisfying each psychological need via exercise and revealed that adjacent motives spanning the OIT continuum were more positively correlated in comparison to distal motives. Multiple regression analyses by participant gender indicated that psychological need satisfaction via exercise predicted intrinsic regulation in men and women plus identified regulation the female subsample. Relatedness did not significantly (p > .05) contribute to the prediction of identified regulation in the male subsample. Limited support for the role of psychological need fulfillment was evident in the regression models concerning amotivation or controlling exercise motives. Conclusions: Overall, the results of this study make it apparent that BNT and OIT could be used to advance our understanding of the psychological mechanisms shaping motivation for exercise in Japanese 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".