Testing the moderating role of social physique anxiety in the relationship between psychological need satisfaction and motivation in high school physical education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-conscious emotions concerning the body, such as social physique anxiety (SPA), may promote more controlling forms of motivation (i.e., introjected and external regulations; Brunet & Sabiston, 2009; Thogersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006). Self-determination theory perspectives (Deci & Ryan, 2001) suggest SPA may hinder fulfillment of basic psychological needs (i.e., feelings of competence, autonomy and relatedness). However, weak relationships from SPA to these basic needs and motivation (e.g., Brunet & Sabiston, 2009), suggest a more complex relationship among these variables. The purpose of this study was to test whether SPA interacts with perceptions of competence, autonomy and relatedness to predict motivation regulations (i.e., autonomous motivation, introjected and external regulations, amotivation) in a physical activity setting. It was hypothesized that higher SPA paired with lower perceived competence, autonomy and/or relatedness would predict greater introjected and external regulations and less autonomous motivation. Students (N = 298, n = 177 females) in grades 9-12 (Mage = 15.72 years) completed a survey measuring study variables during their physical education class. Based on results of hierarchical regression analyses, all three needs were positive predictors of autonomous motivation (R2=.47) and negative predictors of amotivation (R2=.29). SPA and perceived autonomy both negatively predicted external regulation (R2=.08).The only significant interaction to emerge was between SPA and perceived competence predicting introjected regulation. The relationship between SPA and introjected regulation may partly depend on how competent individuals feel in a physical activity setting, however, the relationships among SPA, need fulfillment and motivation require further exploration.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".