Mediating Mechanisms in a Physical Activity Intervention: A Test of Habit Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent randomized controlled trial found that an intervention focused on developing an exercise habit increased weekly minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) over 8 wk compared to a control group. The purpose of the current study was to test if changes in habit, as well as other behavioral strategy constructs from the Multi-Process Action Control Test, mediated between group condition and MVPA (self-report and accelerometry). METHODS: Inactive new gym members (N = 94) were randomized into control or experimental (habit-building) groups. RESULTS: No construct entirely explained mediation condition (experimental and control) and changes in MVPA measured by accelerometry. Self-report MVPA found affective judgments, behavioral regulation, and preparatory habit to be mediated between group (experimental/control conditions) and changes in behavior (β = 0.36, 95% confidence interval [.05-.78]). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported and objectively measured behavior models demonstrated complete and partial mediation, respectively. New gym members could benefit from successful behavioral enactment by developing constructs to support habit formation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".