Cohesion, satisfaction, and exercise intentions in community group physical activity settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interrelationships among group cohesion, satisfaction, and physical activity intentions are demonstrated in past research within an exercise context (e.g., Caperchione & Mummery, 2007; Loughead & Carron, 2004). The purpose of the present study was to determine whether perceptions of satisfaction mediated the cohesion to exercise intentions relationship. Adults (N = 249; Mage= 40.22, SD = 12.81) involved in community group exercise classes were sampled. Participants completed the Physical Activity Group Environment Questionnaire (cohesion; Estabrooks & Carron, 2000), two measures of satisfaction (Chang, 1998), and indicated their intentions to continue class participation (Courneya & McAuley, 1995). Using regression analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986) and further tests of significance (Sobel, 1982), it was demonstrated that both satisfaction with the class environment and satisfaction with personal involvement significantly mediated the relationship between the cohesion dimension of group integration-task and exercise intentions. Furthermore, both measures of satisfaction were found to partially mediate the relationships between the cohesion dimensions of attraction to the group-social and group integration-social with exercise intentions. These findings extend the current understanding of potential mechanisms by which cohesion affects behavioural intentions in addition to providing further evidence for considering cohesion within the group exercise setting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".