The effect of variety support on physical activity behaviour in adolescence: The mediating roles of perceived variety and basic psychological needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity levels decrease during adolescence. Exposure to a variety of physical activities (e.g., concept of sampling within the developmental model of sport participation) has been suggested to foster physical activity, but little is known about the psychosocial mechanisms underlying the variety support-physical activity relationship. This study examined the relationship between different forms of variety support (number of activities, locations, and social contacts) and physical activity behaviour in adolescence. Perceptions of variety and basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy, relatedness) were tested as mediators. Participants (N = 369; Mage = 15 years; 59% female) completed a 36-item checklist representing their participation in physical activity, where they participated in those activities, and with whom they participated with, at 3 time points over a year (Time 1, 2 and 3). Perceptions of variety, competence, autonomy, and relatedness were measured 20 months after Time 1 (Time 4), and physical activity behaviour was measured 28 months after Time 1 (Time 5). Mediation using structural equation modeling was examined. Results showed that sampling activities (? = .21, p = .010), but not locations (? = .18, p = .052), or various social contacts (? = -.03, p = .772), positively predicted physical activity behaviour over time. Sampling had an indirect positive effect on physical activity behaviour (R2 = .26) through perceptions of variety (? = .12, p = .012), but not through perceptions of competence, autonomy, or relatedness. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in relation to the developmental model of sport participation and self-determination theory.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Post-Doctoral Fellowship awarded to Benjamin Sylvester. Isabelle Dore is supported by a Fond de recherche du Quebec – Sante post-doctoral research fellowship. Catherine Sabiston is supported by the Canada Research Chairs program. The data used in this analysis were drawn from the MATCH project, which was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Sport Canada through the joint Sport Participation Research Initiative (Nos. 862-2010-0001 and 862-2014-0002) and by the New Brunswick Health Research Foundation (No. 20130729).
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".