Expectations, outcomes, and motivation in new exercisers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bandura's (1986) Social Cognitive Theory suggests that individuals' outcome expectations for a behaviour will affect motivation, such that when people's expectations are not met, their motivation to persist in the behaviour is negatively impacted. New exercisers often begin programs with high hopes for change in many aspects of their lives, and when their actual outcomes fall short of their expectations, exercise participation may decline or cease altogether. The purpose of this study was to explore the outcome expectations of participants who had completed a one year exercise program. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 participants (10 females), with an average age of 49.2 (SD = 10). Upon initial analysis using a qualitative description approach, six themes emerged. These themes included 1) weight loss and changes in appearance, 2) social support, 3) increased competence in exercise, 4) quality of life outcomes, 5) unexpected environmental and personal barriers, and 6) accountability and commitment to a structured research program. It is worth noting that after the completion of the one year program, the majority of these participants did not continue exercising at the same level of frequency or intensity. It may be important for new exercisers to regularly re-evaluate their expectations and adjust goals accordingly in order to maintain motivation for exercise. This research also reinforces the importance of imparting realistic expectations when "selling" exercise to a sedentary population.Acknowledgments: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".