Adults with conflicting or facilitating goals differ in adherence‐related self‐regulatory factors and exercise over time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most adults do not meet the public health recommendation of 150+ min each week of moderate–vigorous exercise. Exercise, which is performed during individuals' leisure time, does not typically occur in isolation as individuals often also pursue non‐exercise goals. According to social cognitive theory, concurrent pursuit of multiple goals that conflict with or facilitate one another may differentially affect the successful exercise self‐regulation, as illustrated by differences in adherence‐related self‐regulatory factors and exercise levels. To investigate this contention, the study examined whether adults (N = 191; Mage = 31.29, SD = 11.87 years), reporting conflicting or facilitating exercise and non‐exercise goals, differed in self‐regulatory factors (i.e., concurrent self‐regulatory efficacy and outcome expectations) and exercise. Participants completed online measures of self‐regulatory factors and exercise at study onset. Assessment of exercise occurred again one month later. Participants reporting conflicting (n = 100) or facilitating (n = 91) goals formed comparison groups. A between‐groups multivariate analysis of covariance, with Time 1 exercise as a covariate, was significant (p < 0.001). Post hoc univariate and descriptive discriminant analyses revealed that participants with conflicting goals reported significantly lower self‐regulatory efficacy (p < 0.001), which contributed the most to group classification, and Time 2 exercise (p = 0.01) than those with facilitating goals. Findings provide first evidence that concurrent self‐regulatory efficacy is a key differentiating factor between adults with conflicting or facilitating goals. Future research should investigate whether bolstering self‐regulatory efficacy improves exercise levels among adults with conflicting goals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".