An online physical activity possible selves intervention 8 weeks later: A focus on self-regulatory possible selves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Possible selves, or future-oriented self-representations (Markus & Nurius, 1986), are related to physical activity (PA) and PA self-regulation (Murru and Martin Ginis, 2010). This online randomized experiment examined self-regulatory and behavioural outcomes when participants form self-regulatory possible selves through the inclusion of planning as part of PA possible selves intervention (enhanced condition) as compared to standard PA possible selves and control conditions. Participants were 198 insufficiently active adults (Mage = 29.79, SD = 11.03) who completed baseline measures, engaged in a possible selves (standard or enhanced) or control intervention and reported PA and intentions 8 weeks later. ANCOVA demonstrated a moderate effect of condition on weekly bouts of moderate and strenuous PA, F (2, 191) = 6.879; p = .001; ?p2 = .067. The differences were between the control (M = 6.51) and both the standard (M = 8.54, p = .045) and enhanced conditions (M = 9.05, p = .001). Covariates were baseline PA, self-regulatory efficacy, and PA identity. Another ANCOVA showed that condition had a moderate effect on PA intentions to maintain current PA, F (2, 191) = 5,793; p = .004; ?p2 = .057, with a difference between the control (M = 4.23) and the enhanced conditions (M = 5.05, p = .003). Covariates were baseline intentions to maintain one’s current level of PA and self-regulatory efficacy. This study provides further support for PA possible selves interventions, suggests that an enhanced condition may be beneficial, and shows that an online delivery method may be effective.Acknowledgments: CIHR
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".