MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2945210647

Exploring whether participatory motives relate to commitment and lapses differently in adult sportspersons and exercisers

2013· article· en· W2945210647 on OpenAlexaff
James R. Vallerand, Bradley W. Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial psychologyPsychologyContext (archaeology)Citizen journalism
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structured physical activity (PA) programs that accommodate personal motivational preferences can promote sustained participation (Weiss & Amorose, 2008). Thus, it is important to explore whether sport and exercise programs cater to different motivational profiles (Kilpatrick et al., 2005). This study examined how various participatory motives for PA were differentially associated with commitment and lapses in sportspersons and exercisers. 252 (MAge=47.20; range=35-57yrs) self-identified sportspersons (n=108) and exercisers (n=144) completed online questionnaires to report their PA motives (EMI-2; Markland & Ingledew, 1997), commitment levels (Scanlan et al., 1993) and frequency of lapses (Simkin & Gross, 1994). Exploratory factor analyses determined important motives in each of sport and exercise contexts. A series of simultaneous regressions examined associations between these motives and commitment/lapses, and hierarchical regressions employed interactive terms to determine whether such associations differed as a function of PA context. Enjoyment and health motives were highly important for sportspersons and exercisers alike, whereas competition and social affiliation were more important to sportspersons. Enjoyment (B=.20, p=.009), social affiliation (B=.13, p=.05), and stress relief (B=.12, p=.08) predicted commitment for sportspersons and exercisers alike. Sportspersons’ commitment was also uniquely related to appearance (B=-.26, p=.006) and personal goals and challenges (B=.17, p=.06) motives. Stress relief motives buffered against lapsing (B=-.61, p=.05) for both sportspersons and exercisers, whereas health related motives only buffered against lapsing for exercisers, yet were positively associated with lapsing for sportspersons. Discussion focuses on how programmers might consider between-context differences when programming organized PA to better accommodate and motivate adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports→French-language works237,207→