Satisfaction with body functionality mediates the association between physical activity motives and participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise participation motives are differentially associated with engagement in physical activity (PA), with some reasons for exercise promoting, and others deterring behaviour. Perceptions of the body may account for these differential associations. Drawing from embodied theories of body image, motives that orient attention towards the body's function may promote PA, whereas motives focused on appearance may deter PA. The goal of this research was to examine various dimensions of body image as mediators between participation motives and engagement in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), after controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Participants (N = 470, nfemale = 210; Mage = 36; SDage = 11) completed an online survey that assessed their motives for physical activity (i.e., fitness, interest/enjoyment, social, competence, and appearance motives), values and satisfaction associated with appearance and functionality dimensions of body image, and engagement in MVPA. The overall model accounted for 33% of the variance in MVPA. Fitness motives were directly associated with MVPA (B = 3.44, CI = 0.984 to 5.90) while satisfaction with body functionality was a significant mediator between interest/enjoyment motives and MVPA (B = 0.129, CI = 0.050 to 0.227) and appearance motives and MVPA (B = -0.029, CI = -0.069 to -0.002). Focusing on the functioning of the body is associated with engaging in PA at levels commensurate for health benefits. Engaging in MVPA because it is interesting/enjoyable rather than for appearance reasons may facilitate satisfaction with the functioning of one's body which in turn is associated with engagement in MVPA.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".