The association between motivation and effort in exercise contexts: The functional role of pride
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pride has been identified as one psychological mechanism that shapes effort in a given context (Williams & DeSteno, 2008). The objective of this investigation was to determine whether pride mediates the exercise goal-motivation-effort relationship. Participants (N = 329) completed measures of goal motivation and effort aligned with the Self-Concordance Model (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998) and authentic and hubristic pride in fitness contexts using a cross-sectional design. Bivariate correlations revealed positive associations (r's12 = .33 to .41) between pride and autonomous goal motives aligned with personal values and interests and negative associations with controlled goal motives (i.e., those external to the self; r's12 = -.13 to -.16). Goal-directed effort was more strongly associated with autonomous (r = .56) than controlled (r = .12) goal motives. Multiple mediation analyses indicated that both authentic and hubristic pride (R2adj = .40; point estimate = .17 and -.04 respectively) accounted for the autonomous goal-motive-effort relationship. Authentic pride (R2adj = .27; point estimate = -.07) served as the only mediator of the controlled goal-motive-effort relationship. Overall, results of this preliminary study indicate that pride, especially when authentic in nature, may play an important role in understanding the motivational dynamics operating when individuals pursue exercise goals.Acknowledgments: Support for this research was provided by the Brock University Advancement Fund
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".