Exploring personality and physical environment as predictors of exercise action control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intention–behavior relationship is well established in physical activity (PA) research, yet the intention-behaviour discrepancy is still high. A meta-analysis has revealed extraversion, neuroticism and conscientiousness to be correlates of PA. Another review has identified physical environmental factors such as convenience and location to correlate with PA. The purpose of this study was to explore constructs that are not as mutable as social-cognitive variables which could PA behaviour, notably personality facets and the physical environment. Participants were a random sample of 263 undergraduate students who completed predictor measures at baseline, followed by exercise behaviour after two weeks. Participants were categorized under action-control definitions, which identifies intentions and success possibilities. The categories included: (1) non-intenders (n=31), (2) unsuccessful intenders (n=78), and (3) successful intenders (n=107). It was found that scores on personality facets and aesthetics significantly differed between the action control groups F(4,213)=5.9, (p<0.001). Pairwise comparisons with LSD corrections revealed that activity scores significantly differed when successful intenders were compared with both non-intenders (p<0.001) and unsuccessful intenders (p<0.05). Proximity of exercise facility was significantly different between non-intenders and successful intenders (p < 0.001) and aesthetic scores significantly differed between successful intenders and unsuccessful intenders (p < 0.001). Although personality traits are stable, the significant results on the physical environment constructs suggests that they could be an additional drive for intention. Proximal distance provides convenience or visual cue of exercise facility, which can promote PA. In addition, a welcoming environment with pleasant aesthetics could make PA more appealing to unsuccessful intenders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".