Investigating the role of self‐control beliefs in predicting exercise behaviour: A longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engaging in exercise behaviour regularly requires a repeated investment of resources to reap the health benefits. An individual's self-control resources, when performing a behaviour can be perceived as being recharged or depleted. The investigation on how self-control beliefs resources predict exercise behaviour is very limited in the literature. The purpose of this study was to understand how self-control beliefs predict exercise behaviour across time in a physical activity model. METHODS: Participants (N = 161) were a sample of adults recruited across twelve gyms and recreation centres in a large city. Participants completed surveys across five months. Data were analysed using a multilevel structural equation model with participants (level 2) nested within time (level 1). RESULTS: Behaviour was found to be a function of intention, habit, and planning. Specifically, planning moderated the intention-behaviour relationship, where those who scored higher on planning engaged in more exercise. Self-control beliefs functioned as a proximal predictor of autonomous motivation and predicted habit, and intention when accounting for total effects. CONCLUSIONS: Self-control beliefs played a pivotal role in supporting recognized exercise determinants. Exercise-focussed interventions that help participants strengthen their beliefs as recharging and reduce depletion beliefs could be beneficial for promoting regular exercise.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".