Examining the Role Ones’ Stage of Change Plays in Understanding the Relationship Between Motivation and Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable research guided by the Self Determination Theory has demonstrated that people who are motivated by more self-determined reasons (e.g., enjoyment, core beliefs, or personally meaningful benefits) are more likely to be physical activity. However, far less is known about the role ones’ stage of change (readiness for physical activity) plays in this relationship. The purpose of the present study was to (a) determine if the six forms of motivation and indices of physical activity varied across the stages of change, and (b) investigate if composite scores of self-determined and non-self-determined motivation were differentially related to physical activity indices depending on the stage of change of the individual. In total, 700 adults aged 18–65 (Mage = 32.59; SD = 12.82) completed an online survey consisting of demographics, and assessments of stages of change, motivation, and physical activity. Results demonstrated that participants at more advanced stages of change reported significantly higher self-determined motives, moderate activity, vigorous activity, and frequency of physical activity, and lower amotivation, with introjected regulation peaking at the implementation phase. Moderation analyses indicated that stages of change moderated the relationship between self-determined motives and moderate to vigorous physical activity, as well as physical activity frequency, but did not moderate the relationship between non-self-determined motives and indices of physical activity. Findings suggested that participants’ self-determined motives play a critical role in physical activity and becomes more important at more advanced stages of change, which is important to consider for program and intervention development.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".