Exploring the relationship between adults’ perceptions of sedentary behaviours and psychological stress: Is your mindset stressing you out?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mindsets that people hold regarding activity adequacy play an integral part in various health outcomes. Yet, little is known about the relationship between the mindset one has about their sedentary behaviour levels and psychological stress. As such, the present study sought to understand if adults’ perceptions of themselves as compared to others of the same age, specifically perceptions about their level of sedentary behaviours, is a significant predictor of psychological stress. Three-hundred and seventy-four adults (nfemale = 279, nmale = 95; Mage = 60.4% aged between 18 and 24) completed an online survey package that included two multi-scale instruments to assess perceived stress symptoms and actual time spent sitting during a typical week, and two single-items to measure perceptions of their level of sedentary behaviours during a typical week (i.e., typical weekday, weekend day). Cross-sectional results indicated that perceived sedentary behaviour relative to others on a typical weekend day explained significant albeit modest unique variance in perceived stress scores, even after controlling for covariates including actual sitting time on a typical weekend day (t(363) = 2.35, p = 0.019, R2increment = 0.010). Weekday perceptions failed to be an influential factor (t(363) = −0.28, p = 0.780, R2inc = .000). These findings suggest that a sedentary behaviour mindset, yoked within a social comparison framework, may be important for understanding psychological stress.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".