Predicting Decisional Determinants of Physical Activity Among Older Adults: An Integrated Behavior Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The present study applied the Integrated Behavior Change Model to investigate how behavioral decisions are predicted, namely, intention, planning, and habits, with respect to physical activity. Methods: Participants were older adults (ages 65+) residing in the U.S. ( N = 667) who completed online measures of behavioral determinants (autonomous motivation, perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, attitudes, intention, habit, and consistency), in addition to past behavior. Results: A structural equation model revealed that intention was predicted by past behavior and social-cognitive determinants. Social cognitive determinants mediated between past behavior and habit, as well as between autonomous motivation and habit. Intention mediated between past behavior and planning. Discussion: This study highlights the importance of multiple processes (social cognitive, habit/automatic, and post-intentional/planning) that formulate physical activity intentions. Mediation pathways revealed the importance of autonomous motivation for establishing intentions and habit. Facilitating these processes among older adults could be effective for promoting physical activity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".