MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410932654 · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2025.2509218

The relationship between role and social identities and physical activity participation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4410932654 on OpenAlexaff
Caitlin Liddelow, Mark R. Stevens, Tegan Cruwys, Meredith Schertzinger

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsPsychologyMeta-analysisSocial psychologySocial identity theorySocial group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity participation rates are low and stagnant. Understanding the determinants of physical activity therefore remains a priority. One area that has become prominent in such efforts is whether possessing strong physical activity-related role identities and physical activity-related social identities can shape participation. In this review, we aimed to synthesise all research examining the relationship between these two distinct forms of identities and physical activity participation. A search of six databases yielded 3,180 articles, with 49 satisfying our inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analyses showed a significant positive association (r = .40) between role identity and participation across 35 studies, and a significant positive association (r = .20) between social identity and participation across 15 studies. Moderator analyses revealed the relationship between identity and participation was significantly stronger for adolescents/young adults compared to adults. Although non-significant, it also tended to be stronger in studies that used subjective participation measures, and when assessed cross-sectionally rather than prospectively/longitudinally. Findings suggest that physical activity participation is shaped by the extent to which people internalise physical activity roles and group memberships into their self-concept. Greater efforts to understand how role and social identities can be fostered and the participation-related benefits of such efforts are warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.015
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207