Effects of social belonging and task framing on exercise cognitions and behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The need to belong has been conceptualized as a fundamental human motivation, with the prospect of future acceptance acting as a salient driver of emotions, cognitions, and behaviors (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The objective of the studies presented in this paper was to examine how the need to belong can be used to enhance exercise cognitions and behavior. Specifically, we tested the effects of framing exercise in terms of social skills on exercise cognitions and behavior among inactive participants’ who situationally or dispositionally felt a lack of social belonging. In Study 1, we examined the effects of a future acceptance manipulation and a social skills task framing intervention on self-regulatory efficacy and exercise intentions. In Study 2, we tested whether a social skills task framing intervention (compared to a health benefits condition) would elevate social cognitions and behavior among inactive lonely adults. Results revealed that among socially rejected participants in Study 1, framing exercise as indicative of social skills led to greater self-regulatory efficacy for exercise (but not exercise intentions) when compared to a condition where health benefits were made salient. In Study 2, participants in both conditions reported engaging in more exercise; however, those in the social skills condition also reported a significantly greater sense of belonging than those in the comparison health benefits condition. These findings provide an important basis for developing health-enhancing physical activity interventions and are particularly relevant for people at risk of social isolation or who are socially isolated and/or lonely.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".