Self-compassion and the self-regulation of exercise: reactions to failure, fear of self-compassion and gender differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-compassion facilitates health behaviour self-regulation but only a few studies have examined self-compassion and exercise self-regulation. This online, cross-sectional study investigated self-compassion’s relationship with exercise self-regulation in the context of an exercise failure and examined fear of self-compassion relative to the pursuit of exercise goals and gender differences. Adults (N = 105) who had experienced an exercise failure within the last six months completed baseline measures, recalled an exercise failure and completed questionnaires to assess self-regulation in this context. Self-compassion was negatively related to external motivation and state rumination after controlling for self-esteem. Self-compassion predicted unique variance, beyond self-esteem and age, in exercise goal re-engagement and negative affect experienced after an exercise failure. Exercisers reported low fear of self-compassion regarding self-regulating their exercise. Men reported slightly higher levels of self-compassion than women (N = 125). This research adds to the few studies that examine the role of self-compassion in exercise self-regulation
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".