Just doing it or just selling it? Examining exercise self-efficacy, self-presentational concerns and body-image perceptions in kinesiology and non-kinesiology students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinesiology students represent the next generation of health professionals with the requisite skills to work within the field of exercise promotion. As such, they will be looked to as key resources for the promotion of exercise as well as models of an active and healthy lifestyle. While counterintuitive, there is work demonstrating that other “leaders” in health and exercise, such as athletes have been shown to engage in maladaptive exercise-related self-presentation. Further research suggests that dietitians may engage in maladaptive eating behaviors. The purpose of the current study was to examine the exercise-related self-efficacy, self-presentation and body-image perceptions of Kinesiology students and compare these with those held by students in other degree programs. Undergraduate students (N=219, Kinesiology=78%) completed a questionnaire assessing: self-efficacy, body-image, obligatory exercise, and self-presentational efficacy, outcome expectations and outcome value. Three separate MANOVAs revealed significant differences across degree for efficacy perceptions (p<.001), body-image and obligatory exercise (p<.001) and self-presentation (p<.001). Compared to non-Kinesiology majors, Kinesiology students reported higher self-regulatory (Mkine=82.17, Mnon=67.02, p<.001) and task efficacy (Mkine=80.55, Mnon=68.96, p<.001), higher functional body image (Mkine=5.12, Mnon=4.69, p=.04) and greater obligatory exercising (Mkine=2.64, Mnon=2.24, p<.001). No differences existed on appearance-related body-image. Further, Kinesiology students reported higher self-presentational efficacy (Mkine=67.73, Mnon=59.83, p=.01) but lower self-presentational outcome expectancies (Mkine=2.23, Mnon=2.56, p=.02) and outcome value (Mkine=2.30, Mnon=3.07, p<.001). While the nature of the sample limits generalizability, the current study builds on existing work in the areas of self-presentation, efficacy and exercise and represents the first such investigation in the exercise literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".