Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (25)
- Postprint (16)
- Doctoral Thesis (6)
- Other (2)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (50) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (50) (remove)
Keywords
- exercise (50) (remove)
Doping use in recreational sports is an emerging issue that has received limited attention so far in the psychological literature. The present study assessed the lifetime prevalence of controlled performance and appearance enhancing substances ( PAES), and used behavioral reasoning theory to identify the reasons for using and for avoiding using controlled PAES in young exercisers across five European countries, in the context of the "SAFE YOU" Project. Participants were 915 young amateur athletes and exercisers (M = 21.62; SD = 2.62) from Cyprus, Germany, Greece, Italy, and UK who completed an anonymous questionnaire that included measures of self-reported use of controlled PAES, as well as reasons for using and not using controlled PAES. The results of the descriptive analyses demonstrated that almost one out five exercisers in the sample had a previous experience with controlled PAES. Higher prevalence rates were found in Greece and Cyprus and lower in Italy. The most frequently reported reasons for using controlled PAES included achieving the desired results faster; pushing the self to the (physical) limits; and recovering faster after exercise/training. Furthermore, the most frequently reported reasons for not using controlled PAES involved worry about any possible adverse health effects; not feeling the need for using them; and wanting to see what can be achieved naturally without using any controlled PAES. The findings of the present study indicate that the use of controlled PAES is fast becoming a crisis in amateur sports and exercise settings and highlight the need for preventive action and concerted anti-doping education efforts.
Continuous exercise (CON) and high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) can be safely performed with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Additionally, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems may serve as a tool to reduce the risk of exercise-induced hypoglycemia. It is unclear if CGM is accurate during CON and HIIE at different mean workloads. Seven T1DM patients performed CON and HIIE at 5% below (L) and above (M) the first lactate turn point (LTP1), and 5% below the second lactate turn point (LTP2) (H) on a cycle ergometer. Glucose was measured via CGM and in capillary blood (BG). Differences were found in comparison of CGM vs. BG in three out of the six tests (p < 0.05). In CON, bias and levels of agreement for L, M, and H were found at: 0.85 (-3.44, 5.15) mmol.L-1, -0.45 (-3.95, 3.05) mmol.L-1, -0.31 (-8.83, 8.20) mmol.L-1 and at 1.17 (-2.06, 4.40) mmol.L-1, 0.11 (-5.79, 6.01) mmol.L-1, 1.48 (-2.60, 5.57) mmol.L-1 in HIIE for the same intensities. Clinically-acceptable results (except for CON H) were found. CGM estimated BG to be clinically acceptable, except for CON H. Additionally, using CGM may increase avoidance of exercise-induced hypoglycemia, but usual BG control should be performed during intense exercise.
Continuous exercise (CON) and high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) can be safely performed with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Additionally, continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems may serve as a tool to reduce the risk of exercise-induced hypoglycemia. It is unclear if CGM is accurate during CON and HIIE at different mean workloads. Seven T1DM patients performed CON and HIIE at 5% below (L) and above (M) the first lactate turn point (LTP1), and 5% below the second lactate turn point (LTP2) (H) on a cycle ergometer. Glucose was measured via CGM and in capillary blood (BG). Differences were found in comparison of CGM vs. BG in three out of the six tests (p < 0.05). In CON, bias and levels of agreement for L, M, and H were found at: 0.85 (−3.44, 5.15) mmol·L−1, −0.45 (−3.95, 3.05) mmol·L−1, −0.31 (−8.83, 8.20) mmol·L−1 and at 1.17 (−2.06, 4.40) mmol·L−1, 0.11 (−5.79, 6.01) mmol·L−1, 1.48 (−2.60, 5.57) mmol·L−1 in HIIE for the same intensities. Clinically-acceptable results (except for CON H) were found. CGM estimated BG to be clinically acceptable, except for CON H. Additionally, using CGM may increase avoidance of exercise-induced hypoglycemia, but usual BG control should be performed during intense exercise.
The field of exercise psychology has established robust evidence on the health benefits of physical activity. However, interventions to promote sustained exercise behavior have often proven ineffective. This dissertation addresses challenges in the field, particularly the neglect of situated and affective processes in understanding and changing exercise behavior. Dual process models, considering both rational and affective processes, have gained recognition. The Affective Reflective Theory of Physical Inactivity and Exercise (ART) is a notable model in this context, positing that situated processes in-the-moment of choice influence exercise decisions and subsequent exercise behavior.
The dissertation identifies current challenges within exercise psychology and proposes methodological and theoretical advancements. It emphasizes the importance of momentary affective states and situated processes, offering alternatives to self-reported measures and advocating for a more comprehensive modeling of individual variability. The focus is on the affective processes during exercise, theorized to reappear in momentary decision-making, shaping overall exercise behavior.
The first publication introduces a new method by using automated facial action analysis to measure variable affective responses during exercise. It explores how these behavioral indicators covary with self-reported measures of affective valence and perceived exertion. The second publication delves into situated processes at the moment of choice between exercise and non-exercise options, revealing that intraindividual factors play a crucial role in explaining exercise-related choices. The third publication presents an open-source research tool, the Decisional Preferences in Exercising Test (DPEX), designed to capture repeated situated decisions and predict exercise behavior based on past experiences.
The findings challenge previous assumptions and provide insights into the complex interplay of affective responses, situated processes, and exercise choices. The dissertation underscores the need for individualized interventions that manipulate affective responses during exercise and calls for systematic testing to establish causal links to automatic affective processes and subsequent exercise behavior. This dissertation highlights the necessity for methodological and conceptual refinements in understanding and promoting exercise behavior, ultimately contributing to the broader goal of combating increasing inactivity trends.
Even though the majority of individuals know that exercising is healthy, a high percentage struggle to achieve the recommended amount of exercise. The (social-cognitive) theories that are commonly applied to explain exercise motivation refer to the assumption that people base their decisions mainly on rational reasoning. However, behavior is not only bound to reflection. In recent years, the role of automaticity and affect for exercise motivation has been increasingly discussed. In this dissertation, central assumptions of the affective–reflective theory of physical inactivity and exercise (ART; Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018), an exercise-specific dual-process theory that emphasizes the role of a momentary automatic affective reaction for exercise-decisions, were examined. The central aim of this dissertation was to investigate exercisers and non-exercisers automatic affective reactions to exercise-related stimuli (i.e., type-1 process). In particular, the two components of the ART’s type-1 process, that are, automatic associations with exercise and the automatic affective valuation to exercise, were under study.
In the first publication (Schinkoeth & Antoniewicz, 2017), research on automatic (evaluative) associations with exercise was summarized and evaluated in a systematic review. The results indicated that automatic associations with exercise appeared to be relevant predictors for exercise behavior and other exercise-related variables, providing evidence for a central assumption of the ART’s type-1 process. Furthermore, indirect methods seem to be suitable to assess automatic associations. The aim of the second publication (Schinkoeth, Weymar, & Brand, 2019) was to approach the somato-affective core of the automatic valuation of exercise using analysis of reactivity in vagal HRV while viewing exercise-related pictures. Results revealed that differences in exercise volume could be regressed on HRV reactivity. In light of the ART, these findings were interpreted as evidence of an inter-individual affective reaction elicited at the thought of exercise and triggered by exercise-stimuli. In the third publication (Schinkoeth & Brand, 2019, subm.), it was sought to disentangle and relate to each other the ART’s type-1 process components—automatic associations and the affective valuation of exercise. Automatic associations to exercise were assessed with a recoding-free variant of an implicit association test (IAT). Analysis of HRV reactivity was applied to approach a somatic component of the affective valuation, and facial reactions in a facial expression (FE) task served as indicators of the automatic affective reaction’s valence. Exercise behavior was assessed via self-report. The measurement of the affective valuation’s valence with the FE task did not work well in this study. HRV reactivity was predicted by the IAT score and did also statistically predict exercise behavior. These results thus confirm and expand upon the results of publication two and provide empirical evidence for the type-1 process, as defined in the ART. This dissertation advances the field of exercise psychology concerning the influence of automaticity and affect on exercise motivation. Moreover, both methodical implications and theoretical extensions for the ART can be derived from the results.
The goals of this study were to test whether exercise-related stimuli can elicit automatic evaluative responses and whether automatic evaluations reflect exercise setting preference in highly active exercisers. An adapted version of the Affect Misattribution Procedure was employed. Seventy-two highly active exercisers (26 years +/- 9.03; 43% female) were subliminally primed (7 ms) with pictures depicting typical fitness center scenarios or gray rectangles (control primes). After each prime, participants consciously evaluated the "pleasantness" of a Chinese symbol. Controlled evaluations were measured with a questionnaire and were more positive in participants who regularly visited fitness centers than in those who reported avoiding this exercise setting. Only center exercisers gave automatic positive evaluations of the fitness center setting (partial eta squared = .08). It is proposed that a subliminal Affect Misattribution Procedure paradigm can detect automatic evaluations to exercising and that, in highly active exercisers, these evaluations play a role in decisions about the exercise setting rather than the amounts of physical exercise. Findings are interpreted in terms of a dual systems theory of social information processing and behavior.
The general purpose of this systematic review was to summarize, structure and evaluate the findings on automatic evaluations of exercising. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported measuring automatic evaluations of exercising with an implicit measure and assessed some kind of exercise variable. Fourteen nonexperimental and six experimental studies (out of a total N = 1,928) were identified and rated by two independent reviewers. The main study characteristics were extracted and the grade of evidence for each study evaluated. First, results revealed a large heterogeneity in the applied measures to assess automatic evaluations of exercising and the exercise variables. Generally, small to large-sized significant relations between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise variables were identified in the vast majority of studies. The review offers a systematization of the various examined exercise variables and prompts to differentiate more carefully between actually observed exercise behavior (proximal exercise indicator) and associated physiological or psychological variables (distal exercise indicator). Second, a lack of transparent reported reflections on the differing theoretical basis leading to the use of specific implicit measures was observed. Implicit measures should be applied purposefully, taking into consideration the individual advantages or disadvantages of the measures. Third, 12 studies were rated as providing first-grade evidence (lowest grade of evidence), five represent second-grade and three were rated as third-grade evidence. There is a dramatic lack of experimental studies, which are essential for illustrating the cause-effect relation between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise and investigating under which conditions automatic evaluations of exercising influence behavior. Conclusions about the necessity of exercise interventions targeted at the alteration of automatic evaluations of exercising should therefore not be drawn too hastily.
The general purpose of this systematic review was to summarize, structure and evaluate the findings on automatic evaluations of exercising. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported measuring automatic evaluations of exercising with an implicit measure and assessed some kind of exercise variable. Fourteen nonexperimental and six experimental studies (out of a total N = 1,928) were identified and rated by two independent reviewers. The main study characteristics were extracted and the grade of evidence for each study evaluated. First, results revealed a large heterogeneity in the applied measures to assess automatic evaluations of exercising and the exercise variables. Generally, small to large-sized significant relations between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise variables were identified in the vast majority of studies. The review offers a systematization of the various examined exercise variables and prompts to differentiate more carefully between actually observed exercise behavior (proximal exercise indicator) and associated physiological or psychological variables (distal exercise indicator). Second, a lack of transparent reported reflections on the differing theoretical basis leading to the use of specific implicit measures was observed. Implicit measures should be applied purposefully, taking into consideration the individual advantages or disadvantages of the measures. Third, 12 studies were rated as providing first-grade evidence (lowest grade of evidence), five represent second-grade and three were rated as third-grade evidence. There is a dramatic lack of experimental studies, which are essential for illustrating the cause-effect relation between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise and investigating under which conditions automatic evaluations of exercising influence behavior. Conclusions about the necessity of exercise interventions targeted at the alteration of automatic evaluations of exercising should therefore not be drawn too hastily.
The general purpose of this systematic review was to summarize, structure and evaluate the findings on automatic evaluations of exercising. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported measuring automatic evaluations of exercising with an implicit measure and assessed some kind of exercise variable. Fourteen nonexperimental and six experimental studies (out of a total N = 1,928) were identified and rated by two independent reviewers. The main study characteristics were extracted and the grade of evidence for each study evaluated. First, results revealed a large heterogeneity in the applied measures to assess automatic evaluations of exercising and the exercise variables. Generally, small to large-sized significant relations between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise variables were identified in the vast majority of studies. The review offers a systematization of the various examined exercise variables and prompts to differentiate more carefully between actually observed exercise behavior (proximal exercise indicator) and associated physiological or psychological variables (distal exercise indicator). Second, a lack of transparent reported reflections on the differing theoretical basis leading to the use of specific implicit measures was observed. Implicit measures should be applied purposefully, taking into consideration the individual advantages or disadvantages of the measures. Third, 12 studies were rated as providing first-grade evidence (lowest grade of evidence), five represent second-grade and three were rated as third-grade evidence. There is a dramatic lack of experimental studies, which are essential for illustrating the cause-effect relation between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise and investigating under which conditions automatic evaluations of exercising influence behavior. Conclusions about the necessity of exercise interventions targeted at the alteration of automatic evaluations of exercising should therefore not be drawn too hastily.
Changing the perspective sometimes offers completely new insights to an already well-known phenomenon. Exercising behavior, defined as planned, structured and repeated bodily movements with the intention to maintain or increase the physical fitness (Caspersen, Powell, & Christenson, 1985), can be thought of as such a well-known phenomenon that has been in the scientific focus for many decades (Dishman & O’Connor, 2005). Within these decades a perspective that assumes rational and controlled evaluations as the basis for decision making, was predominantly used to understand why some people engage in physical activity and others do not (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015).
Dual-process theories (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015; Payne & Gawronski, 2010) provide another perspective, that is not exclusively influenced by rational reasoning. These theories differentiate two different processes that guide behavior “depending on whether they operate automatically or in a controlled fashion“ (Gawronski & Creighton, 2012, p. 282). Following this line of thought, exercise behavior is not solely influenced by thoughtful deliberations (e.g. concluding that exercising is healthy) but also by spontaneous affective reactions (e.g. disliking being sweaty while exercising). The theoretical frameworks of dual-process models are not new in psychology (Chaiken & Trope, 1999) and have already been used for the explanation of numerous behaviors (e.g. Hofmann, Friese, & Wiers, 2008; Huijding, de Jong, Wiers, & Verkooijen, 2005). However, they have only rarely been used for the explanation of exercise behavior (e.g. Bluemke, Brand, Schweizer, & Kahlert, 2010; Conroy, Hyde, Doerksen, & Ribeiro, 2010; Hyde, Doerksen, Ribeiro, & Conroy, 2010). The assumption of two dissimilar behavior influencing processes, differs fundamentally from previous theories and thus from the research that has been conducted in the last decades in exercise psychology. Research mainly concentrated on predictors of the controlled processes and addressed the identified predictors in exercise interventions (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002).
Predictors arising from the described automatic processes, for example automatic evaluations for exercising (AEE), have been neglected in exercise psychology for many years. Until now, only a few researchers investigated the influence of these AEE for exercising behavior (Bluemke et al., 2010; Brand & Schweizer, 2015; Markland, Hall, Duncan, & Simatovic, 2015). Marginally more researchers focused on the impact of AEE for physical activity behavior (Calitri, Lowe, Eves, & Bennett, 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2010; Hyde, Elavsky, Doerksen, & Conroy, 2012). The extant studies mainly focused on the quality of AEE and the associated quantity of exercise (exercise much or little; Bluemke et al., 2010; Calitri et al., 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2012). In sum, there is still a dramatic lack of empirical knowledge, when applying dual-process theories to exercising behavior, even though these theories have proven to be successful in explaining behavior in many other health-relevant domains like eating, drinking or smoking behavior (e.g. Hofmann et al., 2008).
The main goal of the present dissertation was to collect empirical evidence for the influence of AEE on exercise behavior and to expand the so far exclusively correlational studies by experimentally controlled studies. By doing so, the ongoing debate on a paradigm shift from controlled and deliberative influences of exercise behavior towards approaches that consider automatic and affective influences (Ekkekakis & Zenko, 2015) should be encouraged. All three conducted publications are embedded in dual-process theorizing (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006, 2014; Strack & Deutsch, 2004). These theories offer a theoretical framework that could integrate the established controlled variables of exercise behavior explanation and additionally consider automatic factors for exercise behavior like AEE.
Taken together, the empirical findings collected suggest that AEE play an important and diverse role for exercise behavior. They represent exercise setting preferences, are a cause for short-term exercise decisions and are decisive for long-term exercise adherence. Adding to the few already present studies in this field, the influence of (positive) AEE for exercise behavior was confirmed in all three presented publications. Even though the available set of studies needs to be extended in prospectively studies, first steps towards a more complete picture have been taken. Closing with the beginning of the synopsis: I think that time is right for a change of perspectives! This means a careful extension of the present theories with controlled evaluations explaining exercise behavior. Dual-process theories including controlled and automatic evaluations could provide such a basis for future research endeavors in exercise psychology.