The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 19 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Exercise habit formation in new gym members: a longitudinal study
Abstract
Reasoned action approaches have primarily been applied to understand exercise behaviour for the past three decades, yet emerging findings in unconscious and Dual Process research show that behavior may also be predicted by automatic processes such as habit. The purpose of this study was to: (1) investigate the behavioral requirements for exercise habit formation, (2) how Dual Process approach predicts behaviour, and (3) what predicts habit by testing a model (Lally and Gardner in Health Psychol Rev 7:S137-S158, 2013). Participants (n = 111) were new gym members who completed surveys across 12 weeks. It was found that exercising for at least four bouts per week for 6 weeks was the minimum requirement to establish an exercise habit. Dual Process analysis using Linear Mixed Models (LMM) revealed habit and intention to be parallel predictors of exercise behavior in the trajectory analysis. Finally, the habit antecedent model in LLM showed that consistency (β = .21), low behavioral complexity (β = .19), environment (β = .17) and affective judgments (β = .13) all significantly (p < .05) predicted changes in habit formation over time. Trainers should keep exercises fun and simple for new clients and focus on consistency which could lead to habit formation in nearly 6 weeks.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In new gym members, exercising at least four bouts per week for about 6 weeks was the minimum requirement to establish an exercise habit. Habit and intention predicted exercise behavior equally over 12 weeks, while consistency, low behavioral complexity, environment, and affective judgments predicted habit formation over time.
Key findings
- Habit plateaued by week 6 (42–49 days), with 48% of the sample achieving habit formation; the SRBAI habit cut-off score was 2.80/5.
- In trajectory analysis, habit (b = .23, p = .001) and intention (b = .23, p = .007) were equivalent predictors of exercise behavior; neither was significant at baseline.
- Trajectory predictors of habit change were consistency (b = .21, p < .001), low behavioral complexity (b = .19, p < .001), environment (b = .17, p = .008), and affective judgments (b = .13, p = .003).
- High frequency (≥4 days/week) predicted habit (b = .24, p < .001), while low frequency (<4 days/week) did not (b = .09, p = .42); by week 12, 63.8% of the high-frequency group versus 22.6% of the low-frequency group had achieved habit.
Methods
- Longitudinal 12-week study of 111 new gym members (from 144 interested; 77% consented), aged 18–65, who had joined a gym/recreation centre within the past 2 weeks; surveys at baseline, week 6, week 9, and week 12.
- Measures included the Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire for exercise behavior, the Self-Report Behavioral Automaticity Index for habit, an open intention item, modified Subjective Exercise Experience Scale for affective reward, and single/adapted items for consistency, environment comfort, and behavioral complexity.
- Analyses used Linear Mixed Models in SPSS 20.0, survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier), ROC analysis for habit cut-off, and tests of time × frequency interaction and habit antecedents as predictors of habit formation.
Limitations
- The paper states: there was variability in participants’ exercise history despite being new gym members; habit was assessed only at baseline, week 6, week 9, and week 12, so more frequent assessment in the first 6 weeks could better capture habit formation; the Lally and Gardner model did not specify measurement, so the study used a mixture of validated and customized items; future research should use objective measurement.
- Evident in the text: exercise behavior and habit were self-reported, and the sample was 70% female, mean age 47.7 years, mean BMI 25.8, and largely postsecondary educated, which may limit generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
27 Own result · 15 Not checked yet · 13 Own interpretation · 5 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was found that exercising for at least four bouts per week for 6 weeks was the minimum requirement to establish an exercise habit.”
plaindirectn = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dual Process analysis using Linear Mixed Models (LMM) revealed habit and intention to be parallel predictors of exercise behavior in the trajectory analysis.”
- Also stated in: § Dual Process approach · p. 6 · plain
“The trajectory model found habit habit, b = .23 ( p = .001) and intention, b = .23, ( p = .007) to be equivalent in strength for predicting exercise behavior across time.”
plaincorrelationaln = 111 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Dual Process approach · p. 6 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study did not find habit or intention to significantly predict exercise behavior during baseline; however, both constructs became significant predictors over time with equal effect sizes ( b = .23, respectively) in support of our hypothesis.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The baseline model did not find habit F (1, 101) = .22, p = .64; or intention F (1, 101) = .90, p = .34 to be a significant predictors of exercise.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study did not find habit or intention to significantly predict exercise behavior during baseline; however, both constructs became significant predictors over time with equal effect sizes ( b = .23, respectively) in support of our hypothesis.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ICC intercept/(intercept + residual) = .64, suggesting that about 64 % of total variation from the antecedents was due to individual differences.”
hedgedcorrelationaln = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ICC value was .38, which means that 38 % of total variation from exercise was due to individual differences.”
plaincorrelationaln = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Affective judgments about the exercise experience were found to be the primary predictor of habit formation at baseline but consistency became the strongest predictor in the trajectory analysis.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study did not find habit or intention to significantly predict exercise behavior during baseline; however, both constructs became significant predictors over time with equal effect sizes ( b = .23, respectively) in support of our hypothesis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The baseline habit model found habit to significantly predict exercise F (1, 99) = 8.78, p = .004.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The baseline model did not find habit F (1, 101) = .22, p = .64; or intention F (1, 101) = .90, p = .34 to be a significant predictors of exercise.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, week 6 shows that 61.5 % of participants achieved habit in the high frequency group compared with 44.8 % in the low frequency.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The Chi squared difference was not significant [ v 2 (1, N = 111) = 3.82, p = .12]. Thus, a random intercept model did not improve fit (Field, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Field, 2009
plainn = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trajectory model found habit habit, b = .23 ( p = .001) and intention, b = .23, ( p = .007) to be equivalent in strength for predicting exercise behavior across time.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results clearly supported this conjecture, with a time 9 frequency interaction.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study did not find habit or intention to significantly predict exercise behavior during baseline; however, both constructs became significant predictors over time with equal effect sizes ( b = .23, respectively) in support of our hypothesis.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The AUC values ranged from .63 to .76 and were considered in acceptable range (Akobeng, 2007; Fischer et al., 2003).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Test for IGC found a significant Chi squared difference between linear and quadratic models, v 2 (1, N = 111) = 14.1, p = .03.”
plainn = 111 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comfortable environment that does not stimulate more conscious thinking was also shown to predict habit over time.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Affective judgments about the exercise experience were found to be the primary predictor of habit formation at baseline but consistency became the strongest predictor in the trajectory analysis.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study did not find habit or intention to significantly predict exercise behavior during baseline; however, both constructs became significant predictors over time with equal effect sizes ( b = .23, respectively) in support of our hypothesis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To the authors' current knowledge only one study has used a longitudinal design to understand habit development (Lally et al., 2010);”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lally et al., 2010 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For example, the majority of the studies on exercise habit are cross-sectional (Gardner et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gardner et al., 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus it would stand to reason that habit formation is partly dependent on time and frequency.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Cronbach alphas across each measurement period were: baseline ( a = .84), week 6 ( a = .84), week 9 ( a = .86), and week 12 ( a = .90).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We substituted this value with the habit cut-off score of 2.8 in the equation to solve for minimal frequency of exercise bouts required to achieve habit formation and found that a frequency of approximately 4 days per week was required to achieve an interaction score of 12.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This construct suggests that how, rather than why one practices may be more important to forming habits.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Scores C 2.8/5 would suggest that automaticity is significantly involved in the behavior.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The score is fairly low on the measure, suggesting that automaticity may be a continuum where low scores still represent predictive values.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The AUC values ranged from .63 to .76 and were considered in acceptable range (Akobeng, 2007; Fischer et al., 2003).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of consistency, our results support our conjecture that it may be a pillar in establishing both the stimulus-response (S-R) (environment-affect) as well as operant response (O-R) (exercise-affect) conditions as the behavior becomes more familiar.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that 2.8/5 is the minimal score to detect that the behavior is not entirely controlled by conscious processes.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although exercise is a complex behavior, it was likely that practicing consistently eventually eased the challenges of the behavior across time thus allowing for the facilitation of habit.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The internal consistencies of this measure were high across baseline ( a = .84), week 6 ( a = .92), week 9 ( a = .91), and week 12 ( a = .95).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, these results suggest that initiating an exercise routine that is enjoyable and consistent can help in habit formation.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This stability suggests that the majority of habit formation in the sample was by week 6 with an interaction value of 12.16 (lower bound of 95 % Confidence Interval).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of the time required to establish an exercise habit, the present research found that exercise habit plateaued on the 6th week (42-49 days) of the study with 48 % of the sample achieving habit formation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ICC intercept/(intercept + residual) = .76, suggesting that about 76 % of total variation from the predictors was due to individual differences.”
hedgedcorrelationaln = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Chi squared difference was not significant [ v 2 (1, N = 111) = 1.96, p = .37]. Thus, participants' random starting points did not significantly change the model (Field, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Field, 2009
plainn = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cut-scores for week 6, 9 and 12 were 2.52, 2.76, and 3.01 respectively which averaged a cut-off score of 2.80.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The figure shows that those in the high frequency group demonstrated stability of habit scores and maintenance of habit ( C 3/5) scores across the 12 weeks.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The baseline cut-off was 2.91 with a sensitivity of 0.70 and 1-specificity of .18.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A quadratic polynomial for time was then used to test habit change across 12 weeks, which was found to be significant F (1, 233) = 14.96, p = .001.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By week 12, the values for high and low frequency groups were 63.8 and 22.6 % respectively.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Testing of random intercepts revealed that the Chi squared difference was not significant [ v 2 (1, N = 111) = .06, p = .68]. Thus, a random intercept model did not improve fit (Field, 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Field, 2009
plainn = 111- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Overall, habit has demonstrated predictive validity in the physical activity domain; for example, a recent meta-analysis found it to correlate r = .43 with behavior which is similar to the magnitude of the intention-behavior relationship (Gardner et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gardner et al., 2011 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been proposed that conscious intention and unconscious processes operate parallel on behavior which is known as a Dual Process approach (see Evans, 2008 for review).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Evans, 2008 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Based on previous conscious rational models, social cognitive theorists propose intention to be the strongest predictor of behavior, thus suggesting intention as the primary conscious motive for behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Rogers, 1974; Rosenstock, 1974).”
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Habit is thought to have a reciprocal relationship with behavior (Gardner, 2014), where habit affects behavioral repetition but that repetition also strengthens habit formation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gardner, 2014
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“By contrast, research in unconscious processes have ranked habit as possibly the strongest unconscious determinant of behavior (Sheeran et al., 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sheeran et al., 2013 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The 2week test-retest reliability of the measures of total physical activity and the frequency of activity have been estimated to be 0.74 and 0.80, respectively (Godin et al., 1986).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Godin et al., 1986
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the researchers found that it took on average 66 days to develop a health related habit (healthy eating, drinking and exercise) among a small student sample.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lally et al., 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The present study used a mixture of previous validated scales and customized items to this model.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We used a 12 week longitudinal design based on the average time required to develop habit in a prior research study (66 days) (Lally et al., 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lally et al., 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Second, the habit model proposed by Lally and Gardner (2013) presents a strong case of four antecedents of habit which have individually been found to correlate with habit in various studies (Gardner et al., 2011).”
What the sources say
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence the present finding could provide a novel approach to assess if the environment supports the development of habit.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Before any analysis was conducted, the time parameters were grand mean centered to reduce multicollinearity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The internal consistencies in the present study were: baseline ( a = .80), week 6 ( a = .76), week 9 ( a = .73), and week 12 ( a = .77).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is likely that negative feelings which stem from unfavourable experiences could prompt conscious deliberation for the individual before performing the behavior.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fortunately, these findings are also aligned with public health guidelines suggesting that an exercise habit can be achieved in 4-5 bouts with 30/ 40 min per session.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper relies on this without support.
No study has examined a time by frequency effect on habit formation.
“Currently, no study has examined a time 9 frequency effect on habit formation.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The enrolment spike during the New Year followed by a large drop-out of gym members is a well-known trend but is not clearly understood.
“This was a relevant population for this study as the enrolment spike during the New Year followed by a large drop-out of gym members is a well-known trend but is not clearly understood.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The single-item measure of temporal consistency validly assesses temporal consistency of exercise.
“Temporal consistency had not been assessed in previous research at the time of the study. Hence, a measure was created to assess this construct.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The single-item measure of comfort in the exercise environment validly assesses environmental support for exercise automaticity.
“an item worded ''How comfortable do you feel in your exercise environment'' which was scored on a five point Likert scale (1 = not very comfortable to 5 = very comfortable) was used to assess if the environment supported the process of behavior.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Kaushal and Rhodes found that exercising for at least four times per week for 6 weeks is a minimal requirement for establishing exercise habits [81].”
From Clarifying the Concept of Adherence to eHealth Technology: Systematic Review on When Usage Becomes Adherence (2017) · cites this paper as [81]
In the citing paper
“Kaushal and Rhodes discovered that exercising for at least 4 times a week for 6 weeks was the minimum activity to establish an exercise habit [47].”
From Opening the Black Box of Electronic Health: Collecting, Analyzing, and Interpreting Log Data (2017) · cites this paper as [47]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(1, 101) = 0.22reported p = .64 · recomputed p = .640
“F (1, 101) = .22, p = .64”
- ConsistentF(1, 101) = 0.9reported p = .34 · recomputed p = .345
“F (1, 101) = .90, p = .34”
- ConsistentF(1, 99) = 8.78reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004
“F (1, 99) = 8.78, p = .004”
- ConsistentF(1, 233) = 14.96reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F (1, 233) = 14.96, p = .001”
The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)
- ConsistentF(1, 106) = 13.36reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 106) = 13.36, p = .001”
The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Discussion · p. 8
“| Environment cue | .16* | .09 | .08 | - .06 | .25 |”
§ Habit antecedents as predictors of habit formation · p. 7
“behavioral complexity and cues were not significant (Table 3).”
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Discovering Statistics Using SPSS
Field, A. P., & Miles, J. N. V. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 28,269
‘Small Changes' to Diet and Physical Activity Behaviors for Weight Management
Hills, A. P., Byrne, N. M., Lindstrom, R. C., & Hill, J. O. (2013) · Obesity Facts · doi:10.1159/000345030 · Cited by 9,526
Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R., Franklin, B. A., Lamonte, M. J., Lee, I.-M., Nieman, D. C., & Swain, D. P. (2011) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318213fefb · Cited by 9,319 · cited 2×
“These categories reflect the definition of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity provided by recommended guidelines (CSEP, 2012; Garber et al., 2011).”
BackgroundMethodKilzer, E., & Skinner, B. F. (1953) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707860 · Cited by 8,940
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Physical Activity in the United States Measured by Accelerometer
TROIANO, R. P., BERRIGAN, D., DODD, K. W., MÂSSE, L. C., TILERT, T., & MCDOWELL, M. (2008) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31815a51b3 · Cited by 7,638
A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1
Rogers, R. W. (1975) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803 · Cited by 6,805
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137
Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (2014) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315807102 · Cited by 4,211
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- IBM. (2011). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wood, W., & Rünger, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033417 · Cited by 1,445
The Handbook of Behavior Change
Hagger, M. S., Cameron, L. D., Hamilton, K., Hankonen, N. E., & Lintunen, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318 · Cited by 446
Healthy through Habit: Interventions for Initiating & Maintaining Health Behavior Change
Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2016) · Behavioral Science & Policy · doi:10.1353/bsp.2016.0008 · Cited by 412
Attitudes, habits, and behavior change
Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2022) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-011744 · Cited by 368
Sieverink, F., Kelders, S. M., & van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.8578 · Cited by 331
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaushal, N., & Rhodes, R. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Victoria (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Kaushal, Navin
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Medicine
- Published
- 2015-04-08
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 652-663
- ISSN
- 0160-7715 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3521
- OpenAlex
- W2012941021
- Semantic Scholar
- b1b18306ac4f3fa2f46292e7617491a099140699
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 2
- FWCI
- 20.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Physical Activity and Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Keywords
- exercise habit formation, gym members, dual-process theory, automatic processes, exercise intention, behavioral complexity, affective judgment, exercise behavior change
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Habits, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Reward, Social Environment, Exercise, Intention, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
