Cited by 224Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsCardiovascular and exercise physiologySport Psychology and Performance

A quantitative analysis and qualitative explanation of the individual differences in affective responses to prescribed and self-selected exercise intensities

Rose, Elaine A., Parfitt, Gaynor·2007·Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

Abstract

Using a mixed-method approach, the aim of this study was to explore affective responses to exercise at intensities below-lactate threshold (LT), at-LT, and above-LT to test the proposals of the dual-mode model. These intensities were also contrasted with a self-selected intensity. Further, the factors that influenced the generation of those affective responses were explored. Nineteen women completed 20 min of treadmill exercise at each intensity. Affective valence and activation were measured, pre-, during and postexercise. Afterward, participants were asked why they had felt the way they had during each intensity. Results supported hypotheses showing affect to be least positive during the above-LT condition and most positive during the self-selected and below-LT conditions. Individual differences were greatest in the below-LT and at-LT conditions. Qualitative results showed that factors relating to perceptions of ability, interpretation of exercise intensity, exercise outcomes, focus of concentration, and perceptions of control influenced the affective response and contributed to the individual differences shown in the quantitative data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1123/jsep.29.3.281

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Sample size was determined based on an assumed mean difference of 1.74±1.18 on the Feeling Scale with α=.05 and β=.20.

    “To determine the sample size [14], we assumed a mean difference of 1.74±1.18 on the Feeling Scale (FS) with an α = .05 and a β = .20 because similar results had been previously observed and were associated with significant differences [15].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rose, E. A., & Parfitt, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Otago (NZ)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
Venue
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
Published
2007-06
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
281-309
ISSN
  • 0895-2779 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-2904
OpenAlex
W1801946579
Cited by
224
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
Keywords
affective responses to exercise, exercise intensity, lactate threshold, self-selected exercise intensity, individual differences, dual-mode model, emotional valence, affective activation, perceived competence, perceived control, exercise effects, women
MeSH terms
Adult, Affect, Aptitude, Arousal, Physical Exertion, Female, Humans, Individuality, Internal-External Control, Middle Aged, Motivation, Self Concept, Anaerobic Threshold, Exercise, Lactic Acid

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.

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