Exercise intensity agreement, need satisfaction, and exercise behavior: A sex-moderated mediation model
运动强度一致性、需求满足和运动行为：性别调节的中介模型

${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Lusófona University of Humanities and Technologies, Lisbon, Portugal
${}^1$${}^1$^(1){ }^{1} 葡萄牙里斯本 Lusófona University of Humanities and Technologies 体育与运动学院
${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} Research Center in Sport, Physical Education, and Exercise and Health (CIDEFES), Lisbon, Portugal
${}^2$${}^2$^(2){ }^{2} 体育、运动和运动与健康研究中心 （CIDEFES），葡萄牙里斯本
${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} ESECS, Polytechnique of Leiria, Leiria, Portugal
${}^3$${}^3$^(3){ }^{3} ESECS， Polytechnique of Leiria， Leiria， 葡萄牙
${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} Centro de Investigação em Desporto, Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano (CIDESD), Covilhã, Portugal
${}^4$${}^4$^(4){ }^{4} Centro de Investigação em Desporto， Saúde e Desenvolvimento Humano （CIDESD）， Covilhã， 葡萄牙

D. S. Teixeira, Faculdade de Educação Física e Desporto, ULHT Campo Grande, 376, Lisboa 1749-024, Portugal.
D. S. Teixeira， Faculdade de Educação Física e Desporto， ULHT Campo Grande， 376， Lisboa 1749-024， Portugal.
Email: diogo.teixeira@ulusofona.pt
电子邮件： diogo.teixeira@ulusofona.pt

adherence, exercise, hedonism, motivation, professionals
坚持， 锻炼， 享乐主义， 积极性， 专业人士

Promoting physical exercise adherence is challenging. Given the complexity of human behavior, several factors can influence one’s decision to be continuously involved in such an effort. Among the several approaches that can be developed to help face this issue, motivation has been the focus of extensive research (Ntoumanis et al., 2018). Of the several theories and frameworks with differentiated outcomes and approaches, self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) has been one of the most explored and suggested for this purpose (Rhodes et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2021, 2022).
促进体育锻炼的依从性是具有挑战性的。鉴于人类行为的复杂性，有几个因素会影响一个人持续参与此类努力的决定。在可以帮助解决这个问题的几种方法中，动机一直是广泛研究的重点（Ntoumanis et al.， 2018）。在具有不同结果和方法的几种理论和框架中，自决理论 （SDT;Deci & Ryan， 1985）一直是为此目的进行探索和建议的最多的方法之一（Rhodes et al.， 2019;Ryan et al.， 2021， 2022）。

Within the tenets of SDT, basic psychological needs (BPN) emerge as three universal psychological nutrients (autonomy: being able to choose the behavior or to be in control of it; competence: one’s ability to succeed in challenging tasks and attain desired outcomes; and relatedness: development of personal and meaningful connections based on trust and respect) which, when satisfied, are considered essential for personal growth and well-being, and for behavioral stability and positive psychological outcomes (Ryan & Deci, 2017). On the contrary, BPN frustration acts oppositely and is proposed to be detrimental to one’s health, well-being, and motivational quality (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Additionally, BPN satisfaction is postulated to be a facilitator of behavior internalization and integration, allowing individuals to regulate their efforts more autonomously (i.e., behavior performed out of personal interest or inherent value) (Ryan & Deci, 2017), which is proposed to sustain intrinsic motivation and exercise adherence (Ntoumanis et al., 2018, 2021; Ryan et al., 2021, 2022).
在 SDT 的原则中，基本心理需求 （BPN） 表现为三种普遍的心理营养素（自主性：能够选择行为或控制行为;能力：一个人在具有挑战性的任务中取得成功并达到预期结果的能力;以及相关性：在信任和尊重的基础上发展个人和有意义的联系），当满足时， 被认为对个人成长和健康至关重要，对于行为稳定性和积极的心理结果至关重要（Ryan&Deci，2017）。相反，BPN挫败感的作用相反，被认为对一个人的健康、幸福感和激励质量有害（Ryan&Deci，2017）。此外，BPN满意度被假定为行为内化和整合的促进者，使个人能够更自主地调节他们的努力（即，出于个人兴趣或内在价值而执行的行为）（Ryan&Deci，2017），这被提出以维持内在动机和坚持性（Ntoumanis等人，2018,2021;Ryan et al.， 2021， 2022）。

Promoting the development of BPN in an exercise context is difficult. The articulation between customary professional practice (i.e., related to exercise prescription and supervision) and motivational considerations and strategies often relegates the latter to the second plan, with professionals being more at ease with current and known exercise variables and less with motivational aspects related to exercise adherence. However, emerging theoretical suggestions highlight the potential of adjusting the prescription and supervision processes aiming to reach individual exercise preferences to ease the introduction of motivational strategies and assumptions that can lead to, for example, the development of BPN. Exercise intensity manipulation is one of those proposals, where the approximation between current exercise intensity and the one individually preferred is proposed as being need supportive (Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al., 2021; Rodrigues et al., 2023). As such, much potential for exercise motivation and behavior is promised if professionals can operationally support BPN development in their regular professional practices by adjusting standard prescribing variables.
在运动环境中促进 BPN 的发展是困难的。习惯性专业实践（即与运动处方和监督有关）与动机考虑和策略之间的衔接通常将后者归入第二个计划，专业人士对当前和已知的运动变量更自在，而对与运动依从性相关的动机方面不太自在。然而，新出现的理论建议强调了调整处方和监督过程的潜力，旨在达到个人锻炼偏好，以简化可能导致 BPN 发展的激励策略和假设的引入。运动强度操纵是其中一项建议，其中当前运动强度和个人首选运动强度之间的近似值被提议为需要支持（Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人，2021 年;Rodrigues等人，2023 年）。因此，如果专业人员可以通过调整标准处方变量在日常专业实践中对 BPN 的发展提供运营支持，那么运动动机和行为的潜力就很大。

In a supervised exercise context, exercise evaluation and prescription are two core aspects of the professional intervention. Notwithstanding, professionals must be aware that for sustained exercise practice, they must find a compromise between what they judge to be physiologically best for their clients (as for their goals and expectations), while at the same time exploring strategies to support the behavior across time (American College of Sport Science [ACSM], 2021; Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al., 2021). This is challenging for different reasons. For once, professionals must manage several exercise training variables (e.g., intensity, cadence/speed, and volume), as for the exercise technique and performance, which is highly time and focus demanding in a supervised process. Additionally, current exercise promotion strategies and recommendations present several frameworks and techniques (e.g., for a brief review, see chapter 12 of the ACSM (2021) guidelines) that professionals must be able to select for each client and at each moment. Because these environments and interactions are highly dynamic, the implementation of these behavioral guidelines is not straightforward. Additionally, for some exercise professionals, the gap between knowing some motivational theories/behavior change techniques and being able to apply them operationally may be a considerable shortcoming for their successful implementation (Hancox et al., 2017). For that matter, a considerable amount of work is yet to be done concerning effectively operationalizing the several recommendations emerging from the motivational and behavioral frameworks in the most common exercise contexts from the professional operational standpoint.
在有监督的运动环境中，运动评估和处方是专业干预的两个核心方面。尽管如此，专业人士必须意识到，对于持续的锻炼练习，他们必须在他们认为对客户生理上最好的（就他们的目标和期望）找到折衷方案，同时探索支持不同时间行为的策略（美国运动科学学院 [ACSM]，2021 年;Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人，2021 年）。这具有挑战性，原因各不相同。这一次，专业人士必须管理几个运动训练变量（例如，强度、节奏/速度和音量），至于运动技术和表现，这在有监督的过程中需要很高的时间和注意力。此外，当前的运动促进策略和建议提出了几个框架和技术（例如，有关简要回顾，请参阅 ACSM （12） 指南的第 2021 章），专业人士必须能够为每个客户和每个时刻选择。由于这些环境和交互是高度动态的，因此这些行为准则的实施并不简单。此外，对于一些锻炼专业人士来说，了解一些激励理论/行为改变技术与能够在操作中应用它们之间的差距可能是其成功实施的一个相当大的缺点（Hancox 等人，2017 年）。就此而言，从专业操作的角度来看，在最常见的锻炼环境中有效实施从动机和行为框架中提出的几项建议方面，还有大量工作要做。

One key variable in exercise prescription is intensity. All professionals need to know how to select and manipulate this variable for all exercise modes and any type of individual goals and characteristics. It is present across all stages of an exercise session and planning and can be monitored and assessed through several methods and instruments such as heart rate monitor, perceived effort, or repetitions in reserve (ACSM, 2021; Schoenfeld, 2021).
运动处方中的一个关键变量是强度。所有专业人士都需要知道如何为所有锻炼模式和任何类型的个人目标和特征选择和操作这个变量。它存在于锻炼和计划的所有阶段，可以通过多种方法和工具进行监测和评估，例如心率监测、感知努力或储备重复（ACSM，2021 年;Schoenfeld，2021 年）。

Several approaches have been performed throughout the last decades to understand the potential role of intensity on exercise adherence. Some straightforward indications suggest that an individually tailored exercise intensity tends to support exercise behavior and motivation, for example, through a hedonic approach (i.e., pleasure/displeasure in a given activity) (Ekkekakis et al., 2011; Stevens et al., 2020; Teixeira et al., 2022). As reported extensively, higher exercise intensities tend to promote in most individuals unpleasant sensations during exercise, while lower intensities tend to promote the opposite, at least until the ventilatory threshold (Ekkekakis et al., 2011), high exercise loads ( $>75\mathrm{\%}$$>75\mathrm{\%}$> 75%>75 \% of repetition
在过去的几十年中，已经采取了多种方法来了解强度对运动依从性的潜在作用。一些直接的迹象表明，个性化定制的运动强度倾向于支持运动行为和动机，例如，通过享乐方法（即对特定活动的快乐/不愉快）（Ekkekakis 等人，2011 年;Stevens et al.， 2020;Teixeira et al.， 2022）。正如广泛报道的那样，较高的运动强度往往会在大多数人中促进运动过程中的不愉快感觉，而较低的运动强度往往会促进相反的情况，至少在达到通气阈值之前（Ekkekakis 等人，2011 年），高运动负荷（ $>75\mathrm{\%}$$>75\mathrm{\%}$> 75%>75 \% 重复
maximum) (Andrade et al., 2022), or vigorous stretching intensities (Henriques et al., 2023).
最大值）（Andrade et al.， 2022），或剧烈的拉伸强度（Henriques et al.， 2023）。

Aiming to understand better how intensity could be individually assessed, Ekkekakis et al. (2005) developed an instrument called the Preference for and Tolerance of Exercise Questionnaire (PRETIE-Q), which intends to evaluate how each individual prefers and tolerates the exposure to exercise intensity. These and other subsequent authors claimed that these two constructs could be used, among other variables, to help professionals select exercise intensity when targeting improved feelings (e.g., affective response) during exercise that would be conducive to adjusted exercise motivation and adherence (Ekkekakis et al., 2005; Teixeira, Ekkekakis, et al., 2021; Teixeira et al., 2023). Additionally, Teixeira, Ekkekakis, et al. (2021) have extended the use of this instrument with two additional items and proposed that the level of agreement between the exercise intensity and the one preferred and tolerated by an individual could be helpful in the understanding and improvement of motivation and exercise behavior. Several works have been developed grounded on this assumption (for a review, see Santos & Teixeira, 2023), and evidence has emerged suggesting that when targeting the agreement of these two constructs, improved indicators of exercise behavior (e.g., frequency, adherence, intention, and habit) (Faria et al., 2021; Marques et al., 2022; Teixeira et al., 2022), subjective vitality (Faria et al., 2021; Teixeira, Ekkekakis, et al., 2021), and enjoyment (Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al., 2021; Teixeira et al., 2022) were present.
为了更好地了解如何单独评估强度，Ekkekakis 等人（2005 年）开发了一种称为运动偏好和耐受性问卷 （PRETIE-Q） 的工具，旨在评估每个人如何偏好和容忍运动强度。这些和其他后续作者声称，除其他变量外，这两个结构可用于帮助专业人士在运动期间针对改善的感受（例如，情感反应）时选择运动强度，这将有利于调整运动动机和依从性（Ekkekakis 等人，2005 年;Teixeira、Ekkekakis 等人，2021 年;Teixeira et al.， 2023）。此外，Teixeira、Ekkekakis 等人（2021 年）通过两个附加项目扩展了该工具的使用，并提出运动强度与个人首选和耐受的强度之间的一致性水平可能有助于理解和改善动机和运动行为。基于这个假设已经开发了几项工作（有关评论，请参见Santos & Teixeira，2023），并且已经出现的证据表明，当针对这两种结构的一致性时，运动行为的指标（例如，频率、依从性、意图和习惯）会有所改善（Faria等人，2021;Marques 等人，2022 年;Teixeira et al.， 2022）、主观活力（Faria et al.， 2021;Teixeira、Ekkekakis 等人，2021 年）和享受（Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人，2021 年;Teixeira et al.， 2022）出席了会议。

Regarding motivation as presented by the SDT, only two studies were found to test this framework and preference/tolerance constructs. First, in Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al. (2021), preference and tolerance were tested as dispositional constructs on exercise enjoyment using BPN satisfaction and frustration as mediators. They found some effects of preference and tolerance on BPN satisfaction (positive associations) and frustration (negative associations) and proposed the existence of direct and indirect effects that could shape several motivational constructs. However, they hypothesized that “the intensity-traits agreement with the exercise training should be supportive of needs satisfaction” (p. 3) without effectively testing the participant’s level of agreement. Moreover, their exploration used a composite approach to BPN satisfaction and frustration testing, which did not allow for an understanding of how each need could be interpreted in the studied relationships. Posteriorly, Rodrigues et al. (2023), grounded on some suggestions of Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al. (2021), tested the relationships between preference and tolerance on the BPN of competence (satisfaction and frustration) and behavioral intention. They found that preference was a positive predictor of competence satisfaction and intention, but no evidence emerged for the role of tolerance on these variables. Once again, no formal testing of the level of agreement was made, leaving the aforementioned hypothesis untested.
关于 SDT 提出的动机，只有两项研究测试了该框架和偏好/容忍结构。首先，在 Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人 （2021） 中，使用 BPN 满意度和挫折感作为中介，将偏好和容忍度作为运动享受的性格结构进行测试。他们发现了偏好和容忍度对 BPN 满意度（积极关联）和挫败感（消极关联）的一些影响，并提出了可以塑造多种动机结构的直接和间接影响的存在。然而，他们假设“与运动训练的强度-特征一致性应该支持需求满足”（第 3 页），而没有有效地测试参与者的一致性水平。此外，他们的探索使用了一种复合方法进行 BPN 满意度和挫折测试，这无法理解如何在研究的关系中解释每种需求。之后，Rodrigues 等人（2023 年）根据 Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人（2021 年）的一些建议，测试了偏好和容忍度与能力（满意度和挫折感）和行为意图的 BPN 之间的关系。他们发现偏好是能力满意度和意图的正向预测因子，但没有证据表明容忍对这些变量的作用。再一次，没有对一致性水平进行正式测试，使上述假设未经检验。

Reasons to suspect that how exercise intensity is aligned with individual preferences may promote BPN satisfaction are diverse. Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al. (2021) indicated that the exerciser may perceive a guided/supervised self-selected exercise intensity as autonomy-supportive, given that it allows the individual to (albeit
怀疑运动强度如何与个人偏好保持一致可能会促进 BPN 满意度的原因多种多样。Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人（2021 年）指出，锻炼者可能会将指导/监督的自我选择运动强度视为自主支持，因为它允许个人（尽管
partially) choose one’s behavior. Giving a sense of control and choice during exercise has, in fact, been seen as one of many approaches to support autonomy in exercise settings operationally (and also regarding intensity choice; Andrade et al., 2024; Vazou & Ekkekakis, 2009) and is generally a recommended approach for that endeavor (Kwasnicka et al., 2016; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Additionally, exercise intensity is closely related to how an exercise can be performed. For example, high exercise intensity in a training session may hinder proper technique, leading to pain/discomfort, an unadjusted exercise experience, and ultimately act as a deterrent for individual goal achievement, which may, in general, compromise competence perceptions (Rodrigues et al., 2023). As posited by Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al. (2021, p. 3), “activities performed at a self-selected intensity may aid developing competence and mastery that is adjusted to the actual level of ability, capabilities and interest”, which seems like a valid hypothesis, but yet to be tested. Finally, the definition of an exercise intensity that is aligned with individual preferences may add to the establishment of meaningful interactions between the exerciser and the professional if the exerciser perceives this intensity prescription or the possibility of a guided self-selection/regulation as a way of expressing concern and giving emotional support to individual needs and difficulties. This would facilitate the development of trust and respect, both core aspects of relatedness satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al. (2021)). Opposingly, imposing exercise intensity may not only hinder needs satisfaction but also actively frustrate them (Teixeira et al., 2018), something that can easily occur by selecting an exercise intensity beyond what the individual wants or feels prepared or interested in doing in a given moment (i.e., absence of intensity preference agreement). Autonomy, for example, may be hindered by limiting one’s will in detriment of an excessive focus on results (e.g., no pain, no gain mentality) (Pereira et al., 2022); competence may suffer the same effect given an excessive exercise intensity demand, which may difficult the activity realization (e.g., premature termination of the exercise/session), thus affecting a sense of achievement and contentment experienced in the activity (Rodrigues et al., 2023); as for relatedness, when no effective and meaningful connection is present within the exerciserprofessional interaction, the unadjusted imposed intensity may be seem as an uninterested, undifferentiated, or “cold” approach, and thus disregarding individual needs (McEwan et al., 2021; Teixeira & Palmeira, 2016).
部分）选择自己的行为。事实上，在运动过程中给予控制和选择感已被视为在操作上支持运动环境中自主性的众多方法之一（以及关于强度选择;Andrade 等人，2024 年;Vazou & Ekkekakis，2009），并且通常是这种努力的推荐方法（Kwasnicka等人，2016;Ryan和Deci，2017年）。此外，运动强度与运动的执行方式密切相关。例如，训练中的高运动强度可能会阻碍正确的技术，导致疼痛/不适、未调整的运动体验，并最终成为个人目标实现的威慑力，这通常可能会损害能力感知（Rodrigues 等人，2023 年）。正如 Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人（2021 年，第 3 页）所假设的那样，“以自我选择的强度进行的活动可能有助于发展能力和掌握能力，这与实际的能力、能力和兴趣水平相适应”，这似乎是一个有效的假设，但还有待检验。最后，如果锻炼者将这种强度处方或引导式自我选择/调节的可能性视为表达关心和为个人需求和困难提供情感支持的一种方式，那么与个人偏好一致的运动强度定义可能会增加锻炼者和专业人士之间建立有意义的互动。这将促进信任和尊重的发展，这两者都是关联性满意度的核心方面（Ryan&Deci，2017;Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人（2021 年））。相反，施加运动强度不仅会阻碍需求满足，还会主动使需求受挫（Teixeira 等人。，2018 年），通过选择超出个人在给定时刻想要或觉得准备好或有兴趣做的运动强度（即缺乏强度偏好协议），很容易发生。例如，自主性可能会因限制一个人的意愿而受到阻碍，从而损害对结果的过度关注（例如，没有痛苦、没有收获的心态）（Pereira 等人，2022 年）;鉴于过度的运动强度需求，能力可能会受到相同的影响，这可能会难以实现活动（例如，提前终止锻炼/会话），从而影响在活动中体验到的成就感和满足感（Rodrigues 等人，2023 年）;至于相关性，当锻炼者专业互动中不存在有效和有意义的联系时，未经调整的施加强度可能看起来是一种无趣、无差别或“冷漠”的方法，因此无视个人需求（McEwan 等人，2021 年;Teixeira & Palmeira，2016 年）。

SDT proposes that a need-supportive environment and respective strategies should lead to BPN fulfillment, improved motivation quality (i.e., increased autonomous motivation), and impact exercise behavior (e.g., through exercise persistence) (Rodrigues et al., 2018, 2020; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Additionally, the BPN development is proposed to be promoted using multiple co-acting techniques (Gillison et al., 2019). However, despite some efforts, very few works have addressed and tested how to operationalize a need-supportive
SDT 提出，需求支持环境和相应的策略应该导致 BPN 的实现、提高动机质量（即增加自主动机）和影响运动行为（例如，通过运动持久性）（Rodrigues 等人，2018 年，2020 年;Ryan和Deci，2017年）。此外，建议使用多种协同作用技术来促进 BPN 的发展（Gillison et al.， 2019）。然而，尽管做出了一些努力，但很少有工作解决和测试如何实施需求支持
environment in exercise settings (e.g., Hancox et al., 2017; Rodrigues, Teixeira, et al., 2019). For this matter, the present work intended to explore the relationship between the agreement of current exercise intensity and the one individually preferred and the respective associations with BPN satisfaction/frustration, enjoyment, intention, and exercise frequency. Additionally, sex will be tested for effects on the preference agreement and all outcome variables, as for all mediator’s relations with all outcome variables. It is hypothesized that the exercisers will perceive intensity preference agreement as a facilitator of competence, relatedness, but particularly, autonomy satisfaction, and that this agreement will be negatively associated with needs frustration (Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al., 2021, 2022). Preference agreement is also hypothesized to be positively associated with enjoyment and intention to continue exercising (Marques et al., 2022; Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al., 2021, 2022), two known predictors of exercise behavior, and also with exercise frequency (Teixeira et al., 2022). Finally, BPNs are expected to act as mediators in the preference agreement and (i) enjoyment, (ii) intention to exercise in the future, and (iii) exercise frequency outcomes, given their well-known associations with these variables (e.g., Rodrigues et al., 2020; Teixeira et al., 2018), and the associations expected in the first hypothesis. No role for sex is expected between the preference agreement and the BPN’s relation, given previous theoretical indications, and construct invariance and latent means absence of differences (Ekkekakis et al., 2008; Santos & Teixeira, 2023). However, it is expected that in all paths leading to the outcome’s variables, sex could moderate some effects. For example, men and women tend to differ in the way exercise-related pain and fatigue is experienced (Ansdell et al., 2020; Rascon et al., 2020), which may justify distinct exercise intensity selection when given that possibility; moreover, men may tend to prefer higher intensity activities (Cobbold, 2018; Reading & LaRose, 2022). These perceptions (i.e., inter-sex experienced exercise intensity) are expected to influence exercise enjoyment, intentions to be (or continue to be) physically active, and the amount of exercise practiced (Astorino & Sheard, 2019; Teixeira et al., 2022). Moreover, individual exercise prescription tailoring, something preference agreement may help achieve, is suggested to be dependent of specific contextual influences, where precursors of autonomy support, as is the case of BPN, may be vital prerequisites for certain groups of exercisers (as is the case of sex) (Josefsson et al., 2018; Mullen & Whaley, 2010; Rodrigues et al., 2022).
环境（例如，Hancox 等人，2017 年;Rodrigues、Teixeira 等人，2019 年）。为此，本研究旨在探讨当前运动强度的一致性与个人偏好的运动强度之间的关系，以及它们与 BPN 满意度/挫折感、享受、意图和运动频率的各自关联之间的关系。此外，将测试性别对偏好协议和所有结果变量的影响，以及所有中介与所有结果变量的关系。据推测，锻炼者会将强度偏好协议视为能力、相关性，尤其是自主性满意度的促进因素，并且这种协议将与需求挫败感呈负相关（Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人，2021 年、2022 年）。偏好协议也被假设与享受和继续锻炼的意图呈正相关（Marques 等人，2022 年;Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人，2021 年、2022 年），两个已知的运动行为预测因子，以及运动频率（Teixeira 等人，2022 年）。最后，鉴于 BPN 与这些变量的众所周知的关联，预计 BPN 将在偏好协议和 （i） 享受、（ii） 未来锻炼的意图和 （iii） 运动频率结果中充当中介（例如，Rodrigues 等人，2020 年;Teixeira et al.， 2018），以及第一个假设中预期的关联。鉴于先前的理论指示，偏好协议和 BPN 的关系之间预计性别没有作用，并且结构不变性和潜在均值不存在差异（Ekkekakis 等人，2008 年;Santos & Teixeira，2023 年）。然而，预计在导致结果变量的所有路径中，性可能会缓和一些影响。 例如，男性和女性在经历与运动相关的疼痛和疲劳的方式上往往不同（Ansdell 等人，2020 年;Rascon et al.， 2020），当考虑到这种可能性时，这可能证明不同的运动强度选择是合理的;此外，男性可能倾向于更喜欢高强度的活动（Cobbold，2018 年;Reading & LaRose，2022 年）。这些感知（即跨性别经历的运动强度）预计会影响运动的乐趣、想要（或继续）进行身体活动的意愿以及运动量（Astorino & Sheard，2019;Teixeira et al.， 2022）。此外，偏好协议可能有助于实现的个人运动处方定制被认为取决于特定的环境影响，其中自主支持的前兆，如 BPN 的情况，可能是某些锻炼者群体的重要先决条件（如性别的情况）（Josefsson 等人，2018 年;Mullen & Whaley， 2010;Rodrigues等人，2022 年）。

We followed Fritz and MacKinnon (2007), Hayes (2018), and Ma and Zeng (2014) recommendations for sample size definition. First, we checked simulations of multiple mediation analysis where $1-\beta =0.80$$1-\beta =0.80$1-beta=0.801-\beta=0.80 and $f^2=0.15$$f^2=0.15$f^(2)=0.15f^{2}=0.15 were tested and found that a sample size $>200$$>200$> 200>200 was recommended. Then, we tested the sample size needed in a
我们遵循了 Fritz 和 MacKinnon （2007）、Hayes （2018） 以及 马 和 Zeng （2014） 对样本量定义的建议。首先，我们检查了多重中介分析的模拟，其中 $1-\beta =0.80$$1-\beta =0.80$1-beta=0.801-\beta=0.80 和 $f^2=0.15$$f^2=0.15$f^(2)=0.15f^{2}=0.15 进行了测试，发现推荐了样本量 $>200$$>200$> 200>200 。然后，我们测试了
moderation model with seven interactions (per model) using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009), using an $f^2=0.15,\alpha =0.05$$f^2=0.15,\alpha =0.05$f^(2)=0.15,alpha=0.05f^{2}=0.15, \alpha=0.05, a $1-\beta =0.80$$1-\beta =0.80$1-beta=0.801-\beta=0.80, indicating the need for a sample with 103 individuals. Given that no clear indication exists on how to calculate the adequate sample size for a moderated mediation analysis with the present characteristics, we choose to acquire a sample that would considerably surpass the aforementioned sample size calculations. Additionally, we also used a bootstrapping resampling procedure (see method) to protect from type I error rates.
使用 G*Power （Faul et al.， 2009） 具有 7 次交互（每个模型）的调节模型，使用 、 $f^2=0.15,\alpha =0.05$$f^2=0.15,\alpha =0.05$f^(2)=0.15,alpha=0.05f^{2}=0.15, \alpha=0.05 a $1-\beta =0.80$$1-\beta =0.80$1-beta=0.801-\beta=0.80 表示需要 103 个个体的样本。鉴于没有明确的迹象表明如何为具有当前特征的适度中介分析计算足够的样本量，我们选择获得一个大大超过上述样本量计算的样本。此外，我们还使用了自举重采样程序（参见方法）来防止 I 型错误率。

A sample of 369 health club exercisers ( $M_{\text{age}}=43.6$$M_{\text{age }}=43.6$M_("age ")=43.6M_{\text {age }}=43.6, standard deviation (SD) = 12.96; 214 females) enrolled in 26 health clubs representing all districts in Portugal participated voluntarily in this study. Participants were involved in distinct activities (e.g., personal training; group classes), had an average experience in this setting of practice of 11.05 years ( $\mathrm{SD}=9.29$$\mathrm{SD}=9.29$SD=9.29\mathrm{SD}=9.29 ), and attended the club 3.96 times/week on average ( $\mathrm{SD}=1.20$$\mathrm{SD}=1.20$SD=1.20\mathrm{SD}=1.20 ). They classified their health club experience on a five-point scale (1-“Very bad”; 5-“Very good”) as being good ( $M=4.4$$M=4.4$M=4.4M=4.4; SD $=0.67$$=0.67$=0.67=0.67 ), and $64.6\mathrm{\%}(n=168)$$64.6\mathrm{\%}(n=168)$64.6%(n=168)64.6 \%(n=168) of the exercisers were training with and exercise plan and/or supervision (109 individuals’ response on this variable were lost due to technical issues during the collection). Inclusion criteria defined that participants should be $>18$$>18$> 18>18 years old and apparently healthy (no limitations to exercise participation).
代表葡萄牙所有地区的 26 个健身俱乐部的 369 名健身俱乐部锻炼者（ $M_{\text{age}}=43.6$$M_{\text{age }}=43.6$M_("age ")=43.6M_{\text {age }}=43.6 标准差 （SD） = 12.96;214 名女性）的样本自愿参加了这项研究。参与者参与不同的活动（例如，个人训练;小组课程），在这种实践环境中的平均经验为 11.05 岁 （ $\mathrm{SD}=9.29$$\mathrm{SD}=9.29$SD=9.29\mathrm{SD}=9.29 ），平均每周参加俱乐部 3.96 次 （ $\mathrm{SD}=1.20$$\mathrm{SD}=1.20$SD=1.20\mathrm{SD}=1.20 ）。他们按照 5 分制 （1-“非常差”;5-“非常好”） 将他们的健身俱乐部体验归类为良好 （ $M=4.4$$M=4.4$M=4.4M=4.4 ;SD $=0.67$$=0.67$=0.67=0.67 ），并且 $64.6\mathrm{\%}(n=168)$$64.6\mathrm{\%}(n=168)$64.6%(n=168)64.6 \%(n=168) 锻炼者正在训练、锻炼计划和/或监督（由于收集过程中的技术问题，109 人对该变量的回答丢失）。纳入标准定义参与者应年 $>18$$>18$> 18>18 满岁且明显健康（对运动参与没有限制）。

The present study data consist of part of the baseline data of a larger and ongoing longitudinal research project related to the quality of the subjective exercise experience in health clubs, where prior ethical approval from the first author institution was obtained (omitted for review purposes). The technical directors of the health clubs were contacted to provide permission for data collection. A letter of explanation with the study aim, inclusion criteria, expected participation, data confidentiality, possibility to cease participation at any moment, and the email contact of the study responsible was present at the beginning of the questionnaires. After that, written consent was asked and required for study participation. Upon written permission, the battery of questionnaires was made available in the reception of the clubs and exercisers invited to participate. All the procedures were developed according to the Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. The total time expected to fulfill the questionnaires was $\sim 15\min$$\sim 15\min$∼15min\sim 15 \mathrm{~min}.
本研究数据包括一个更大的和正在进行的纵向研究项目的基线数据的一部分，该项目与健身俱乐部的主观运动体验质量有关，其中事先获得了第一作者机构的伦理批准（为审查目的省略）。联系了健身俱乐部的技术总监，以提供数据收集许可。问卷开始时存在一封说明信，其中包含研究目的、纳入标准、预期参与、数据保密性、随时停止参与的可能性以及负责研究的电子邮件联系人。之后，征求书面同意并需要书面同意才能参与研究。经书面许可，受邀参加的俱乐部和锻炼者的接待处提供了一系列问卷。所有程序均根据《赫尔辛基宣言》及其后来的修正案制定。预计完成问卷的总时间为 $\sim 15\min$$\sim 15\min$∼15min\sim 15 \mathrm{~min} 。

Individual intensity preference. The preference agreement item from the Preference for and Tolerance of the Intensity of Exercise Questionnaire Portuguese version (PRETIE-Q-PT; Teixeira, Ekkekakis, et al., 2021) was used to assess the degree of agreement between the individual preference and the current exercise intensity (“The intensity of my training is in accordance with my preference”). This item on PRETIE-Q-PT presented a dichotomous possibility of response (0not in agreement; one-in agreement), but other studies (e.g., Santos & Teixeira, 2023) have suggested a 5 -point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 5 (“Totally agree”) to ensure a more
个人强度偏好。来自运动强度偏好和容忍度问卷葡萄牙语版 （PRETIE-Q-PT;Teixeira， Ekkekakis， et al.， 2021）用于评估个人偏好与当前运动强度之间的一致程度（“我的训练强度符合我的偏好”）。这个关于PRETTIE-Q-PT的项目呈现了二分法的反应可能性（0不同意; 一不同意，但其他研究（例如，Santos & Teixeira，2023）建议采用5点李克特量表，范围从1（“完全不同意”）到5（“完全同意”）以确保更多的
detailed understanding of the intended agreement understanding. In this study, we followed their recommendations.
详细了解预期的协议理解。在这项研究中，我们遵循了他们的建议。

Basic psychological needs. The BPN Satisfaction and Frustration Scale in Exercise Portuguese version (BPNSFS-E; Rodrigues, Hair, et al., 2019) assessed needs satisfaction and frustration. Of the 24 items, 12 evaluate BPN satisfaction (autonomy, e.g., “I have a feeling of freedom and choice in the things I make”; competence, e.g., “I feel confident that I can do things right”; relatedness, e.g., “I feel that the people I care for, also care for me”), and the other 12 BPN frustration (autonomy, e.g., “I feel the majority of the things I do out of obligation”; competence, e.g., “I feel insecure of my abilities”; relatedness, e.g., “I feel excluded from the group I want to belong”). Answers were given using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 5 (“Totally agree”). The current instrument is aligned with SDT recommendations and has provided previous validity for the intended purposes (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).
基本的心理需求。练习葡萄牙语版 BPN 满意度和挫败感量表 （BPNSFS-E;Rodrigues， Hair， et al.， 2019）评估了需求满意度和挫败感。在 24 个项目中，12 个评估 BPN 满意度（自主性，例如，“我对自己制作的东西有一种自由和选择的感觉”;能力，例如，“我有信心我可以把事情做对”;相关性，例如，“我觉得我关心的人，也关心我”），以及其他 12 个 BPN 挫败感（自主性，例如， “我觉得我做的大部分事情都是出于义务”;能力，例如，“我对自己的能力感到不安全”;相关性，例如，“我觉得被排除在我想属于的群体之外”）。答案使用 5 分李克特量表给出，范围从 1（“完全不同意”）到 5（“完全同意”）。当前的工具与SDT的建议一致，并为预期目的提供了先前的有效性（Ryan&Deci，2017;Vansteenkiste等人，2020 年）。

Exercise enjoyment. Perceptions of the degree of exercise enjoyment were obtained using an instrument composed of eight items (e.g., “It is fun”) answered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 7 (“Totally agree”), following similar studies in the same context (e.g., Teixeira et al., 2023).
运动乐趣。使用由八个项目组成的工具（例如，“这很有趣”）获得对运动享受程度的感知，这些工具以 7 分李克特量表回答，范围从 1（“完全不同意”）到 7（“完全同意”），遵循相同背景下的类似研究（例如，Teixeira 等人，2023 年）。

Intention to continue exercising. Behavioral intentions were obtained through three questions (e.g., “I will continue to practice physical exercise in the next 6 months as I recently practiced or in a very similar way”) based on Ajzen’s (2006) recommendations and previously used in similar contexts (Rodrigues et al., 2020). Responses were given using a 7 -point bipolar scale ranging from 1 (“Absolutely not”) to 7 (“Absolutely yes”).
打算继续锻炼。行为意图是通过三个问题获得的（例如，“我将在接下来的 6 个月内继续进行体育锻炼，就像我最近练习的那样或以非常相似的方式”）基于 Ajzen （2006） 的建议，并且之前在类似环境中使用（Rodrigues 等人，2020 年）。回答使用 7 分双极量表给出，范围从 1（“绝对不是”）到 7（“绝对是”）。

Exercise frequency. Exercise weekly frequency was obtained objectively through the health club’s digital records obtained each time the exerciser crossed the turnstile. The previous three months’ records were used to define the average weekly exercise frequency for baseline purposes.
运动频率。每周锻炼频率是通过健身俱乐部每次穿过旋转门时获得的数字记录客观地获得的。前三个月的记录用于定义基线目的的平均每周锻炼频率。

Descriptive statistics, reliability, and bivariate correlations were developed for all variables. Data were screened for missing values, and in cases with more than $5\mathrm{\%}$$5\mathrm{\%}$5%5 \% of absent data (1.55%), participants were removed before the analysis. In cases where absent data were $<5\mathrm{\%}$$<5\mathrm{\%}$< 5%<5 \%, cases were analyzed for the possibility of data imputation procedures (Allison, 2000). All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics v. 26.0 for Windows (IBM Co., United States), and the level of statistical significance was set at $p<0.05$$p<0.05$p < 0.05p<0.05.
为所有变量开发了描述性统计、可靠性和双变量相关性。筛选数据是否存在缺失值，如果缺失数据多 $5\mathrm{\%}$$5\mathrm{\%}$5%5 \% 于 （1.55%），则在分析前删除参与者。在数据缺失的情况下 $<5\mathrm{\%}$$<5\mathrm{\%}$< 5%<5 \% ，分析病例是否可能进行数据插补程序（Allison，2000）。所有分析均使用 IBM SPSS Statistics v. 26.0 for Windows（IBM Co.，美国）进行，统计显著性水平设置为 $p<0.05$$p<0.05$p < 0.05p<0.05 。

For the moderated mediation analysis, PROCESS v.4.2 macro for SPSS v. 26.0 and model 15 were used, as recommended by Hayes (2018). This model assumes the existence of an independent variable (preference agreement), parallel mediators (six: autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction; autonomy, competence, and relatedness frustration), a dependent variable (separately: enjoyment [model A], intention [model B], frequency [model C]), and a moderator (sex; tested in the independent > dependent variable path, and mediators $>$$>$>> dependent variable paths). A bootstrap with 5000 samples was used for $\mathrm{Cl}95\mathrm{\%}$$\mathrm{Cl}95\mathrm{\%}$Cl95%\mathrm{Cl} 95 \% intervals estimation, and significant effects were considered if Cl did not encompass zero.
对于有节制的中介分析，按照 Hayes （2018） 的建议，使用了 SPSS v. 26.0 和模型 15 的 PROCESS v.4.2 宏。该模型假设存在一个自变量（偏好一致）、平行中介（六个：自主性、能力和关联性满意度;自主性、能力和关联性挫折）、一个因变量（分别：享受 [模型 A]、意图 [模型 B]、频率 [模型 C]）和一个调节因子（性别;在独立的 > 因变量路径中测试，中介因 $>$$>$>> 变量路径）。使用 5000 个样本的 bootstrap 进行 $\mathrm{Cl}95\mathrm{\%}$$\mathrm{Cl}95\mathrm{\%}$Cl95%\mathrm{Cl} 95 \% 区间估计，如果 Cl 不包含零，则考虑显着影响。

After initial screening for analysis assumptions, no issues were detected. The descriptive, reliability, and correlational results are presented in Table 1. Preference agreement, all BPN (satisfaction), enjoyment, and intention to continue exercise, depicted high mean scores (all above midpoint scores); exercise frequency showed a frequency of 3.96 times/per week. All BPN (frustration) depicted low mean scores (all below midpoint scores).
在对分析假设进行初步筛选后，未发现任何问题。表 1 中列出了描述性、可靠性和相关性结果。偏好一致性，所有 BPN（满意度）、享受和继续锻炼的意图，描绘了高平均分（均高于中点分数）;运动频率显示每周 3.96 次。所有 BPN（挫折）都描绘了低平均分（均低于中点分数）。

TABLE 1 Descriptive, reliability, and correlational analysis of the studied variables.
表 1 所研究变量的描述性、可靠性和相关性分析。

${}^{\ast }p<0.05;{}^{\ast \ast }p<0.01$${}^{\ast }p<0.05;{}^{\ast \ast }p<0.01$^(**)p < 0.05;^(****)p < 0.01{ }^{*} p<0.05 ;{ }^{* *} p<0.01.

As for the bivariate correlation results, positive associations were found between preference agreement and autonomy ( $r=0.45$$r=0.45$r=0.45r=0.45, $p<0.01$$p<0.01$p < 0.01p<0.01 ), competence ( $r=0.29,p<0.01$$r=0.29,p<0.01$r=0.29,p < 0.01r=0.29, p<0.01 ), relatedness ( $r=0.12$$r=0.12$r=0.12r=0.12, $p<0.05$$p<0.05$p < 0.05p<0.05 ), enjoyment ( $r=0.35,p<0.01$$r=0.35,p<0.01$r=0.35,p < 0.01r=0.35, p<0.01 ), and intention ( $r=0.43$$r=0.43$r=0.43r=0.43, $p<0.01$$p<0.01$p < 0.01p<0.01 ); negative associations were found with all autonomy frustration ( $r=-0.32,p<0.01$$r=-0.32,p<0.01$r=-0.32,p < 0.01r=-0.32, p<0.01 ), competence frustration ( $r=-0.23$$r=-0.23$r=-0.23r=-0.23, $p<0.01$$p<0.01$p < 0.01p<0.01 ), and relatedness frustration ( $r=-0.15,p<0.01$$r=-0.15,p<0.01$r=-0.15,p < 0.01r=-0.15, p<0.01 ). Autonomy satisfaction ( $r=0.14,p<0.01$$r=0.14,p<0.01$r=0.14,p < 0.01r=0.14, p<0.01 ), enjoyment ( $r=0.20,p<0.01$$r=0.20,p<0.01$r=0.20,p < 0.01r=0.20, p<0.01 ), and intention ( $r=0.14,p<0.01$$r=0.14,p<0.01$r=0.14,p < 0.01r=0.14, p<0.01 ) were positively associated with exercise frequency; autonomy frustration was negatively associated with exercise frequency ( $r=-0.17,p<0.01$$r=-0.17,p<0.01$r=-0.17,p < 0.01r=-0.17, p<0.01 ).
对于双变量相关结果，偏好一致性与自主性 （ $r=0.45$$r=0.45$r=0.45r=0.45 ， $p<0.01$$p<0.01$p < 0.01p<0.01 ）、能力 （ $r=0.29,p<0.01$$r=0.29,p<0.01$r=0.29,p < 0.01r=0.29, p<0.01 ）、相关性 （ $r=0.12$$r=0.12$r=0.12r=0.12 、 $p<0.05$$p<0.05$p < 0.05p<0.05 ）、享受 （ $r=0.35,p<0.01$$r=0.35,p<0.01$r=0.35,p < 0.01r=0.35, p<0.01 ） 和意向 （ $r=0.43$$r=0.43$r=0.43r=0.43 ， $p<0.01$$p<0.01$p < 0.01p<0.01 ） 之间呈正相关;发现所有自主性挫折 （ $r=-0.32,p<0.01$$r=-0.32,p<0.01$r=-0.32,p < 0.01r=-0.32, p<0.01 ）、能力挫折 （ $r=-0.23$$r=-0.23$r=-0.23r=-0.23 、 $p<0.01$$p<0.01$p < 0.01p<0.01 ） 和关联性挫折 （ ） 都有负关联 $r=-0.15,p<0.01$$r=-0.15,p<0.01$r=-0.15,p < 0.01r=-0.15, p<0.01 。自主性满意度 （ $r=0.14,p<0.01$$r=0.14,p<0.01$r=0.14,p < 0.01r=0.14, p<0.01 ）、享受 （ $r=0.20,p<0.01$$r=0.20,p<0.01$r=0.20,p < 0.01r=0.20, p<0.01 ） 和意图 （ $r=0.14,p<0.01$$r=0.14,p<0.01$r=0.14,p < 0.01r=0.14, p<0.01 ） 与运动频率呈正相关;自主性挫败感与运动频率呈负相关 （ $r=-0.17,p<0.01$$r=-0.17,p<0.01$r=-0.17,p < 0.01r=-0.17, p<0.01 ）。

The moderated mediation analysis results are depicted in Figure 1 (direct paths represent the dichotomous option female) and Table 2. Positive associations were found between preference agreement and all BPN satisfaction (autonomy: $\beta =0.35,[0.28,0.42]$$\beta =0.35,[0.28,0.42]$beta=0.35,[0.28,0.42]\beta=0.35,[0.28,0.42]; competence: $\beta =0.21,[0.14,0.28]$$\beta =0.21,[0.14,0.28]$beta=0.21,[0.14,0.28]\beta=0.21,[0.14,0.28]; and relatedness: $\beta =0.13,[0.02$$\beta =0.13,[0.02$beta=0.13,[0.02\beta=0.13,[0.02, 0.23]); negative associations were found with all BPN frustration (autonomy frustration: $\beta =-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22]$$\beta =-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22]$beta=-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22]\beta=-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22]; competence
经过调节的中介分析结果如图 1 所示（直接路径代表二分法选项 female）和表 2。在偏好一致性和所有 BPN 满意度之间发现正相关 （自主性： $\beta =0.35,[0.28,0.42]$$\beta =0.35,[0.28,0.42]$beta=0.35,[0.28,0.42]\beta=0.35,[0.28,0.42] ; 能力： $\beta =0.21,[0.14,0.28]$$\beta =0.21,[0.14,0.28]$beta=0.21,[0.14,0.28]\beta=0.21,[0.14,0.28] ; 和相关性： $\beta =0.13,[0.02$$\beta =0.13,[0.02$beta=0.13,[0.02\beta=0.13,[0.02 ， 0.23]）;发现所有 BPN 挫折呈负相关 （自主性挫折： $\beta =-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22]$$\beta =-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22]$beta=-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22]\beta=-0.32,[-0.42,-0.22] ;
frustration: $\beta =-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12]$$\beta =-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12]$beta=-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12]\beta=-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12]; and relatedness frustration: $\beta =-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03])$$\beta =-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03])$beta=-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03])\beta=-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03]). In the three models tested, significant direct effects were found in model A (preference agreementenjoyment; $\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$$\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39]\beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39] ) and model $B$$B$BB (preference agreement -intention; $\beta =0.35,[0.19,0.51])$$\beta =0.35,[0.19,0.51])$beta=0.35,[0.19,0.51])\beta=0.35,[0.19,0.51]). Finally, autonomy satisfaction was positively associated with enjoyment ( $\beta =0.48,[0.09,0.88]$$\beta =0.48,[0.09,0.88]$beta=0.48,[0.09,0.88]\beta=0.48,[0.09,0.88] ) and exercise frequency ( $\beta =0.36,[0.13,0.60]$$\beta =0.36,[0.13,0.60]$beta=0.36,[0.13,0.60]\beta=0.36,[0.13,0.60] ); autonomy frustration was negatively associated with exercise frequency $(\beta =-0.31,[-0.62$$(\beta =-0.31,[-0.62$(beta=-0.31,[-0.62(\beta=-0.31,[-0.62, -0.01]). All of these represented significant indirect effects through the respective mediator.
挫折： $\beta =-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12]$$\beta =-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12]$beta=-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12]\beta=-0.22,[-0.31,-0.12] ;和 relatedness 挫折： $\beta =-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03])$$\beta =-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03])$beta=-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03])\beta=-0.11,[-0.19,-0.03]) 。在测试的三个模型中，在模型 A 中发现了显着的直接影响（偏好协议享受; $\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$$\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39]\beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39] ） 和模型 $B$$B$BB （偏好协议 - 意图; $\beta =0.35,[0.19,0.51])$$\beta =0.35,[0.19,0.51])$beta=0.35,[0.19,0.51])\beta=0.35,[0.19,0.51]) 。最后，自主满意度与享受 （ $\beta =0.48,[0.09,0.88]$$\beta =0.48,[0.09,0.88]$beta=0.48,[0.09,0.88]\beta=0.48,[0.09,0.88] ） 和运动频率 （ ） 呈正相关 $\beta =0.36,[0.13,0.60]$$\beta =0.36,[0.13,0.60]$beta=0.36,[0.13,0.60]\beta=0.36,[0.13,0.60] ;自主性挫败感与运动频率 $(\beta =-0.31,[-0.62$$(\beta =-0.31,[-0.62$(beta=-0.31,[-0.62(\beta=-0.31,[-0.62 呈负相关，-0.01]）。所有这些都代表了通过各自的中介产生的重大间接影响。

As for the moderation effects and interactions, sex was found to have significant interactions with preference agreement ( $\beta =-0.38$$\beta =-0.38$beta=-0.38\beta=-0.38, $[-0.59,-0.17]$$[-0.59,-0.17]$[-0.59,-0.17][-0.59,-0.17] ) and autonomy satisfaction ( $\beta =0.41,[0.06,0.76]$$\beta =0.41,[0.06,0.76]$beta=0.41,[0.06,0.76]\beta=0.41,[0.06,0.76] ) in model $A$$A$AA and with preference agreement ( $\beta =0.28,[0.03,0.53]$$\beta =0.28,[0.03,0.53]$beta=0.28,[0.03,0.53]\beta=0.28,[0.03,0.53] ) in model B. As for conditional effects in model A, significant effects were found for females in the preference agreement and enjoyment relation ( $\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$$\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39]\beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39] ) and in the autonomy satisfactionenjoyment relation for both sexes (male: $\beta =0.27,[0.13,0.42]$$\beta =0.27,[0.13,0.42]$beta=0.27,[0.13,0.42]\beta=0.27,[0.13,0.42]
至于调节效应和交互作用，发现性与模型中 $A$$A$AA 的偏好一致性 （ $\beta =-0.38$$\beta =-0.38$beta=-0.38\beta=-0.38 ， $[-0.59,-0.17]$$[-0.59,-0.17]$[-0.59,-0.17][-0.59,-0.17] ） 和自主满意度 （ $\beta =0.41,[0.06,0.76]$$\beta =0.41,[0.06,0.76]$beta=0.41,[0.06,0.76]\beta=0.41,[0.06,0.76] ） 以及模型 B 中的偏好一致性 （ $\beta =0.28,[0.03,0.53]$$\beta =0.28,[0.03,0.53]$beta=0.28,[0.03,0.53]\beta=0.28,[0.03,0.53] ） 存在显著交互作用。至于模型 A 中的条件效应，在偏好协议和享受关系 （ $\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$$\beta =0.26,[0.12,0.39]$beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39]\beta=0.26,[0.12,0.39] ） 以及两性的自主满足享受关系中发现女性有显著影响（男性： $\beta =0.27,[0.13,0.42]$$\beta =0.27,[0.13,0.42]$beta=0.27,[0.13,0.42]\beta=0.27,[0.13,0.42]

FIGURE 1 Parallel mediation models for preference agreement, BPN satisfaction and frustration and enjoyment (A), intention (B), and frequency $(C)$$(C)$(C)(C). Note. Existing lines represent significant paths.
图 1 偏好协议、BPN 满意度和挫折感和享受 （A）、意图 （B） 和频率 $(C)$$(C)$(C)(C) 的平行中介模型。注意。现有线表示重要路径。

亮

₪ு

female: $\beta =0.13,[0.03,0.23])$$\beta =0.13,[0.03,0.23])$beta=0.13,[0.03,0.23])\beta=0.13,[0.03,0.23]); for model $B$$B$BB, significant conditional effects were found for both sexes in the preference agreement and intention relation (male: $\beta =0.63,[0.44,0.82]$$\beta =0.63,[0.44,0.82]$beta=0.63,[0.44,0.82]\beta=0.63,[0.44,0.82]; female: $\beta =0.35,[0.19$$\beta =0.35,[0.19$beta=0.35,[0.19\beta=0.35,[0.19, $0.51]$$0.51]$0.51]0.51] ). Other smaller but significant interactions are presented in Table 2. Participant’s descriptive statistics and sex differences are presented in Supporting Information S1.
女： $\beta =0.13,[0.03,0.23])$$\beta =0.13,[0.03,0.23])$beta=0.13,[0.03,0.23])\beta=0.13,[0.03,0.23]) ;对于模型 $B$$B$BB ，在偏好协议和意向关系中发现两性都有显著的条件效应（男性： $\beta =0.63,[0.44,0.82]$$\beta =0.63,[0.44,0.82]$beta=0.63,[0.44,0.82]\beta=0.63,[0.44,0.82] ;女性： $\beta =0.35,[0.19$$\beta =0.35,[0.19$beta=0.35,[0.19\beta=0.35,[0.19 ， $0.51]$$0.51]$0.51]0.51] ）。表 2 列出了其他较小但重要的交互作用。参与者的描述性统计和性别差异在支持信息 S1 中介绍。

The present study sought to explore if the individual preference for exercise intensity and its alignment with current practice exercise intensity would indicate exercise BPN fulfillment, enjoyment, intention, and frequency. For this, direct and indirect effects were tested to understand the potential role of the theoretically proposed relationships. Additionally, sex was tested as a moderator in all associations with the independent variables.
本研究旨在探讨个人对运动强度的偏好及其与当前练习运动强度的一致性是否表明运动 BPN 的实现、享受、意图和频率。为此，测试了直接和间接效应，以了解理论上提出的关系的潜在作用。此外，在与自变量的所有关联中，性别作为调节因子进行了测试。

This study’s results suggest that the alignment of current training exercise intensity and the one individually preferred is positively associated with exercise BPN satisfaction and negatively associated with BPN frustration, thus supporting our first hypothesis. Also, preference agreement was positively associated with exercise enjoyment and intention to continue exercise but not with exercise frequency, which partially supported our second hypothesis. Finally, autonomy satisfaction partially mediated the preference agreement and enjoyment relation. These results showed partial support for our third hypothesis.
本研究的结果表明，当前训练运动强度与个人偏好的强度的一致性与运动 BPN 满意度呈正相关，与 BPN 挫败感呈负相关，从而支持我们的第一个假设。此外，偏好一致性与运动乐趣和继续运动的意愿呈正相关，但与运动频率呈正相关，这在一定程度上支持了我们的第二个假设。最后，自主性满意度部分中介了偏好协议和享受关系。这些结果显示部分支持我们的第三个假设。

On a first level of analysis, these results are promising for exploring how professionals could support BPN fulfillment in their regular work tasks with their clients, a topic that has dragged on in this field for a long time. Considering the amount and quality of evidence of the SDT framework in the exercise and sport and health-related fields (e.g., Gillison et al., 2019; Ntoumanis et al., 2021; Ryan et al., 2022), it is appalling to see the absence of operational adjustments and applications resulting from it. As such, it is imperious to explore and develop interventions that could help the operationalization of the promised theoretical assumptions (Gillison et al., 2019; Rhodes et al., 2019). On a second level of analysis, it was possible to identify autonomy as the only psychological need that had an indirect association with the outcomes (i.e., enjoyment and frequency). As seen in previous studies in this context grounded on SDT, all BPN should, albeit more directly or indirectly through other motivational determinants, be related to the studied outcomes (e.g., Rodrigues et al., 2020; Rodrigues et al., 2023; Teixeira et al., 2018; Teixeira et al., 2021), something also detected in the studies that tested preference agreement and the psychological needs on these outcomes (Rodrigues et al., 2023; Teixeira, Rodrigues, et al. (2021)). Notwithstanding, the higher associations between preference agreement and autonomy, as for the detected
在第一级分析中，这些结果有望探索专业人士如何在与客户的常规工作任务中支持 BPN 的履行，这是一个在该领域长期存在的话题。考虑到 SDT 框架在运动和运动与健康相关领域的证据数量和质量（例如，Gillison 等人，2019 年;Ntoumanis et al.， 2021;Ryan et al.， 2022），令人震惊的是，它没有导致运营调整和应用。因此，探索和开发有助于实施承诺的理论假设的干预措施是专横的（Gillison et al.， 2019;Rhodes等人，2019 年）。在第二个层次的分析中，有可能将自主性确定为与结果（即享受和频率）有间接关联的唯一心理需求。正如之前在此背景下基于 SDT 的研究所看到的那样，所有 BPN 都应该与研究结果相关，尽管更直接或间接地通过其他动机决定因素（例如，Rodrigues 等人，2020 年;Rodrigues 等人，2023 年;Teixeira等人，2018 年;Teixeira et al.， 2021），在测试偏好一致性和这些结果的心理需求的研究中也发现了一些东西（Rodrigues et al.， 2023;Teixeira、Rodrigues 等人（2021 年））。尽管如此，偏好一致性和自主性之间的关联性更高，就检测到的
indirect effects through this psychological need on the outcomes, tend to suggest that exercisers may be perceiving to have some choice and control in their session, even if it only derives from the selection of their exercise intensity. This is not unheard of, as some previous works that focused on understanding the relation between the use of intensity self-selection versus imposed intensity have demonstrated (for a review, see Andrade et al., 2024).
通过这种心理需求对结果的间接影响，往往表明锻炼者可能被认为在他们的训练中有一些选择和控制，即使这仅来自他们运动强度的选择。这并非闻所未闻，正如之前一些专注于了解使用强度自选择与施加强度之间关系的工作所证明的那样（有关评论，请参阅 Andrade 等人，2024 年）。

Although results tend to show higher associations with autonomy, both competence and relatedness depicted positive associations with intensity preference. These differences may be related to the fact that it is easier for the exerciser to perceive that intensity is being adjusted because he wants (or has been told he can ask for it), thus favoring autonomy satisfaction perceptions, rather than for the adjustment of the degree of challenge (i.e., competence satisfaction) or empathy for the effort experienced (i.e., relatedness satisfaction). Notwithstanding, and although not reflecting more directly those potential influences on the studied outcome variables, one must consider that SDT presents them as crucial for the internalization and integration of the behavior, supporting the development of autonomous regulations, long presented as more adequate for the support of exercise adherence (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Ryan et al., 2021, 2022), and thus lending support for the relevance of this and future explorations regarding the use of intensity selection/prescription as a tool in a need-supportive environment.
尽管结果往往显示与自主性的关联更高，但能力和相关性都描述了与强度偏好的正相关。这些差异可能与以下事实有关：锻炼者更容易察觉到强度正在被调整，因为他想要（或被告知他可以要求），从而有利于自主性满意度感知，而不是调整挑战程度（即能力满意度）或对所经历的努力的同理心（即 相关性满意度）。尽管如此，尽管没有更直接地反映那些对研究结果变量的潜在影响，但必须考虑到SDT将它们呈现为对行为的内化和整合至关重要，支持自主规则的发展，长期以来一直被认为更适合支持运动依从性（Ryan&Deci，2017;Ryan等人，2021 年、2022 年），从而为在需求支持环境中使用强度选择/处方作为工具的这一和未来探索的相关性提供支持。

Finally, it is worth noting that there was a significant interaction between sex and the autonomy-enjoyment path, suggestive of a moderating effect. In both cases, increases in the BPN of autonomy were positively associated with exercise enjoyment. Still, this effect was higher in males, a possible relevant consideration when aiming to understand enjoyment development between sexes. Previous efforts on the topic have already suggested that males were more prone to exercise due to exercise-related enjoyment than females (Craft et al., 2014; Mao et al., 2020), but regarding SDT, no inherent difference is expected to exist in the way the BPN is associated with enjoyment. However, given that self-determined motivation is a predictor of enjoyment (Murcia et al., 2008), future efforts should strive to understand if this difference between sexes is due to the BPN or autonomous regulation effects (or the specific contribution of each construct), the possible relation with intensity preference, and their possible difference among sexes. Enjoyment is a strong predictor of exercise adherence, and comprehending how to promote it is paramount for this endeavor.
最后，值得注意的是，性与自主-享受路径之间存在显着的相互作用，这表明存在调节作用。在这两种情况下，自主性 BPN 的增加都与运动乐趣呈正相关。尽管如此，这种影响在男性中更高，在旨在了解两性之间的享受发展时，这可能是一个相关的考虑因素。以前关于该主题的努力已经表明，由于与运动相关的享受，男性比女性更容易运动（Craft 等人，2014 年;毛 et al.， 2020），但关于 SDT，预计 BPN 与享受相关的方式不存在内在差异。然而，鉴于自我决定的动机是享受的预测因素（Murcia et al.， 2008），未来的努力应该努力理解性别之间的这种差异是否是由于 BPN 或自主调节效应（或每个结构的具体贡献）、与强度偏好的可能关系以及它们在性别之间可能存在的差异。享受是运动依从性的重要预测指标，而了解如何促进它对于这项工作至关重要。

In exercise settings, preference and tolerance have been considerably explored in the last few years (Santos & Teixeira, 2023). For example, Marques et al. (2022) showed in a retrospective study that intensity preference agreement was higher in exercisers enrolled in activities for longer than a year when compared with those training
在运动环境中，偏好和容忍度在过去几年中得到了相当大的探索（Santos & Teixeira，2023）。例如，Marques 等人（2022 年）在一项回顾性研究中表明，与训练相比，参加活动时间超过一年的锻炼者的强度偏好一致性更高
for less than a year, less than six months, and less than three months, proposing that one condition that could be sustaining long-term behavior would be this agreement and how intensity was being experienced. Expanding on this idea, Teixeira et al. (2022) aimed to test the moderating effect of intensity preference agreement in the relationship between enjoyment and three relevant outcomes of exercise behavior (habit, intention, and exercise frequency). They have shown that preference agreement positively moderated those associations, suggesting that even the relation between a strong predictor of exercise adherence, as is enjoyment, could benefit from an individually adjusted exercise intensity. More recently, proposals for the use of preference agreement to prescribe exercise intensity targeting positive affective responses have emerged (Teixeira et al., 2023), adding to the literature now considering different pathways to promote and support motivational aspects in exercise practice. These are usually grounded on the idea that exercise behavior results from the interaction of reflective and automatic processing paths, which ultimately manifest in the realization (or not) of that behavior (Brand & Ekkekakis, 2018; Stevens et al., 2020). Additionally, the intensity pleasure-displeasure relation (i.e., promoting a positive affective regulation; ACSM, 2021) is presented in several theoretical frameworks as a downstream influence in both automatic and reflective paths, which may end, for example, in an exercise affective (positive or negative) association (automatic), the development of an affectively charged motivation (automaticreflective interaction), as a desire/dread for an activity or a context/ activity specific intrinsic motivation, or the development (or not) of positive behavioral intentions (reflective) (Stevens et al., 2020; Williams, 2023). This is probably what justifies the positive associations between preference agreement and enjoyment and intention in the mediation models. As preference agreement increases, the exercise intensity may be experienced in a more individually preferred and pleasurable activity, thus reinforcing a set of influences deriving from a positive affective experience that would, automatically and reflectively, be related to improved enjoyment and intention.
在不到一年、不到六个月和不到三个月的时间里，提出可以维持长期行为的一个条件是该协议以及强度的经历。Teixeira 等人（2022 年）扩展了这一想法，旨在测试强度偏好协议在享受与运动行为的三个相关结果（习惯、意图和运动频率）之间关系中的调节作用。他们表明，偏好一致性积极调节了这些关联，这表明即使是运动依从性的强预测因子（如享受）之间的关系也可以从单独调整的运动强度中受益。最近，出现了使用偏好协议来规定针对积极情感反应的运动强度的提案（Teixeira 等人，2023 年），增加了现在考虑在运动练习中促进和支持动机方面的不同途径的文献。这些通常基于这样一种观点，即运动行为是反射和自动处理路径相互作用的结果，最终表现为该行为的实现（或不实现）（Brand & Ekkekakis，2018;Stevens et al.， 2020）。此外，强度快乐-不快关系（即，促进积极的情感调节;ACSM，2021 年）在几个理论框架中被描述为自动和反思路径中的下游影响，例如，它可能以锻炼情感（积极或消极）关联（自动）、充满情感的动机的发展（自动反射互动）结束，作为对活动的渴望/恐惧或环境/活动特定的内在动机，或积极行为意图的发展（或不发展）（反思）（史蒂文斯等人， 2020;Williams，2023 年）。这可能就是在中介模型中证明偏好协议与享受和意图之间的正关联是合理的。随着偏好协议的增加，运动强度可能会在更个人偏好和更愉快的活动中体验到，从而加强了来自积极情感体验的一系列影响，这些影响将自动和反思地与提高享受和意图相关。

As for the moderating effects detected, only positive effects were detected. Of those, two were related to females and one to males. Although still very exploratory at this point, it appears that higher scores in preference agreement are associated with higher levels of enjoyment, and this relation tends to increase more clearly in female exercisers. This may be unveiling that females may be more dependent than males on the pleasurable relation with exercise intensity. At the same time, men may be more dependent on autonomy for that purpose, a hypothesis supported by the conditional indirect effect analysis. As for the model where intention was tested as an outcome, the preference agreement association with this variable seems to be more strongly moderated in the male sample of exercisers. Although potentially relevant, the moderation analysis results may be dependent on several distinct factors like contextual characteristics (type of activity/session/class) (Rodrigues et al., 2023), fatigue threshold (Ansdell et al., 2020), physiological differences to exercise intensity exposure (Rascon et al., 2020), among other, which exploration is beyond the purpose of this study. Nonetheless, these
至于检测到的调节作用，仅检测到积极影响。其中，2 例与女性有关 ，1 例与男性有关尽管在这一点上仍然非常具有探索性，但似乎偏好一致性的较高分数与更高水平的享受相关，并且这种关系在女性锻炼者中往往增加得更明显。这可能揭示了女性可能比男性更依赖与运动强度的愉悦关系。与此同时，男性可能更依赖自主性来实现这一目的，这一假设得到了条件间接效应分析的支持。至于将意图作为结果进行测试的模型，与该变量的偏好一致性关联在男性锻炼者样本中似乎更强烈地受到调节。尽管可能相关，但审核分析结果可能取决于几个不同的因素，例如上下文特征（活动类型/会话/课程）（Rodrigues et al.， 2023）、疲劳阈值（Ansdell et al.， 2020）、运动强度暴露的生理差异（Rascon et al.， 2020）等，这些探索超出了本研究的目的。尽管如此，这些
constitute the first evidence of differences between sexes that could justify different approaches when developing individual exercise prescriptions based on intensity preference.
构成了性别差异的第一个证据，可以证明在根据强度偏好制定个人运动处方时的不同方法是合理的。