Schinkoeth Michaela, Antoniewicz Franziska
Sport and Exercise Psychology, Department of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2017 Dec 1;8:2103. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02103. eCollection 2017.
The general purpose of this systematic review was to summarize, structure and evaluate the findings on automatic evaluations of exercising. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported measuring automatic evaluations of exercising with an implicit measure and assessed some kind of exercise variable. Fourteen nonexperimental and six experimental studies (out of a total = 1,928) were identified and rated by two independent reviewers. The main study characteristics were extracted and the grade of evidence for each study evaluated. First, results revealed a large heterogeneity in the applied measures to assess automatic evaluations of exercising and the exercise variables. Generally, small to large-sized significant relations between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise variables were identified in the vast majority of studies. The review offers a systematization of the various examined exercise variables and prompts to differentiate more carefully between actually observed exercise behavior (proximal exercise indicator) and associated physiological or psychological variables (distal exercise indicator). Second, a lack of transparent reported reflections on the differing theoretical basis leading to the use of specific implicit measures was observed. Implicit measures should be applied purposefully, taking into consideration the individual advantages or disadvantages of the measures. Third, 12 studies were rated as providing first-grade evidence (lowest grade of evidence), five represent second-grade and three were rated as third-grade evidence. There is a dramatic lack of experimental studies, which are essential for illustrating the cause-effect relation between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise and investigating under which conditions automatic evaluations of exercising influence behavior. Conclusions about the necessity of exercise interventions targeted at the alteration of automatic evaluations of exercising should therefore not be drawn too hastily.
本系统评价的总体目的是总结、梳理并评估有关运动自动评价的研究结果。如果研究报告了使用内隐测量法测量运动的自动评价，并评估了某种运动变量，则该研究符合纳入标准。两名独立评审员对14项非实验性研究和6项实验性研究（总共1928项）进行了识别和评级。提取了主要研究特征，并对每项研究的证据等级进行了评估。首先，结果显示在评估运动自动评价和运动变量所采用的测量方法上存在很大异质性。一般来说，绝大多数研究都发现运动自动评价与运动变量之间存在小到中等程度的显著关系。该综述对各种研究的运动变量进行了系统化梳理，并促使更仔细地区分实际观察到的运动行为（近端运动指标）和相关的生理或心理变量（远端运动指标）。其次，观察到缺乏对导致使用特定内隐测量法的不同理论基础的透明报告和反思。应考虑到测量方法的个体优缺点，有目的地应用内隐测量法。第三，12项研究被评为提供一级证据（最低证据等级），5项为二级证据，3项被评为三级证据。严重缺乏实验性研究，而实验性研究对于阐明运动自动评价与运动之间的因果关系以及研究运动自动评价在何种条件下影响行为至关重要。因此，不应仓促得出关于针对改变运动自动评价进行运动干预必要性的结论。
