Relationships between Features of Emerging Adulthood, Situated Decisions toward Physical Activity, and Physical Activity among College Students: The Moderating Role of Exercise-Intensity Tolerance

Introduction

Accumulating evidence indicates that being physically active has positive effects on physical and mental health [1–3]. Conversely, physical inactivity—as unhealthy lifestyle behavior—is associated with a variety of negative health issues including a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases and cancer [4–6]. To prevent such negative health consequences, public health organizations have released guidelines recommending that individuals should regularly engage in an appropriate amount of physical activity (PA) [7–9]. In this regard, the World Health Organization recommends for adults to carry out a minimum of 150-min moderate-intensity PA (MVPA) or 75-min vigorous-intensity PA (VPA) per week. However, although these evidence-based recommendations are widely disseminated, there is still a considerable proportion of adults who do not achieve the recommended minimum amount of physical activity. For instance, physical inactivity is relatively prevalent among emerging adults, particularly among college students who exhibit a wide range of prevalence rates from 21.9% in Kyrgyzstan to 80.6% in Pakistan, with a prevalence rate of 37.3% in China [10]. Against this background, a better understanding of the factors influencing the engagement in PA especially among emerging adults is needed to address the public health issue of physical inactivity.

Emerging adulthood (EA) refers to the period between 18 and 29 years of age. Younger adults such as college students during the emerging adulthood period have unique features in comparison to other age groups like adolescents and other adults (e.g., older than 30 years) [1,11,12]. Specifically, emerging adulthood features consisting of Self-exploration, Instability, Possibility, and Responsibility [13]. As college students in emerging adulthood are faced with various challenges including opportunities to explore their identity, or shifting choices in love and work, this life stage is potentially unstable, which, in turn, might negatively influence the development of daily routines including PA behaviors [12,14]. Recently, research has indicated that features of emerging adulthood were associated with PA levels among 1326 college students [15]. Although direct effects of features of emerging adulthood on PA have been observed, it remains unclear whether these effects are mediated or moderated by other psychological factors. Thus, further investigations are necessary to clarify the potential psychological mechanisms driving the relationship between features of emerging adulthood and PA.

In the past half-century, intention has been deemed as a prominent determinant of PA, playing a crucial role in decision-making processes [16,17]. In this context, situated decision as a proximal variable of PA behavior is suggested as a factor that can help to elucidate why individuals remain physically active or inactive [18]. Situated decision toward PA (SDPA) is defined as the tendency of individuals to decide to participate in PA in conflicting situations (e.g., in which alternatives to PA engagement are available) [18]. Comparable to the influence of different personality traits on behavioral tendencies [19], the distinctive features associated with emerging adulthood may also exert an impact on individuals’ decision-making processes regarding PA. In other words, emerging adulthood features may be directly linked to individuals’ tendencies (i.e., referring to SDPA), which, in turn, result in being physically active or inactive.

While the independent relationship of PA and SDPA has been previously established [18], it still remains largely unknown whether exercise-related features like exercise-intensity tolerance can moderate the above-mentioned relationship. Exercise-intensity tolerance which refers to the decision about selecting or tolerating a specific exercise intensity is closely linked to PA behavior [20]. Furthermore, individuals who had different exercise-intensity tolerance reported different affective responses to physical exercise [21,22]. For instance, experiencing negative affect or negative valence when surpassing a certain exercise-intensity tolerance or threshold is subsequently linked to decreased participation in PA in the future [23]. Conversely, individuals with higher exercise-intensity tolerance are more willing to participate in PA behavior even in the conflicting situations as they tend to gain more positive or pleasant experience/valence during physical exercise with higher intensities [23]. Further exploration in this field can yield valuable insights for developing effective interventions and strategies aiming to promote regular PA and long-term adherence.

Taking the above-presented observations into consideration, the present study tested three interactions and a hypothesized model which included the following features: (i) features of emerging adulthood are linked to SDPA, which in turn affects PA engagement; (ii) SDPA-PA level can be moderated by exercise-intensity tolerance; (iii) SDPA may play a mediating role in a relationship between features of emerging adulthood and PA levels while exercise-intensity tolerance can moderate the link between SDPA and PA engagement.

Method

Participants

The sample in the current study consisted of 1706 Chinese emerging adults with mean age of 19.81 years (SD = 1.44). These students were recruited from Chinese universities located in Southern China. An online-survey was used to reach out to these participants via the Questionnaire Star platform in which the students volunteered to participate in this study. Participants were excluded if they: (i) were not within the age group of 18–29 years old, which is typically recognized as the stage of emerging adulthood (n = 219) [24]; (ii) had physical disabilities (n = 13); (iii) reported musculoskeletal injury or illnesses that could influence their exercise tendency and PA engagement (n = 53); (iv) were diagnosed with psychiatric or neurological disorder(s) (n = 195) [25]; (v) did not complete the entire survey (n = 236).

Of note, school mental health counselors and teachers were asked to help to confirm whether participants were physically and mentally healthy. A total of 716 participants were excluded because they either failed to fall within the age range of the emerging adulthood or did not complete the entire survey. Main outcomes of interests contained features of emerging adulthood, exercise-intensity tolerance, SDPA, and PA levels. This study is a part of a large research project investigating the psycho-social mechanisms regarding the influence of implicit and explicit attitude on exercise behavior (approved by the medical ethics committee of Shenzhen University (No. PN-2021-048)).

Measures

Demographic information

Demographic data were collected, including gender (male and female), age, ethnicity (Han and Minorities), educational background (no schooling, elementary school, junior high school, senior high school/technical secondary school, undergraduate/junior college student, and postgraduate and above), living situation (live alone, live with classmates in school, flat sharing, live with parents, and live with the other half, other), and body-mass-index (BMI, calculated by self-reported weight and height). The data regarding the above-mentioned variables is presented in Table 1.

Dimensions of emerging adulthood

The Inventory of Dimensions of Emerging Adulthood (IDEA) was used to assess the perceptions of the features of emerging adulthood [26]. The Chinese version of the IDEA being applied in the current study has, in comparison to the original version with a 5-factor structure, only a 4-factor structure and consists of 20 items [27]. All items were scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 4 (“strongly agree”), with higher scores indicating greater perceived level. The Chinese version of the IDEA shows good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha >0.77) and test-retest reliability (r > 0.49, p < 0.01). In the current study, three features including Self-exploration, Instability and Possibility were collected (Cronbach’s alpha of three features >0.83), but not Responsibility as it refers to being responsible for others like parents, colleagues, and/or peers.

Physical activity (PA)

PA was measured using the short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-SF) [28], which was used to determine the PA levels of participants in the last 7 days. We used the Chinese version that was already psychometrically evaluated [29]. Energy expenditure (reflected by the estimated metabolic equivalent-MET) was determined based on the widely used formula [30–32]. According to different exercise intensity, PA level was categorized into the following three types: (1) light-intensity PA (LPA), (2) moderate-intensity PA (MPA), and (3) vigorous-intensity PA (VPA). The sum of LPA, MPA, and VPA was used to determine the total amount of PA (total PA), whereas the amount spent in MPA and VPA was used to calculate the level of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity PA (MVPA). Reliability of internal consistency of the Chinese version in a previous study was acceptable with its ICCs ≥0.75 for all categories, except moderate-intensity activity (excluding walking) with a low ICC of 0.31 [33].

Situated decisions toward PA (SDPA)

In line with previous studies [34,35], two independent translators had translated the Situated Decisions to Exercise questionnaire into Chinese. As physical exercise refers to structure and planned PA, the dependent variable in the present study was measured using the IPAQ, thus physical exercise is replaced with PA, for example the Situated Decisions toward PA questionnaire (SDPA-Q). These translations were then reviewed by a group of 10 bilingual experts. Afterwards, two different translators independently translated the Chinese-language version back into English (i.e., backward translation). Finally, two sport psychologists compared the backward-translated items with the original ones and double-checked the accuracy of these translated items. In addition, we randomly selected 470 participants from those who completed the pretest and attended the re-test after two weeks [36].

In this study, the above-presented SDPA-Q was used to assess individual’s tendency to decide on PA in situations in which they were faced with behavioral alternatives [18]. This uni-dimensional scale consists of 8 items (e.g., “after a long day of work you have just arrived at home and you feel tired. However, you planned to go work out tonight”). After each description, participants indicated whether she/he would exercise or not (i.e., “Do you exercise, or not?”). The items are scored via a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“by all means/definitely yes”) to 5 (“by no means/definitely no”). All answers were reversed and summed to a total score which is divided by the number of all items. A higher total score represents greater desirability of doing physical exercises. The reliability and validity of the Chinese-language SDPA-Q are acceptable in the current study (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76; r = 0.71, p < 0.001).

Exercise-intensity tolerance

Exercise-intensity tolerance was measured using a sub-scale of the Preference for exercise intensity and tolerance of exercise intensity questionnaire (PRETIE-Q) [37]. This 8-item scale was validated in a Chinese sample [20,38]. Exercise-intensity tolerance consists of 4 items, which refers to a trait that influences one’s ability to continue exercising at an imposed level of intensity even when the activity becomes uncomfortable or unpleasant. Specifically, 4 even-numbered items (2, 4, 6, 8) (e.g., “I’d rather slow down or stop when a workout starts to get too tough”) were selected and rated based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“I totally disagree”) to 5 (“I totally agree”). A higher sum score indicates greater level of exercise-intensity tolerance. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of internal consistency for the Tolerance dimension showed 0.89 in our previous validation study and 0.77 in the present study.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) and Mplus 8 [39]. Normal distribution was checked for all outcomes of interest including emerging adulthood related features, SDPA-Q, exercise-intensity tolerance, and PA levels using the Shapiro-Wilk test. As most of the above-presented variables were not normally distributed, the Mann-Whitney U test was performed to determine gender difference (median, 25% percentiles and 75% percentiles) only while other demographic data were not proportionate, for instance, the number of undergraduate students had reached 92%. In addition, associations between each pair of the above-presented variables were examined using the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The correlations were rated as follows: r ≥ 0.8 = large, r < 0.8 to > 0.2 = medium, and r ≤ 0.2 = small [40].

Different structural equation models were tested in order: (1) emerging adulthood related features → SDPA → PA; (2) SDPA → PA via exercise-intensity tolerance; (3) emerging adulthood related features → Hypothesis 2. The recommended indices [41] were presented below: (1) The normed χ2, the chi-square value divided by the degrees of freedom; (2) the comparative fit index (CFI); Generally, values of the CFI exceeding 0.95 indicating good fits, and those ranging from 0.90 to 0.95 were acceptable; (3) the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEM), in which the criterion for a reasonable fit is <0.06; (4) the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) below 0.08 indicates a relatively good model fit. In all statistical tests, the level of statistical significance was set to α = 0.05.

Results

Table 1 shows the demographics and gender difference of participants. Specifically, significant gender differences are observed on age (t = −2.38, p < 0.05), BMI (t = −8.91, p < 0.001), Instability (t = 3.64, p < 0.001), SDPA (t = −4.46, p < 0.001), exercise-intensity tolerance (t = −2.29, p < 0.05) and PA levels (t = −6.05 ~ −3.33, p < 0.001) (except for LPA). Specifically, male emerging adults demonstrated significantly higher scores on age, BMI, SDPA, exercise-intensity tolerance, and PA levels (except for LPA) in relation to female counterparts. Table 2 shows the correlations of all tested variables.

Relationship and moderators between features of emerging adulthood and levels of PA

Instability (b = −0.146, SE = 0.034, p < 0.001) and Possibility (b = 0.154, SE = 0.042, p < 0.001) are statistically linked to SDPA, which, in turn, is predictive of weekly of the total PA level (b = 0.243, SE = 0.032, p < 0.001). Meanwhile, Instability can significantly predict total PA (b = −0.089, SE = 0.030, p < 0.01). The whole model fit well (χ2/df = 15.939, RMSEM = 0.006, 90% CI [0.000, 0.063], CFI = 0.999, SRMR = 0.013, Fig. 2). While SDPA-PA link was indicated, individuals who had higher levels on tolerance of exercise-intensity reported higher weekly PA levels as compared to those participants with low exercise-intensity tolerance (b = 0.090, SE = 0.033, p < 0.01; Table 3). The moderating effect to the SDPA-PA link is further qualified by a significant SDPA x Exercise-intensity tolerance interaction (b = 0.353, SE = 0.133, p < 0.01). Specifically, confirming hypothesis 2 (Fig. 3)-both individuals with high- and low-SDPA have reported greater weekly PA level if they had higher exercise-intensity tolerance. The explanatory rate of the model (Total PA: χ2/df = 33.602, RMSEM = 0.000, 90% CI [0.000, 0.079], CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.014) becomes larger as exercise intensity increases. Finally, the model indices of hypothesis 3 (Fig. 4) (emerging adulthood features—> SDPA—> total PA level and the later relationship is mediated by exercise-intensity tolerance) are acceptable (χ2/df = 0.587, RMSEM < 0.001, 90% CI [0.000, 0.044], CFI = 1.000, SRMR = 0.007).

Figure 1: Hypothesized model of the relationships between features of emerging adulthood, situated decisions toward physical activity (SDPA), exercise-intensity tolerance, and physical activity (PA).

Figure 2: Situated decisions toward physical activity (SDPA) mediates the links between emerging adulthood features and the total amount of physical activity in a week (total PA).

Figure 3: Moderation effect of metabolic equivalent (MET), moderate-to-vigorous-intensity physical activity (MVPA), and vigorous-intensity physical activity (VPA).

Figure 4: Path analysis.
Notes: Significant pathways are represented by solid lines while dotted lines means the non-significant ways. The values behind these lines are the standardized path coefficients of significance. SDPA = situated decisions toward PA; PA = physical activity; * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01; *** = p < 0.001; n.s. = no significance.

Discussion

In the present study, we aimed to (i) determine whether SDPA mediated the relationship between features of emerging adulthood and PA; (ii) investigate whether the relationships between SDPA and PA levels were moderated by the individual exercise-intensity tolerance; (iii) examine the mediating role of SDPA in the relationship between three features of emerging adulthood and PA levels under the prerequisite that exercise-intensity tolerance moderates the link between SDPA and PA engagement. Our results suggest that SDPA can be a mediator between emerging adulthood features (Instability) and PA levels (especially MVPA and VPA). Furthermore, exercise-intensity tolerance was observed to moderate the associations between SDPA and PA levels. We will discuss these findings in more details below.

Nearly 70% of participants in the present study did not meet the recommended amount of at least 150-min MVPA or 75-min VPA (Cayon, 2016). This finding is consistent with observations of previous studies consistent with previous studies [42,43]. In addition, light-intensity PA was only associated with other PA levels including MPA, MVPA, VPA, total PA level, but a statistically significant association with emerging adulthood features, exercise-intensity tolerance, and SDPA was not observed. Such interesting findings may be attributed to the fact that participants might have incorrect perceptions about PA type. For instance, walking may not be perceived as PA in comparison to MVPA and VPA requiring a higher level of physical effort. Hypothetically, activities that require a considerable amount of energy expenditure and lead to physiological reactions such as sweating are recognized by the participants as PA, which is perhaps not the case for LPA such as walking. Of note, there is evidence that increasing LPA in this age group can be a practical way to not only increase total PA, but also to foster health benefits [44–46].

With respect to the hypothesized model (Fig. 1), Instability was negatively linked while Possibility was positively linked to SDPA. Instability refers to the continuous fluctuation in emotional and occupational choices [36]. The negative Instability-SDPA link may be attributed to the fact that data collection was conducted during COVID-19 pandemic—a period with more negative perception about the individual future including issues such as job seeking and security—[47] which might have put college student in a unstable situation that directly resulted in behavior change including lower levels of PA engagement [48–51]. Another possible explanation may be attributed to what they perceived or heard in the surrounding environment, especially in the period of COVID-19 that is linked to the increased rate of job loss and less job opportunity for senior students [52]. Thirdly, physical distancing in indoor and outdoor spaces have been mandatory in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19, which may cause greater difficulties to adhere to planned and structured forms of PA. As a result, those with higher Instability have a lower tendency to perform PA, further resulting in an insufficient overall amount of PA. In addition, our results suggest that SDPA was linked to PA at all intensity levels (except for LPA). Participants with high- and low-SDPA have reported a higher level of total PA, MVPA, and VPA when they showed a higher exercise-intensity tolerance, which is supported by the results of the path analysis (SDPA-PA link moderated by exercise-intensity tolerance). These findings indicate that exercise-intensity tolerance plays a moderating role in MVPA and VPA, which contributed to the level of total PA.

Concerning the relationship between emerging adulthood features and PA, the findings of the present study in Chinese emerging adults suggest that SDPA is a functional link between emerging adulthood features and PA. Based on the Reflective-Impulsive Model (RIM), the Affective-Reflective Theory (ART) was developed and predicts that affective and reflective processes influence the decision to become physically active [53,54]. According to dual-system approaches of behavior [55,56], situated decisions between behavioral alternatives are assumed to be a functional link between affective and reflective processes and physical exercise [18] as this reflects the tendency of individuals to engage in physical exercise when conflicts between affective and reflective assessments occur. Emerging adulthood features are manifestations of these affective and reflective processes. In contrast to the most distal behavioral criteria (i.e., PA measured by questionnaires or accelerometer), a proximal variable such as situated decisions can further help to elucidate why individuals remain physically inactive. The results of this study support this point of view.

Limitations

The findings of the current study should be interpreted in the light of the following limitations. Firstly, because of the cross-sectional study design no causal conclusion can be drawn. Thus, the results of the present study should be substantiated with longitudinal studies and preferably by longitudinal randomized controlled trials. Secondly, the relationship between Possibility, as a feature of emerging adulthood, and SDPA is rather weak as this relationship may be affected by other confounding variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, personality, educational attainment of parents, and major) that were not collected and controlled in the present study. Thirdly, the Responsibility feature of emerging adulthood refers to holding accountability for others. Given that we investigated individuals’ PA behaviors and the large number of items of the IDEA, this emerging adulthood feature was not assessed in the present study. However, since Responsibility has been linked to the level of PA in a previous study [57], we recommend that future studies should include Responsibility in their assessment to elucidate this phenomenon in more detail. Fourthly, it should be considered that these emerging adulthood features have somewhat changed under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic [58,59], and thus the findings of the current study should be cautiously interpreted. Finally, in the present study PA level was measured via self-reports which might introduce some bias with respect to the PA assessment (e.g., underestimate or overestimate of PA level and intensity). Thus, future studies should utilize more objective assessment instruments to measure the level and intensity of PA (e.g., accelerometers).

Conclusions

The current study investigated the relationship between specific features of emerging adulthood (i.e., Self-exploration, Possibility, and Instability) and PA levels by studying whether SDPA and exercise-intensity tolerance statistically mediate the above-mentioned relationships. In this context, this study provides evidence that in our sample of Chinese emerging adults, consisting of college students, (i) SDPA can be predicted by the Instability feature of emerging adulthood but not by Self-exploration and Possibility; (ii) SDPA was a proximal predictor of different PA levels except for LPA; (iii) exercise-intensity tolerance moderated the relationships between SDPA and different PA levels (VPA, MVPA, and total PA) except for LPA and MPA. Our promising findings may pave the way for future research and the development of new intervention approaches aiming to promote PA among Chinese college students.

Acknowledgement: The authors thank research participants for their participation in this study.

Funding Statement: The authors received no specific funding for this study.

Ethics Approval: This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shenzhen University. All participants signed informed consent.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.

References

1. Verswijveren S, Lamb KE, Martín-Fernández JA, Winkler E, Leech RM, Timperio A, et al. Using compositional data analysis to explore accumulation of sedentary behavior, physical activity and youth health. J Sport Health Sci. 2022;11(2):234–43. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Chi X, Liang K, Chen ST, Huang Q, Huang L, Yu Q, et al. Mental health problems among Chinese adolescents during the COVID-19: the importance of nutrition and physical activity. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2021;21(3):100218. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Chen ST, Guo T, Yu Q, Stubbs B, Clark C, Zhang Z, et al. Active school travel is associated with fewer suicide attempts among adolescents from low- and middle-income countries. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2021;21(1):100202. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Duran AT, Romero E, Diaz KM. Is sedentary behavior a novel risk factor for cardiovascular disease? Curr Cardiol Rep. 2022;24(4):393–403. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

5. Ford ES, Caspersen CJ. Sedentary behaviour and cardiovascular disease: a review of prospective studies. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(5):1338–53. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. Same RV, Feldman DI, Shah N, Martin SS, Al Rifai M, Blaha MJ, et al. Relationship between sedentary behavior and cardiovascular risk. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2016;18(1):540. [Google Scholar]

7. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(24):1451–62. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. Piercy KL, Troiano RP, Ballard RM, Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Galuska DA, et al. The physical activity guidelines for americans. JAMA. 2018;320(19):2020–28. [Google Scholar]

9. Tremblay MS, Carson V, Chaput JP, Gorber SC, Dinh T, Duggan M, et al. Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for children and youth: an integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. Appl Physiol Nutr Me. 2016;41(6):S311–27. [Google Scholar]

10. Pengpid S, Peltzer K, Kassean HK, Tsala Tsala JP, Sychareun V, Müller-Riemenschneider F. Physical inactivity and associated factors among university students in 23 low-, middle- and high-income countries. Int J Public Health. 2015;60(5):539–49. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

11. Reifman A, Niehuis S. Extending the five psychological features of emerging adulthood into established adulthood. J Adult Dev. 2023;30(1):6–20. [Google Scholar]

12. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000;55(5):469–80. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

13. Kuang J, Zhong J, Arnett JJ, Hall DL, Chen E, Markwart M, et al. Conceptions of adulthood among chinese emerging adults. J Adult Dev. 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10804-023-09449-4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

14. Atwood JD, Scholtz C. The quarter-life time period: an age of indulgence, crisis or both? Contemp Fam Ther. 2008;30(4):233–50. [Google Scholar]

15. Kuang J, Arnett JJ, Chen E, Demetrovics Z, Herold F, Cheung RYM, et al. Examining behavioral problems among chinese emerging adults: the mediating role of physical activity and self-control. Int J Ment Health PR. 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.32604/ijmhp.2023.029187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

16. Reed GR, Velicer WF, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS, Marcus BH. What makes a good staging algorithm: examples from regular exercise. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12(1):57–66. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

17. Rhodes RE, McEwan D, Rebar AL. Theories of physical activity behaviour change: a history and synthesis of approaches. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019;42:100–9. [Google Scholar]

18. Brand R, Schweizer G. Going to the gym or to the movies?: situated decisions as a functional link connecting automatic and reflective evaluations of exercise with exercising behavior. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2015;37(1):63–73. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

19. Roberts BW, DelVecchio WF. The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: a quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(1):3–25. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

20. Wang T, Kuang J, Herold F, Taylor A, Ludyga S, Zhang Z, et al. Validity and reliability of the preference for and tolerance of the intensity of exercise questionnaire among chinese college students. Int J Ment Health Pr. 2023;25(1):127–38. [Google Scholar]

21. Oliveira BR, Deslandes AC, Santos TM. Differences in exercise intensity seems to influence the affective responses in self-selected and imposed exercise: a meta-analysis. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1105. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

22. Kilpatrick M, Kraemer R, Bartholomew J, Acevedo E, Jarreau D. Affective responses to exercise are dependent on intensity rather than total work. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2007;39(8):1417–22. [Google Scholar]

23. Box AG, Petruzzello SJ. Why do they do it? Differences in high-intensity exercise-affect between those with higher and lower intensity preference and tolerance. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2020;47(6):101521. [Google Scholar]

24. Arnett JJ, Žukauskienė R, Sugimura K. The new life stage of emerging adulthood at ages 18–29 years: implications for mental health. Lancet Psychiat. 2014;1(7):569–576. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00080-7 [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

25. Vancampfort D, Firth J, Schuch FB, Rosenbaum S, Mugisha J, Hallgren M, et al. Sedentary behavior and physical activity levels in people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder: a global systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2017;16(3):308–15. [Google Scholar]

26. Reifman A, Arnett JJ, Colwell MJ. Emerging adulthood: theory, assessment and application. J Youth Dev. 2007;2(1):37–48. [Google Scholar]

27. Kuang J, Zhong J, Yang P, Bai X, Liang Y, Cheval B, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the inventory of dimensions of emerging adulthood (IDEA) in China. Int J Clin Hlth Psyc. 2023;23(1):100331. [Google Scholar]

28. World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. [Google Scholar]

29. Qu NN, Li KJ. Study on the reliability and validity of international physical activity questionnaire (Chinese Vision, IPAQ). Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2004;25(3):265–68 (In Chinese). [Google Scholar]

30. An R, Liu J, Liu R. State laws governing school physical education in relation to attendance and physical activity among students in the USA: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Health Sci. 2021;10(3):277–87. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

31. Chalkley A, Milton K. A critical review of national physical activity policies relating to children and young people in England. J Sport Health Sci. 2021;10(3):255–62. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

32. Sagawa N, Rockette-Wagner B, Azuma K, Ueshima H, Hisamatsu T, Takamiya T, et al. Physical activity levels in American and Japanese men from the ERA-JUMP Study and associations with metabolic syndrome. J Sport Health Sci. 2020;9(2):170–8. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

33. Macfarlane DJ, Lee CCY, Ho EYK, Chan KL, Chan DTS. Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of IPAQ (short, last 7 days). J Sci Med Sport. 2007;10(1):45–51. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

34. Kuang J, Zhu W, Herold F, Chen E, Gerber M, Ludyga S, et al. The flow-clutch scale: translation and validation study of the Chinese version. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2022;49:101670. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

35. Zhang J, Luberto CM, Huang Q, Kuang J, Zhong J, Yeung A, et al. Validation of the chinese version of relaxation sensitivity index: a tool for predicting treatment effect in mindfulness interventions. Front Public Health. 2021;9:763. [Google Scholar]

36. Bailen NH, Green LM, Thompson RJ. Understanding emotion in adolescents: a review of emotional frequency, intensity, instability, and clarity. Emot Rev. 2019;11(1):63–73. [Google Scholar]

37. Ekkekakis P, Hall EE, Petruzzello SJ. Some like it vigorous: measuring individual differences in the preference for and tolerance of exercise intensity. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2005;27(3):350–74. [Google Scholar]

38. Zhang Z, Wang T, Kuang J, Herold F, Ludyga S, Li J, et al. The roles of exercise tolerance and resilience in the effect of physical activity on emotional states among college students. Int J Clin Hlth Psyc. 2022;22(3):100312. [Google Scholar]

39. Muthén B, Muthén L. Mplus. In: Handbook of item response theory. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2017. p. 507–18. [Google Scholar]

40. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). New York: Academic Press; 1977. [Google Scholar]

41. Lt Hu, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55. [Google Scholar]

42. Keating XD, Guan J, Piñero JC, Bridges DM. A meta-analysis of college students’ physical activity behaviors. J Am Coll Health. 2005;54(2):116–26. [Google Scholar]

43. Du Y, Liu B, Sun Y, Snetselaar LG, Wallace RB, Bao W. Trends in adherence to the physical activity guidelines for Americans for aerobic activity and time spent on sedentary behavior among US adults, 2007 to 2016. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(7):e197597-e. [Google Scholar]

44. Li J, Herold F, Ludyga S, Yu Q, Zhang X, Zou L. The acute effects of physical exercise breaks on cognitive function during prolonged sitting: the first quantitative evidence. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2022;48:101594. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

45. Wu Y, van Gerven PWM, de Groot RHM, Eijnde BO, Winkens B, Savelberg HHCM. Effects of breaking up sitting with light-intensity physical activity on cognition and mood in university students. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2023;33(3):257–66. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

46. Lerma NL. Replacing sedentary behavior with a light intensity physical activity in the homes of older adults. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2018. [Google Scholar]

47. Li T, Barwick PJ, Deng Y, Huang X, Li S. The COVID-19 pandemic and unemployment: evidence from mobile phone data from China. J Urban Econ. 2023;135:103543. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

48. Xiang MQ, Tan XM, Sun J, Yang HY, Zhao XP, Liu L, et al. Relationship of physical activity with anxiety and depression symptoms in chinese college students during the COVID-19 outbreak. Front Psychol. 2020;11:218. [Google Scholar]

49. Bertrand L, Shaw KA, Ko J, Deprez D, Chilibeck PD, Zello GA. The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on university students’ dietary intake, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021;46(3):265–72. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

50. Zheng C, Huang WY, Sheridan S, Sit CHP, Chen XK, Wong SHS. COVID-19 pandemic brings a sedentary lifestyle in young adults: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2020;17(17):6035. [Google Scholar]

51. Han SS, Li B, Ke YZ, Wang GX, Meng SQ, Li YX, et al. Chinese college students’ physical-exercise behavior, negative emotions, and their correlation during the COVID-19 outbreak. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(16):10344. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

52. Luyckx K, de Witte H, Goossens L. Perceived instability in emerging adulthood: the protective role of identity capital. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2011;32(3):137–45. [Google Scholar]

53. Brand R, Ekkekakis P. Affective-reflective theory of physical inactivity and exercise. Ger J Exerc Sport Res. 2018;48(1):48–58. [Google Scholar]

54. Strack F, Deutsch R. The reflective—Impulsive model. In: Dual-process theories of the social mind. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2014. p. 92–104. [Google Scholar]

55. Pfeffer I, Strobach T. Physical activity automaticity, intention, and trait self-control as predictors of physical activity behavior-a dual-process perspective. Psychol Health Med. 2022;27(5):1021–34. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

56. Phipps DJ, Hannan TE, Rhodes RE, Hamilton K. A dual-process model of affective and instrumental attitudes in predicting physical activity. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2021;54:101899. [Google Scholar]

57. Cox M, Schofield G, Kolt GS. Responsibility for children’s physical activity: parental, child, and teacher perspectives. J Sci Med Sport. 2010;13(1):46–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2009.02.006 [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

58. Germani A, Buratta L, Delvecchio E, Mazzeschi C. Emerging adults and COVID-19: the role of individualism-collectivism on perceived risks and psychological maladjustment. Int J Env Res Pub He. 2020;17(10):3497. [Google Scholar]

59. Kujawa A, Green H, Compas BE, Dickey L, Pegg S. Exposure to COVID-19 pandemic stress: associations with depression and anxiety in emerging adults in the United States. Depress Anxiety. 2020;37(12):1280–88. [Google Scholar]