IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i14p7649-d596748.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sedentary Lifestyle Matters as Past Sedentariness, Not Current Sedentariness, Predicts Cognitive Inhibition Performance among College Students: An Exploratory Study

Author

Listed:
  • Valentin Magnon

    (Department of Psychology, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS UMR 6024, LaPSCo, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France)

  • Guillaume T. Vallet

    (Department of Psychology, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS UMR 6024, LaPSCo, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France)

  • Frédéric Dutheil

    (Department of Psychology, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS UMR 6024, LaPSCo, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
    Faculty of Health, School of Exercise Science, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC 8001, Australia)

  • Catherine Auxiette

    (Department of Psychology, Université Clermont Auvergne, CNRS UMR 6024, LaPSCo, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France)

Abstract

Background: Currently, sedentariness is assessed over a short period of time, thus it is difficult to study its cognitive implications. To investigate the cognitive consequences of a sedentary lifestyle, the past level (i.e., the sedentary time accumulated over the years) and current level of sedentariness should be considered. This pilot study aimed to investigate the negative association between a sedentary lifestyle and cognition by considering both the current and past sedentariness. It was expected that the physical activity level moderates the potential negative association between sedentariness and cognition. Methods: 52 college students ( M age = 20.19, SD age = 2; 36 women) participated in the study. Current sedentariness (ratio of sedentary time in the last year), past sedentariness (ratio of sedentary time accumulated in previous years), and physical activity (ratio of time spent in physical activity in years) were assessed using a questionnaire. Cognitive inhibition, cognitive flexibility, and working memory updating were measured through three specific tests. Results: Past sedentariness significantly explained the inhibition performance when controlled for physical activity, whereas current sedentariness did not. More precisely, past sedentariness only negatively predicted cognitive inhibition when the physical activity level was low ( β = −3.15, z (48) = −2.62, p = 0.01). Conclusions: The impact of sedentariness on cognitive functioning might only be revealed when past sedentariness and physical activity are controlled.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentin Magnon & Guillaume T. Vallet & Frédéric Dutheil & Catherine Auxiette, 2021. "Sedentary Lifestyle Matters as Past Sedentariness, Not Current Sedentariness, Predicts Cognitive Inhibition Performance among College Students: An Exploratory Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-15, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7649-:d:596748
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7649/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/14/7649/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Samson O. Ojo & Daniel P. Bailey & Angel M. Chater & David J. Hewson, 2018. "The Impact of Active Workstations on Workplace Productivity and Performance: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Bavishi, Avni & Slade, Martin D. & Levy, Becca R., 2016. "A chapter a day: Association of book reading with longevity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 44-48.
    3. Peterson, Robert A, 2001. "On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 28(3), pages 450-461, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fanying Meng & Chun Xie & Fanghui Qiu & Jiaxian Geng & Fengrong Li, 2022. "Effects of Physical Activity Level on Attentional Networks in Young Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-15, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krawczyk, Michał & Tyrowicz, Joanna & Kukla-Gryz, Anna & Hardy, Wojciech, 2015. "“Piracy is not theft!” Is it just students who think so?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 32-39.
    2. Christoph Bühren & Thorben C. Kundt, 2013. "Worker or Shirker – Who Evades More Taxes? A Real Effort Experiment," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201326, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    3. Brady, Patrick Q. & Nobles, Matt R. & Bouffard, Leana A., 2017. "Are college students really at a higher risk for stalking?: Exploring the generalizability of student samples in victimization research," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 12-21.
    4. Roux, Elyette & Tafani, Eric & Vigneron, Franck, 2017. "Values associated with luxury brand consumption and the role of gender," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 102-113.
    5. Bernard Dubois & Sandor Czellar & Gilles Laurent, 2005. "Consumer Segments Based on Attitudes Toward Luxury: Empirical Evidence from Twenty Countries," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 115-128, April.
    6. Lidewij R. Renaud & Maaike A. Huysmans & Hidde P. van der Ploeg & Erwin M. Speklé & Allard J. van der Beek, 2020. "Natural Patterns of Sitting, Standing and Stepping During and Outside Work—Differences between Habitual Users and Non-Users of Sit–Stand Workstations," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-12, June.
    7. Francisco J. Conejo & Lawrence F. Cunningham & Clifford E. Young, 2020. "Revisiting the Brand Luxury Index: new empirical evidence and future directions," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(1), pages 108-122, January.
    8. Verhagen, Tibert & Meents, Selmar, 2007. "A Framework for Developing Semantic Differentials in IS research: Assessing the Meaning of Electronic Marketplace Quality (EMQ)," Serie Research Memoranda 0016, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    9. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    10. Maryam Barkhordari & Zahra Nourollah & Hoda Mashayekhi & Yoosof Mashayekhi & Mohammad S. Ahangar, 2017. "Factors influencing adoption of e-payment systems: an empirical study on Iranian customers," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 89-116, February.
    11. Kim, Yeolib & Kim, Seung Hyun & Peterson, Robert A. & Choi, Jeonghye, 2023. "Privacy concern and its consequences: A meta-analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. Reginald Litz & Nick Turner, 2013. "Sins of the Father’s Firm: Exploring Responses to Inherited Ethical Dilemmas in Family Business," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 297-315, March.
    13. Vieira, Valter Afonso & Rafael, Diego Nogueira & Agnihotri, Raj, 2022. "Augmented reality generalizations: A meta-analytical review on consumer-related outcomes and the mediating role of hedonic and utilitarian values," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 170-184.
    14. Tiziana Medda & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani, 2021. "Lab-Sophistication: Does Repeated Participation in Laboratory Experiments Affect Pro-Social Behaviour?," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Katherine Farrow & Gilles Grolleau & Lisette Ibanez, 2022. "Does misery love company? An experimental investigation [How much do we care about absolute versus relative income and consumption?]," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 523-540.
    16. Torres, Ivonne M., 2007. "A tale of two theories: Sympathy or competition?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 197-205, March.
    17. Frigau, Luca & Medda, Tiziana & Pelligra, Vittorio, 2019. "From the field to the lab. An experiment on the representativeness of standard laboratory subjects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 160-169.
    18. Björn Röber, 2020. "Escalating internationalization decisions: intendedly rational, but only limitedly so?," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(2), pages 455-484, July.
    19. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    20. Freling, Traci H. & Yang, Zhiyong & Saini, Ritesh & Itani, Omar S. & Rashad Abualsamh, Ryan, 2020. "When poignant stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 51-67.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:14:p:7649-:d:596748. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.