When high hopes meet low action: identifying the “Ambitious Procrastinator” profile in the physical activity intention-behavior gap and its mental health toll

Background University students exhibit high rates of mental health problems alongside a significant gap between their physical activity (PA) intentions and actual behavior. To understand the psychological heterogeneity within this intention-behavior gap (IBG) in high-pressure academic environments, a person-centered approach is essential. The present study aimed to identify distinct psychological profiles of students based on key self-regulatory constructs related to PA and to examine how these profiles longitudinally predict changes in mental health over an academic semester. Methods A two-wave longitudinal survey was conducted with a cohort of 850 university students during the post-pandemic return to campus life, situated within a high-achieving Chinese higher education context. At baseline (T1), PA intention, action and coping planning, self-efficacy, maladaptive perfectionism, and procrastination were measured. At both T1 and the end of the semester (T2), PA behavior (IPAQ-SF) and mental health outcomes, including depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and academic burnout (SBI) were assessed. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was employed to identify distinct profiles from the T1 psychological data. Longitudinal regression models were then used to test the predictive validity of these profiles on T2 mental health, controlling for T1 baseline mental health, demographic covariates, and critically, T1 baseline PA behavior. Results LPA revealed four distinct profiles: “Effective Planners” (25.0%), “Ambitious Procrastinators” (30.0%), “Cautious Doers” (24.9%), and “Indifferent & Sedentary” (20.1%). The “Ambitious Procrastinators” exhibited the largest intention-behavior gap. Even after controlling for baseline PA behavior, membership in this profile significantly predicted greater increases in depression ( β = 0.16 , p < 0.001 ), anxiety ( β = 0.14 , p = 0.002 ), and academic burnout ( β = 0.20 , p < 0.001 ) at T2, relative to the “Effective Planners.” Conclusion The physical activity intention-behavior gap is not a monolithic phenomenon, and the “Ambitious Procrastinators” represent a particularly vulnerable subgroup. Findings suggest that university wellness programs should move beyond generic motivational campaigns and instead deliver tailored, skill-based interventions**, such as specific cognitive restructuring and behavioral activation, **targeting the specific self-regulatory deficits of these high-risk students.