Who’s Even Interested in the Exercise Message? Attentional Bias for Exercise and Sedentary-Lifestyle Related Words
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No research exists that examines attentional bias for exercise related stimuli, yet this is an important area as it is possible that nonexercisers are not paying attention to exercise related cues, thereby limiting the potential effectiveness of health promotion advertising. This research used a Stroop task to examine attentional bias for exercise and sedentary-lifestyle related stimuli. Experiment 1 included exercise related words and matched control words and revealed that exerciser schematics showed delayed response latencies for exercise related words. Experiment 2 expanded on Experiment 1 by further including sedentary-lifestyle related words and matched control words. Results replicated the first study and further revealed that nonexerciser schematics showed delayed response latencies for sedentary-lifestyle related words but not for exercise related words. Results are discussed in terms of attentional bias or the possibility of a threat-driven slowdown, and in relation to health promotion and exercise behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".