Question–behaviour effect: A randomised controlled trial of asking intention in the interrogative or declarative form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the question-behaviour effect of measuring intention in the interrogative or declarative form combined or not with a measure of moral norm. DESIGN: A sample of 762 participants was randomised according to a 2 × 2 factorial design. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cognitions were assessed at the baseline, and physical activity behaviour was self-reported three weeks later. RESULTS: At baseline, there were no significant differences on the studied variables. An ANOVA showed a significant interaction effect between the two experimental conditions (p = 0.04). Post-hoc contrast analyses showed that the interrogative intention-only condition significantly differed from the declarative intention-only (d = 0.21, p = 0.03) and interrogative intention + moral norm (d = 0.22, p = 0.03) conditions. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that self-posed questions about a future action increases the likelihood of doing it when these questions are not accompanied by measures of moral norm. This provides support for using introspective self-talk to favour the adoption of behaviour.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".