Promoting Fruit and Vegetable Intake through Messages Tailored to Individual Differences in Regulatory Focus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers must identify strategies to optimize the persuasiveness of messages used in public education campaigns encouraging fruit and vegetable (FV) intake. PURPOSE: This study examined whether tailoring messages to individuals' regulatory focus (RF), the tendency to be motivated by promotion versus prevention goals, increased the persuasiveness of messages encouraging greater FV intake. METHOD: Participants (n = 518) completed an assessment of their RF and were randomly assigned to receive either prevention- or promotion-oriented messages. Messages were mailed 1 week, 2 months, and 3 months after the baseline interview. Follow-up assessments were conducted 1 and 4 months after the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed that at Month 4, the messages were somewhat more efficacious when congruent with participants' RF. CONCLUSION: RF may be a promising target for developing tailored messages promoting increased FV intake, and particularly for encouraging individuals to meet FV guidelines.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it