Experiential Versus Genetic Accounts of Inactivity: Implications for Inactive Individuals’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Intentions to Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall purpose of this study was to examine the effect of deterministic media reports, linking genetics to inactivity, in relation to inactive people's social cognitions concerning physical activity involvement. Sixty three inactive university students were randomly allocated to one of three experimental conditions (control, genetically-primed, experientially-primed) and completed measures of instrumental and affective attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, and exercise intentions. One week later participants in the two experimental conditions were provided with a bogus newspaper report that either reflected a genetic explanation for physical inactivity or an experiential basis for inactivity. Shortly afterwards, participants in all three conditions completed the same measures as at pre-test. The results revealed that after controlling for baseline measures participants in the experientially-primed condition reported significantly higher levels of self-efficacy and intentions to exercise than those in the genetically-primed condition. These findings raise a cautionary flag concerning the presentation of genetic research in the media, especially with regard to inactive populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".