Asking questions changes behavior: Mere measurement effects on frequency of blood donation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This research examined the impact of completing a questionnaire about blood donation on subsequent donation behavior among a large sample of experienced blood donors. DESIGN: Participants (N=4672) were randomly assigned to an experimental condition that received a postal questionnaire measuring cognitions about donation or a control condition that did not receive a questionnaire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of registrations at blood drives and number of successful blood donations were assessed using objective records both 6 months and 12 months later. RESULTS: Findings indicated that, compared to control participants, the mean frequency of number of registrations at blood drives among participants in the experimental group was 8.6% greater at 6 months (p<.0.007), and was 6.4% greater at 12 months (p<.035). Significant effects were also observed for successful blood donations at 6 months (p<.001) and 12 months (p<.004). CONCLUSION: These findings provide the first evidence that the mere measurement is relevant to promoting consequential health behaviors. Implications of the research for intervention evaluation are discussed.
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 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".