Using Messages Promoting Descriptive Norms to Increase Physical Activity
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
While it has been known for some time that what others do (i.e., normative behavior) can influence individual behavior, the effect of normative social influence on physical activity behavior has not been well established. The purpose of this study was to examine whether exposure to messages containing descriptive norm information about the prevalence of others' physical activity would affect individual physical activity behavior to a greater extent than exposure to nonnormative messages. Two independent studies were conducted. The first manipulated normative and nonnormative messages to examine effects on physical activity in office workers. Participants were assigned to one of four conditions (descriptive norm, health, appearance, or control) and received e-mail messages specific to their condition encouraging them to be active. It was hypothesized that participants in the descriptive norm condition would experience the greatest increase in physical activity, and the results supported this hypothesis for mild activity. A second study attempted to extend these results by examining the effect of descriptive norms on the activity behavior of university students, but no relationship was found. Typical activity levels and group identity with the reference group were suggested as possible explanations for the differing findings in these two studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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