MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114439169 · doi:10.1037/a0028500

Some feelings are more important: Cognitive attitudes, affective attitudes, anticipated affect, and blood donation.

2012· article· en· W2114439169 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Conner, Gaston Godin, Paschal Sheeran, Marc Germain

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsHéma-QuébecUniversité Laval
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsAffect (linguistics)PsychologyTheory of planned behaviorDonationFeelingCognitionAmbivalenceContext (archaeology)Blood donorLogistic regressionSocial psychologyClinical psychologyControl (management)MedicinePsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The present research assessed the simultaneous effects of four attitude variables (cognitive attitudes, affective attitudes, anticipated negative affective reactions, and anticipated positive affective reactions) in the context of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) on blood-donation intentions and behavior. METHODS: Experienced blood donors (N = 1108) completed questionnaires measuring attitude variables plus components of the TPB and a measure of attitudinal ambivalence in relation to giving blood again in the next six months. Records were used to assess whether participants subsequently donated blood again in the six months after completing the questionnaire. The main outcome measures were objectively assessed blood donation and intentions to make an additional donation of blood. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis supported a distinction between cognitive attitudes about giving blood, affective attitudes about giving blood, anticipated negative affective reactions about not giving blood, and anticipated positive affective reactions about giving blood. Multiple regression analyses indicated that perceived behavioral control, anticipated negative affective reactions, cognitive attitude, anticipated positive affective reactions and subjective norms were significant simultaneous predictors of intentions to donate blood. Logistic regression analyses indicated that intentions, perceived behavioral control, and anticipated positive affective reactions were significant, simultaneous predictors of blood donation. Attitudinal ambivalence significantly moderated the effects of cognitive attitudes on intentions, and the effects of anticipated negative affective reactions on both intentions and donation behavior. CONCLUSION: The findings point to the value of considering different types of attitudes, and anticipated negative affective reaction in particular, for predicting health behaviors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations246
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207