Testing the effects of message framing, kernel state, and exercise guideline adherence on exercise intentions and resolve
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
OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of framed messages on exercise intention and resolve. DESIGN: Two (type of frame: gain or loss) × 2 (type of kernel state: desirable or undesirable outcome) post-test study. METHODS: Participants were recruited online and questioned about their previous exercise behaviour and their exercise risk perception. After this, they were randomly allocated to one of four messages that were different in terms of positive or negative outcomes (type of frame) and in terms of attained or avoided outcomes (type of kernel state). After reading the message, participants indicated their intention and resolve to engage in sufficient exercise. RESULTS: No effects were found for intention. For resolve, there was a significant interaction between type of frame, type of kernel state, and exercise adherence. Those who did not adhere to the exercise guideline and read the loss-framed message with attained outcomes reported significantly higher resolve than all other participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates the relevance of including attained outcomes in message framing exercise interventions as well as a focus on exercise resolve. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? Message framing is commonly used to increase exercise intentions and behaviour. Meta-analyses do not provide consistent support for this theory. Very little attention has been paid to resolve and message factors on framing effects. What does this study add? Framed messages have an effect on exercise resolve, but not on intention. Loss-framed messages with attained outcomes are most persuasive for those who do not adhere to exercise guidelines. Exercise framing studies should include behavioural resolve next to intention. .
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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