Spousal positive social control and men’s health behaviors and self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between spousal positive social control (SPSC) and men’s health behaviors. This study also tested the mediating effect of health self-efficacy in this relationship and the moderating effects of age and relationship satisfaction (RS) in the association between SPSC and health behaviors and self-efficacy. A total of 506 unionized male workers answered a questionnaire assessing their level of health self-efficacy, how often they performed various health behaviors, and their perceptions of the frequency with which their spouse used positive social control to influence their health. Results indicated that SPSC was positively associated with health behaviors and that this association was mediated by health self-efficacy. Moderation analysis indicated that, for middle-aged and older men, SPSC was only positively associated with health self-efficacy when RS was high. Also, for older men only, when RS was low, SPSC had a backfiring effect and was negatively associated with health self-efficacy. Finally, results indicated the presence of a moderated mediation with the indirect effect of SPSC on health behaviors through health self-efficacy being moderated by age and relationship satisfaction. By indicating more precisely how, with whom, and under what circumstances SPSC can be beneficial or not, the results from this study have important implications for interventions promoting men’s health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".