Helping parents help children: Message framing effects on parent's'cognitions and behaviours related to children's physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents are often the gatekeepers to youth physical activity (PA) involvement. Specifically, parental social support-related thoughts and behaviours act as prominent factors for facilitating regular participation (e.g., providing transportation, verbal encouragement); yet, a paucity of research has measured whether persuasive messages can influence parental social support behaviours over time. This study examines the effects of framed messages (gain, loss, or mixed) on parental social support cognitions and behaviours, and changes in youth PA reported over four weeks (Ninitial=224 parents of children aged 5-11, Nweek1=164, Nweek4=126). Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed significant increases in planning PA (p=0.001), subjective norms (p=0.01), perceived behavioural control (p=0.0001), and intentions for social support (p=0.002) from pre- to immediately post-exposure regardless of message frame. However, these positive trends did not carry-over to one-week follow-up. Nevertheless, actual PA social support provided by parents to their children was significantly higher at four-weeks compared to week one (p=0.001), with children's weekly PA participation significantly increasing during this time as well (p=0.03). While no significant overall frame by time interactions were found, parents exposed to loss-framed messages inconsistently reported significantly higher social support cognitions and behaviours compared to gain- and mixed-framed. These findings suggest message presence may have more influence than frame when aiming to enhance parent social support cognitions and behaviours. Furthermore, with these effects diminishing beyond immediate exposure, future interventions should encourage parents to create action plans for their children shortly after exposure to PA messages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".