Do people differentially attend to and form preferences for messages framed to varied stages of change and types of goals and motivation orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare how people who varied in their stage of change for physical activity (detection, decision, implementation) and motivation (autonomous versus controlling) orientations differed in the attention they gave to the images/written content of six physical activity messages, and compare how they ranked the six messages according to their preferences. Undergraduates (n = 201; females = 152; males = 47) who averaged 19 years of age, with a BMI of 22.55 participated in this study. Participants were instructed to read six different messages tailored to one of three stages of change, and framed to highlight either intrinsic or extrinsic goals for engaging in physical activity, and asked to respond to a series of questions including; age, gender, height, weight, previous physical activity level (Godin's Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire; Godin & Sheppard, 1997), stage of change for physical activity (adapted from Weinstein, Roathman, & Sutton, 1998), general motivation orientation (General Motivation Scale; Pelletier & Dion, 2007), attention to written content/images (adapted from Laczniak, Mueling, & Grossbart, 1989), and they were asked to rank the messages according to their preferences. In general participants reported a greater tendancy to attend to and prefer messages that were tailored to their corresponding stage of change, yet their attention to and preferences for messages framed to reflect intrinsic or extrinsic goals did not consistently align with their motivation orientation. These prelimiary results reject the "one-size-fits-all" approach to messaging and supports the perspective that informative messages that promote physical activity may be processed differently depending on the characteristics of the readers.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".