Getting active in the office: Using descriptive norm messages to decrease sedentary behaviour and increase light physical activity at work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sedentary nature of an office workplace is an increasing health concern (Marshall & Ramirez, 2011). One avenue through which sedentary behaviour may be decreased and beneficial light activity increased is through the use of information conveyed in social norms. Previous theory-driven research in the activity area (e.g., Priebe & Spink, 2012, 2014) has demonstrated that perceptions about others’ behaviour (i.e., descriptive norms; Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990) can influence individual physical activity. However, it is unclear if descriptive norms can be used to impact specific light physical activities that could break up sedentary time. The main purpose was to examine whether descriptive norm messages would impact both sedentary behaviour and light activity within an office setting. Given that the effects of personal (e.g., values) and contextual (e.g., physical location) characteristics of the norm reference group could influence the effectiveness of the messages, a secondary purpose was to examine the effects of descriptive norm messages that varied in reference group characteristics (similar vs. dissimilar) on behaviour. Office workers received different email messages with descriptive norm information about their co-workers’ behaviour in the office. A repeated measures MANOVA revealed a main effect for time, F(4, 89) = 10.30, p < .001, ηp2 = .316. Those who received descriptive norm messages about co-workers’ lower sedentary behaviour and greater stair use and walking decreased their own sitting time while increasing stair use and walking, respectively, p’s < .05. In terms of the secondary purpose, results revealed no differences between participants receiving information about groups that varied in similarity (i.e., same or different values and office location), p’s > .10. These results provide experimental evidence that descriptive norm messages may serve as a source of social influence associated with decreasing sedentary and increasing light physical activity within an office setting.Acknowledgments: 1st author funded by SSHRC Vanier Graduate Scholarship
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".