Gaining attention: The effects of message framing on attention towards physical activity messages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that physical activity messages are more effective when presented in a gain-framed manner (Latimer et al. 2010). However, the factors through which this facilitating effect occurs is unclear. The amount of attention directed towards the physical activity messages may play an important role in the framing effect (Petty et al., 2002; Bassett et al., 2011). The present study examined how the framing of a message impacts viewers' attention towards advertisements promoting physical activity. Thirty undergraduate students aged 18-35 viewed 10 gain- and loss-framed advertisements while their eye movements were recorded using eye-tracking technology. Attention was measured by examining eye fixations and dwell time. RM ANCOVAs revealed that the framing of the message significantly affected both fixation and dwell time measures. Participants had significantly more fixations per word (p Acknowledgments: Funding: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canada Research Chairs Program
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".