Move more or sit less? Comparing physical activity and sedentary behaviour messages among sedentary adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sedentary behaviour and physical inactivity are major health concerns, but research comparing messages that promote either a reduction in sedentary behaviour or an increase in physical activity is limited, especially those that also examine changes in their related cognitions. The purpose of this study was to test the impact of a sedentary behaviour reduction message versus a physical activity promotion message on behaviour-specific cognitions (e.g., self-efficacy and intentions). Participants (N = 64) were randomly shown either a sedentary behaviour (n = 31) or physical activity message (n = 33), and then reported their intentions and task self-efficacy for each behaviour. Effect size calculations (Cohen's d and partial eta square) were conducted to examine changes in sedentary behaviour and physical activity intentions from pre- to post-message exposure and post-message differences on sedentary behaviour and physical activity task self-efficacy. Regarding intentions, participants who read either message increased their physical activity and sedentary behaviour intentions (Cohen's d = .54 and .66, respectively); however, this change occurred irrespective of the message they read (partial eta square = .01 and .03, respectively). No post-message differences were found between message groups on physical activity task self-efficacy (Cohen's d = .13) and sedentary behaviour task self-efficacy (Cohen's d = .08). We observed that both sedentary behaviour and physical activity messages can influence intentions related to sedentary behaviour and physical activity. Thus, cognitions related to sedentary behaviour and physical activity do not appear to change only in response to a behaviour-specific message. More research is needed to examine the most effective strategies to independently target behaviour-specific cognitions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".