The influence of health magazine messaging on intentions to exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The public is inundated with media messaging, much of which readers of health and fitness magazines perceive to be credible. The impact of commercial media messaging on physical activity behaviors is not widely understood. This research made use of a naturalistic approach to examining fitness magazine messages on exercise cognitions and behaviours. The relationship between perceived credibility of popular fitness magazine articles and attitudes, perceived behavioural control (PBC), intention, and exercise behaviour was examined. A pretest posttest approach was used. University undergraduate volunteer participants (N=151) were randomized to one of two groups. Group A read a popular fitness magazine article and Group B read a science magazine article, both presented in situ. Participants in both groups completed a baseline questionnaire, received an article to read, completed posttest measures immediately, and then again one week later at follow-up. An ANOVA showed Group A reported a significantly higher perception of article credibility than Group B (F (1, 148) = 7.14, p = .00). An RM MANOVA examining the effects of the intervention over time on study variables showed there was no effect for group (condition), but there was a significant effect for time (F ( 4, 144) = 3.46, p = .01, eta2 = .08) and a group by time interaction (F (4, 144) = 2.42, p = .05, eta2 = .06). The key variable was PBC, with Group B reporting higher control beliefs. The findings of this research may indicate that a one-time exposure to commercial fitness magazines may be insufficient at influencing exercise cognitions and behaviours.Acknowledgments: Athabasca University, Mount Royal University
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".