Affective mental contrasting to enhance physical activity: A randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Transition to university is a vulnerable period for discontinuing regular physical activity that can have implications for students' physical and psychological health. Accordingly, it is imperative to find and implement cost and time-effective interventions to mitigate the consequences of this transition. Intervention research has shown mental contrasting is an effective means of promoting various health-enhancing behaviors including physical activity. However, the efficacy of this intervention approach may be bolstered by targeting affective judgments (e.g., enjoyable-unenjoyable), which exert greater influence on physical activity behaviors compared to health-related instrumental judgments (e.g., useful-useless). The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of a mental contrasting intervention that targeted affective judgments associated with physical activity, in relation to a mental contrasting intervention that targeted instrumental judgments, and a "standard" mental contrasting intervention (with no modifications). METHOD: Using a 3-arm parallel randomized controlled trial design (ClinicalTrials.gov Number NCT02615821), 110 insufficiently active, female, university students were randomly assigned to an affective, instrumental, or standard mental contrasting intervention following simple randomization procedures. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 4 weeks postintervention. RESULTS: Participants in the affective mental contrasting condition displayed higher levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity than those in the instrumental or standard comparison conditions, F(2, 90) = 3.14, p < .05, ηp2 = 0.065. CONCLUSION: Overall, affective mental contrasting has the potential to represent a low-cost and time-efficient intervention that may help insufficiently active, female students increase activity or attenuate declining levels of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity that occurs during university. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".