Theory of Reasoned Action as a Framework for Communicating Climate Risk: A Case Study of Schoolchildren in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicating climate risks to vulnerable groups motivating them to take adaptive actions remains a significant challenge in many populations, especially to children. The theory of reasoned action (TRA) suggests that attitude and subjective norms are important for persuasive communication. This study assesses how to apply TRA, its constructs and other relevant factors to predict behavior intention and beliefs and to change behavior tendency. The randomized field experiment method was applied to explore the differences between pre- and post-communication treatments (2 × 2 design). Can Tho city, located in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, was selected as the research context because of its vulnerability to climate change. The results show that, first, TRA was found to be a significant predictor model of children’s climate change behavior intentions. Second, attitude has a significant effect on the children’s intention to act while videos with subjective norm treatment had not. The treatment interaction of both constructs also had a significant effect. Third, TRA theory-based treatments are positively associated with changes in children’ salient beliefs on attitude and normative belief on social norm toward climate change. In addition, past practices, knowledge and gender are further factors that influence children’s behavior intentions. A theory-inspired design of communication strategy allows the prediction and influencing of intentions. This finding has strong implications for both research and development in Vietnam.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".