132 Can exposure to framed messages about safety reduce risk behaviours by school-aged children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Statement of Purpose</h3> The current study aimed to determine whether delivering framed safety messages (gain-framed, loss-framed, and no frame) in poster format reduced physical risk-taking behaviours when children were in a positive mood. Previous research has shown that when in an elevated positive mood state, children engage in more risk behaviours than when in a neutral mood state, which leads to greater risk of injury (Morrongiello <i>et al</i>., 2014). Research in this area is particularly important for school-aged children, who are becoming increasingly independent and more vulnerable to injury outside of the home (Morrongiello <i>et al</i>., 2013). <h3>Method/Approach</h3> 28 children (7–9 years old) were exposed to a message (gain-frame, loss-frame, or no frame (control) message) regarding play behaviours on a specific risk-taking measure (an obstacle course). Children’s risk-taking was measured before and after a positive mood has been induced, and the impact of framed safety messaging on risk-taking behaviours was examined. <h3>Results</h3> Results indicated the positive mood induction was successful and led to increased risk taking when participants were in a positive mood. Both gain- and loss- framed messages differentially counteracted this mood effect and led to reduced risk taking, but the loss-framed message reduced risky behaviours to a level significantly lower than the participants’ baseline risk-taking behaviours. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Results demonstrate that even in a positive mood, children can be influenced to engage in safer play behaviours with the use of message framing (particularly loss-framed messaging). <h3>Significance and Contributions to Injury and Violence Prevention Science</h3> Given that physical risk taking was mitigated by framed safety posters (particularly loss-framed posters) even when children were in a positive mood, framed posters may be a cost-effective and useful intervention in places like public parks, where children are often happy and inclined to engage in increased risk-taking.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".