Toward developing an environmental efficacy construct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to propose environmental efficacy as the perception of social, physical resource and temporal factors at one’s disposal that promote or impede behavior. In this exploratory study, four focus groups and a two-country survey provide support for a new environmental efficacy construct as an adjunct to self and response efficacies. Design/methodology/approach This research examines environmental efficacy within the context of workplace safety. The research engaged participants from four focus groups as well as a survey of 358 young Canadian males and 494 young American males to test the proposed construct. Findings First, qualitative responses from the focus groups supported environmental efficacy as a viable construct. Second, a factor analysis demonstrated environmental efficacy is distinct from self- and response efficacies. Third, regressions demonstrated that environmental efficacy predicts motivation to act, above and beyond self- and response efficacies. Research limitations/implications As an exploratory study, only a limited number of scale items were included. The research was conducted within the workplace safety context, using young males, and the stimuli involved the use of fear appeals. These restrictions warrant additional research in the area of environmental efficacy. Practical implications This study suggests that further development of the environmental efficacy construct may offer social marketers a more effective means of identifying and addressing barriers to desired behavior change. Such a measure should allow social marketers to improve understanding of the importance of environmental forces. Originality/value This research introduces a novel concept, environmental efficacy, and demonstrates that it is a distinctive and useful concept for understanding motivation to act. This concept is potentially valuable to social marketers seeking to enhance the effectiveness of their programs. It offers a tool to help identify barriers that can thwart the effectiveness of interventions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".