Exploring determinants of brand extension attitude to promote optimal levels of movement among children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Some health behaviour promotion organizations are interested in promoting multiple behaviours to increase their health impact on a population. However, many of these organizations are better known for promoting only certain behaviours. The purpose of this study is to examine responses to an organization with a narrow brand (i.e. ParticipACTION) in its promotion of the different recommended movement-related behaviours (i.e. sleep, limited sedentary behaviour [SB], light physical activity [PA] and moderate to vigorous PA) to children. Potential brand-related determinants of attitude towards promotion of each behaviour (i.e. extension attitude) were specifically examined. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected in 2017 using an online cross-sectional survey. Canadian parents with at least one child 5–12 years of age (N = 109) were recruited through online advertisements and word-of-mouth. One multiple regression per behaviour was conducted. Extension attitude was the dependent variable and brand attitude, fit and the interaction between brand attitude and fit were the predictors. Findings For light and moderate PA, brand attitude was a strong predictor. For limited SB and sleep, fit was the dominant predictor. However, for light and moderate PA and limited SB, an interaction indicated that a positive brand attitude and the perception of high fit between the brand and the behaviour leads to the most positive extension attitude. Practical implications The findings suggest that movement promotion organizations should ensure parents have a positive brand attitude and have high perceptions of fit between the brand and the promoted behaviour. Originality/value This study provides the first evidence that determinants of brand extension attitude observed in the commercial domain also apply in the movement promotion domain. This research provides important information to organizations regarding how to effectively promote various behaviours when interested in expanding their usual repertoire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".