Cancer prevention as a source of exercise motivation: An experimental test using protection motivation theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined whether cancer prevention is a meaningful source of exercise motivation using Protection Motivation Theory (PMT). Participants were 427 undergraduate students randomly assigned to read one of 16 persuasive communications that independently manipulated perceived vulnerability (PV), perceived severity (PS), response efficacy (RE) and self-efficacy (SE). A factorial ANOVA indicated a significant main effect for PS and a significant interaction between PS and RE. The interaction was such that individuals who were led to believe that colon cancer was a severe disease (high PS) were more motivated to exercise if they also believed that exercise was effective (high RE) as opposed to ineffective (low RE) in reducing their risk of colon cancer. Conversely, individuals led to believe that colon cancer was not a very severe disease (low PS) were not differentially motivated to exercise based on their RE beliefs. It was concluded that cancer prevention may be a meaningful source of exercise motivation but that further research is required to determine the replicability and generalizability of these results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".