Effects of fitspiration on believability and intention to exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although Fitspiration is purportedly intended to motivate people to be fit and healthy, a body of research has demonstrated negative effects of these media in men and women. Understanding mechanisms can help create more targeted interventions aimed at mitigating the negative effects of Fitspiration. This research examined if selected implicitly or explicitly measured constructs moderated or mediated the effects of Fitspiration. The purposes were to examine the believability (finding the media truthful) of Fitspiration (study one; data from 139 women and 125 men aged 18-33 years were analyzed), the effects of Fitspiration on exercise intention (study two; data from 195 women and 173 men aged 18-30 years were analyzed), and whether these effects were moderated by exercise-related cognitive errors (negatively biased perception of exercise) or mediated by implicit (evaluative responses to stimuli) or explicit (reasoned evaluation of stimuli) attitudes. Methods: In two separate studies, self-identified men and women first completed a measure of exercise-related cognitive errors, then viewed gender-specific Fitspiration media, followed by measures of implicit attitudes, explicit attitudes, believability, and demographics. In study two, participants were randomly assigned to Fitspiration or control media conditions and also completed measures of fitspiration-related cognitive errors and intention to exercise. In the first study, one model was tested for each gender sample. It was hypothesized that implicit and explicit attitudes would be positively related to believability, and that exercise-related cognitive errors would moderate these relationships. In study two, separate models were tested with exercise-related or Fitspiration-related cognitive errors as the moderators with each gender sample. It was hypothesized that implicit attitudes, explicit attitudes, and believability would be positively related to intention, that the control media would lead to greater intention to exercise than the Fitspiration media, and that exercise-related cognitive errors and Fitspiration-related cognitive errors would moderate these relationships. Results: The majority of hypothesized relationships were not supported. A negative relationship between exercise-related cognitive errors and believability was found. Discussion: Overall, these studies identify and exclude factors that predict Fitspiration believability and the role that factors such as cognitive errors and attitudes may play in that.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".