Motivational Message Framing Effects on Physical Activity Dynamics in a Digital Messaging Intervention: Secondary Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital smartphone messaging can be used to promote physical activity to large populations with limited cost. It is not clear which psychological constructs should be targeted by digital messages to promote physical activity. This gap presents a challenge for developing optimal content for digital messaging interventions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare affectively framed and social cognitively framed messages on subsequent changes in physical activity using dynamical modeling techniques. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected from a digital messaging intervention in insufficiently active young adults (18-29 years) recruited between April 2019 and July 2020 who wore a Fitbit smartwatch for 6 months. Participants received 0 to 6 messages at random per day across the intervention period. Messages were drawn from 3 content libraries: affectively framed, social cognitively framed, or inspirational quotes. Person-specific dynamical models were identified, and model features of impulse response and cumulative step response were extracted for comparison. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVAs evaluated the main effects and interaction of message type and day type on model features. This early-phase work with novel dynamic features may have been underpowered to detect differences between message types so results were interpreted descriptively. RESULTS: Messages (n=20,689) were paired with valid physical activity monitoring data from 45 participants for analysis. Received messages were distributed as 40% affective (8299/20,689 messages), 39% social-cognitive (8187/20,689 messages), and 20% inspirational quotes (4219/20,689 messages). There were no statistically significant main effects for message type when evaluating the steady state of step responses. Participants demonstrated heterogeneity in intervention response: some had their strongest responses to affectively framed messages, some had their strongest responses to social cognitively framed messages, and some had their strongest responses to the inspirational quote messages. CONCLUSIONS: No single type of digital message content universally promotes physical activity. Future work should evaluate the effects of multiple message types so that content can be continuously tuned based on person-specific responses to each message type.
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 | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".