4.3 Article

Ease of imagination, message framing, and physical activity messages

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 197-211

出版社

BRITISH PSYCHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1348/135910709X447811

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. The purpose of this research was to replicate a study that examined how message framing and ease of imagination interact to influence attitudes towards the prevention of heart disease through physical activity and a healthy diet. Changes were made such that only physical activity behaviour was profiled and assessed as a moderating variable. It was hypothesized that gain-framed messages would positively influence attitudes with hard to imagine symptoms, that loss-framed messages would positively influence attitudes with easy to imagine symptoms and exercise frequency would moderate the findings. Design. This study employed a 2 ( easy or hard to imagine symptoms) by 2 (gain- or loss-framed) Solomon square design whereby participants, half of whom completed a pre-test, were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: easy to imagine/gain-framed, hard to imagine/gain-framed, easy to imagine/loss-framed, or hard to imagine/loss-framed. Methods. Participants included adults over the age of 55 years (N = 57) and undergraduate students (18-22 years; N = 118). They were described either hard to imagine or easy to imagine symptoms of heart disease and diabetes and asked to imagine them. Participants then read either a gain- or loss-framed physical activity message followed by post-test questionnaires that assessed attitudes, exercise frequency, and demographics. Results. Regression analyses showed no significant framing effects but significant effects for ease of imagination and exercise frequency as a moderating variable. Conclusions. This study failed to replicate the original research findings but showed that participants who exercised the least and were in the hard to imagine condition had the worst attitudes towards physical activity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据