FlashReportImplementation intentions for physical activity in supportive and unsupportive environmental conditions: An experimental examination of intention–behavior consistency
Highlights
► We examined the impact of implementation intentions on intention–behavior consistency for physical activity behavior. ► Implementation intentions were most facilitative of intention–behavior consistency in unsupportive environmental conditions. ► The beneficial impact of implementation intentions was selective to those with initially low executive control resources.
Introduction
Behavioral intention is among the most well-studied predictors of health behavior (Godin & Kok, 1996). Despite this, there have been misgivings about its role as an exclusive proximal determinant. For instance, Webb and Sheeran (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of experimental studies of intention–behavior relationships, and found that moderate-to-large changes in intention resulted in only small-to-moderate changes in subsequent behavior. Moreover, the potency of the intention effect was subject to modification based on a number of other variables, including controllability of the behavior and habit strength. Specifically, increases in behavioral intention were more likely to cause increases in subsequent behavior when the behavior had weak behavioral precedent (i.e., low habit strength) or when the behavior was under the control of the individual (Webb & Sheeran, 2006).
Although some facets of control exist on the level of perception, other facets have a neurobiological basis and may exert their effects on behavior at a level that is not always consciously appreciated by the individual. Executive control resources (ECRs), for example, are thought to arise from operation of the prefrontal cortext and associated neural systems (Miller & Cohen, 2001). Though there are several conceptualizations of the units that underlie ECRs, most would agree that they are minimally composed of inhibitory, working memory and attentional set shifting abilities (Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, & Howerter, 2000).
To date, studies have implicated low ECRs (or suboptimal function of the brain regions that support them) in medication non-adherence (Hinkin et al., 2002), poor dietary choice (Allan et al., 2010, Hall, in press), physical inactivity/non-adherence (Hall et al., 2008, McAuley, 2011) and poor sleep hygiene (Hall, Elias, & Crossley, 2006). They have also found a place in recent theoretical models of health behavior (Hall and Fong, 2007, Hofmann et al., 2008). Although ECRs can be adversely affected by incidental factors (e.g., sleep deprivation, alcohol ingestion), individual differences in trait ECRs among cognitively intact individuals are subject to high genetic heritability (Friedman et al., 2008). As such, compensatory strategies that enhance intention–behavior consistency might be useful for those with low ECRs.
Implementation intentions are simple “if–then” plans that specify where and when an action is to be performed (Gollwitzer, 1999, Sheeran et al., 2007). These plans have been shown to be effective for facilitating a variety of behaviors, and typically outperform simply articulating the nature of the goal itself. Implementation intentions are thought to work by increasing the saliency of action cues, and therefore making people more likely to act when relevant opportunities present themselves (Webb & Sheeran, 2006).
Given their demonstrated facilitating effect for health protective behaviors (e.g., Armitage, 2004, Sheeran and Orbell, 2000), implementation intentions constitute a strategy that might serve to bolster self-regulatory success among those with low ECRs, particularly when behaviors are difficult to implement. Physical activity is one such behavior, and indeed implementation intentions have been shown to be effective interventions for facilitating physical activity among both healthy (Prestwich, Perugini, & Hurling, 2010) and clinical (Latimer, Ginis, & Arbour, 2006) populations, although there have been a few exceptions (e.g., Buddin & Sagarin, 2007). A recent meta-analysis concluded that the overall effect size of implementation intentions for increasing physical activity is .31, a small-to-medium sized effect, with greater effects documented in young adult samples and when barrier management is included in the implementation intention strategy (Blanger-Gravel, Godin, & Amireault, 2011).
Because implementation intentions are designed to enhance the individual's ability to respond to opportunities to act, and develop plans for overcoming obstacles, it is possible that one moderator of implementation intention efficacy is the ease of implementation of the behavior in question (Brandstatter et al., 2001, Dewitte et al., 2003, Gollwitzer and Brandstatter, 1997). Put differently, when behaviors must be implemented in environmental contexts that are unsupportive, implementation intentions should have stronger effects. With respect to physical activity, one very important cyclical factor that can affect ease of implementation is seasonal weather patterns, and this is particularly true in parts of the world that experience cold temperatures and snow during part of the year. This seasonal variation introduces a number of new barriers (e.g., locating indoor venues, use of specialized equipment, etc.) and intensifies the amount of planning required to enact an intention to be physically active over the course of a given week.
In the current set of studies, we randomly assigned individuals to receive implementation intentions or control conditions under activity-supportive (summer season; Study 1) and activity non-supportive (winter season; Study 2) environmental conditions, and examined intention–behavior consistency in each group as a function of ECR level. We hypothesized that low ECR participants in the physical activity implementation intention conditions would demonstrate stronger intention–behavior relationships than the no treatment or control conditions, but that the effects would be more pronounced under non-supportive environmental conditions (i.e., winter season) than supportive conditions (i.e., summer season).
Section snippets
Study 1
In Study 1, we aimed to test the impact of implementation intentions on intention–behavior consistency for physical activity in a relatively supportive environmental context (during the summer season in Canada). Prior studies had suggested that ECR can influence physical activity behavior directly (Hall et al., 2006), indirectly through other social-cognitive constructs (McAuley et al., 2011), and as a moderating influence on intention–behavior relationship (Hall et al., 2008). Given that
Participants
A total of 276 participants were recruited from undergraduate classes in the social sciences; each was given credit toward their grade or a gift certificate as reimbursement for time and effort. Three participants were excluded due to non-completion of the baseline (n = 2) or follow-up (n = 1) physical activity measures; leaving a final study sample of 273 participants (Table 1).
Procedure
Upon arrival at the laboratory, participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: 1) implementation
Results
Analysis of group characteristics revealed that the three study conditions did not differ with respect to participant age (F(2,236) = 1.654, p = .194), gender composition (F(2,237) = .055, p = .946), relationship status (F(2,237) = .035, p = 966) or BMI (F(2,231) = .002, p = .998). The groups also did not differ significantly in terms of baseline intention strength for physical activity (F(2,237) = .273, p = 761), baseline physical activity behavior (F(2,237) = .273, p = 761), GNGL reaction times (F(2,232) = .662, p =
Study 2
In Study 2, we aimed to examine the same research question as in Study 1 using a similarly uniform sample of young adult participants, but in this case during unsupportive environmental conditions that are more typical of Canadian winters (cold temperatures, moderate precipitation in the form of snow). We hypothesized that in contrast with Study 1, the use of implementation intentions should selectively improve intention–behavior consistency among low ECR participants. As such, we hypothesized
Results
The experimental and control group participants did not differ from each other with respect to demographic variables, including age (F(1,118) = .160, p = .690), gender (F(1,118) = 696, p = .406), and relationship status (F(1,116) = .012, p = .913) or with respect to BMI (F(1,113) = .534, p = .466). The two groups also did not differ with respect to baseline physical activity behavior (F(1,113) = 1.649, p = .202), intention strength for physical activity (F(1,115) = .320, p = .573) or performance on the GNGL (F(1,115) =
General discussion
In the current investigation we found evidence for differential effects of implementation intentions on physical activity as a function of environmental conditions. In Study 1, conducted in the summer months, ECR moderated the prospective relationship between intention strength and actual performance of physical activity behavior over a 1-week interval. This moderating effect was robust to adjustment for past behavior and simple reaction time. However, provision of implementation intentions did
Conclusion
In conclusion, we found evidence that implementation intentions for physical activity may facilitate intention behavior correspondence for those with relatively lower ECRs. However, this beneficial effect only occurs when the ecological context makes implementation challenging (Study 2) and not when the ecological context is relatively supportive (Study 1). Future studies should examine the mechanism by which implementation intentions facilitate self-regulatory success differentially in low
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by an operating grant to the first author from the Social Sciences and Humanities and Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).
References (27)
- et al.
Unintentional eating. What determines goal-incongruent chocolate consumption?
Appetite
(2010) - et al.
Self-regulatory processes and exercise adherence in older adults: Executive function and self-efficacy effects
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
(2011) - et al.
The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis
Cognitive Psychology
(2000) - et al.
How do implementation intentions promote goal attainment? A test of component processes
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2007) Evidence that implementation intentions reduce dietary fat intake: A randomized trial
Health Psychology
(2004)- et al.
A meta-analytic review of the effect of implementation intentions on physical activity
Health Psychology Review
(2011) - et al.
Implementation intentions and efficient action initiation
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
(2001) - et al.
Implementation intentions, occupational stress, and the exercise intention–behavior relationship
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
(2007) - et al.
Implementation intentions do not enhance all types of goals: The moderating role of goal difficulty
Current Psychology
(2003) - et al.
Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General
(2008)
The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors
American Journal of Health Promotion
Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans
The American Psychologist
Intentions and effective goal pursuit
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cited by (34)
Degree of reasoned action predicts increased intentional control and reduced habitual control over health behaviors
2019, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :For instance, DRA could be associated with greater temporal stability of intention, and studies indicate that intention stability moderates intention-behavior relations and the past behavior-behavior relation (Cooke and Sheeran, 2004; Sheeran and Webb, 2016; Sheeran et al., 1999). DRA could also be a marker for executive function (EF), and there is evidence that greater EF is associated with improved translation of intentions into action and also improved capacity to inhibit habitual behaviors (Goldstein and Volkow, 2002; Hall et al., 2008, 2012). It is also possible that DRA could promote strategic self-regulation processes such as self-monitoring or if-then planning that have been shown to increase intentional control over health behaviors and reduce habitual control (Adriaanse et al., 2010; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2006; Harkin et al., 2016; Quinn et al., 2010).
Are older individuals predisposed to habitual control more resilient?
2024, Current PsychologyRelationship Between Criminal Intention and Criminal Behavior
2023, Journal of Police and Criminal PsychologyActivation Versus Change as a Principle Underlying Intervention Strategies to Promote Health Behaviors
2023, Annals of Behavioral MedicineEXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS LEARNING
2022, MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems