Theory-Based Interventions Combining Mental Simulation and Planning Techniques to Improve Physical Activity: Null Results from Two Randomized Controlled Trials
Carine Meslot, Aurélie Gauchet, Benoît Allenet, Olivier François, Martin S. Hagger
Abstract
Interventions to assist individuals in initiating and maintaining regular participation in physical activity are not always effective. Psychological and behavioral theories advocate the importance of both motivation and volition in interventions to change health behavior. Interventions adopting self-regulation strategies that foster motivational and volitional components may, therefore, have utility in promoting regular physical activity participation. We tested the efficacy of an intervention adopting motivational (mental simulation) and volitional (implementation intentions) components to promote a regular physical activity in two studies. Study 1 adopted a cluster randomized design in which participants (n = 92) were allocated to one of three conditions: mental simulation plus implementation intention, implementation intention only, or control. Study 2 adopted a 2 (mental simulation vs. no mental simulation) × 2 (implementation intention vs. no implementation intention) randomized controlled design in which fitness center attendees (n = 184) were randomly allocated one of four conditions: mental simulation only, implementation intention only, combined, or control. Physical activity behavior was measured by self-report (Study 1) or fitness center attendance (Study 2) at 4- (Studies 1 and 2) and 19- (Study 2 only) week follow-up periods. Findings revealed no statistically significant main or interactive effects of the mental simulation and implementation intention conditions on physical activity outcomes in either study. Findings are in contrast to previous research which has found pervasive effects for both intervention strategies. Findings are discussed in light of study limitations including the relatively small sample sizes, particularly for Study 1, deviations in the operationalization of the intervention components from previous research and the lack of a prompt for a goal intention. Future research should focus on ensuring uniformity in the format of the intervention components, test the effects of each component alone and in combination using standardized measures across multiple samples, and systematically explore effects of candidate moderators.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 February 2017.
All research outputs
#8,663,368
of 26,343,220 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,355
of 35,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,337
of 290,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#207
of 417 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,343,220 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,182 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 290,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 417 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
