Health Behaviours

Front 1

Limited Resource Model

Back 1

Muraven & Baumeister 2000, SC is like a muscle, weakens with effort, can be strengthened through training

Front 2

Radishes or Chocolate Chips

Back 2

Muraven & Baumeister 1998, Choc chip last longer in unsolvable puzzles

Front 3

Ice Cream Eating Study

Back 3

Vohs & Heatherton 2000, emotion suppression task leads to twice as much ice cream consumed

Front 4

Repeated Self-Regulatory Exercises

Back 4

Oaten & Cheng 2006, Training in self-regulation exercises lead to increased performance

Front 5

Children wait for marshmallow or not

Back 5

Metcalfe & Mischel 1999, Delay of Gratification

Front 6

Hot/Cool System

Back 6

Metcalfe & Mischel 1999, Hot "go" impulsive reflexive, Cool "know" slow reflective, required for self-control

Front 7

Cybernetic Control Theory

Back 7

Carver & Scheier 2000, feedback loops, Standard, Monitoring, Operate. Negative- reduce gap, Positive- increase gap.

Front 8

TOTE

Back 8

Miller et al 1960, Test-Operate-Test-Exit

Front 9

Health Belief Model

Back 9

Threat Motivation (Susceptibility/Severity), Response Effectiveness (Benefits/Costs), Health Motivation

Front 10

4 core beliefs are significant predictors of behaviour HBM

Back 10

Jazz & Becker, 1984

Front 11

Severity, very weak correlation, .08

Costs, weak, .21

Susceptibility, weak, .15

Benefits, weak, .13

Back 11

Harrison et al, 1992

Front 12

Protection Motivation Theory

Back 12

Threat Appraisal (vulnerability/severity/extrinsic/intrinsic rewards), Coping Appraisal (Response Costs/ Response/Self Efficacy) leads to protection motivation

Front 13

Threat Appraisal Effect Size, PMT

Back 13

Small to Medium

Front 14

Coping Appraisal Effect Size, PMT

Back 14

Medium to Large

Front 15

Small to Medium effect size when behaviour is outcome over protection motivation

Back 15

Milne et al 2000

Front 16

Theory of Planned Behaviour

Back 16

Attitude (beliefs/evaluations of outcomes), Subjective Norm (Normative beliefs/Motivation to comply), Perceived Behavioural Control (likelihood of occurrence/facilitating/inhibiting power) leads to behaviour intention

Front 17

Attitude, Subjective Norm, PBC correlation

Back 17

Medium with behaviour intention, when pooled large effect size. Intention 2nd largest indicator of behaviour. McEachan et al 2011

Front 18

McEachan correlation results similar to those of

Back 18

Godin & Kok 1996

Front 19

Two Factor TPB

Back 19

Attitude (Affective/Cognitive), Subjective Norm (Injunctive/Descriptive), PBC (Perceived Control/Confidence)

Front 20

Should TPB be retired? Most say improve it.

Back 20

Sniehotta et al 2014

Front 21

Cervical Smear Attendance

Back 21

Sheehan & Orbel 2000, attendance increased from 69% to 92% from II

Front 22

Women who have unrealistic goals less likely to lose weight

Back 22

Linde et al 2004

Front 23

Goal Characteristics

Back 23

Mann, de Ridder, Fujita 2013

Aimlessness vs Overly Rigid

Approach vs Avoidance

LT vs ST

Performance vs Mastery

Front 24

Saturated Fat Intake Reduction II

Back 24

Luszczynska et al 2007, II group had significantly greater reduction in saturated fat intake after 6 months cf control group

Front 25

Types of II

Back 25

Negation (don't think/do temptation), Ignore cue (I won't feel sad), Replacement (I'll do something other than temptation)

Front 26

Cognitive Rebound Effect Study #1

Back 26

Adriaanse et al 2011, Accessibility of situation-response heightened for Negation II group over goal intention group

Front 27

Cognitive Rebound Effect Study #2

Back 27

Adriaanse et al 2011, Negation II group had shorter RT to critical target words than other II groups

Front 28

Behaviour Rebound Effect Study #1

Back 28

Adriaanse et al 2011, Negation group had higher caloric intake, ate more unhealthy food, and had lower self-perceived success in reducing chocolate consumption

Front 29

Behaviour Rebound Effect Study #2

Back 29

Adriaanse et al 2011, Negation leads to higher caloric intake from unhealthy snacks for those with strong habits cf Replacement and Control

Front 30

II Effect Sizes

Back 30

Meta-analyses show a range of .54 to .70 in 4 analyses

Front 31

II effective in promoting goal achievement in students, the public, the physically ill, and especially effective for those with psychological problems

Back 31

Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006

Front 32

Counteractive Control Theory

Back 32

Trobe & Fishbach 2000

Front 33

Counteractive control Study #1

Back 33

Fishbach et al 2003, RTs to goal-related target words were faster when subliminally primed by a self-reported temptation cf when the prime and target were reversed

Front 34

Counteractive control Study #2

Back 34

Fishbach et al 2003, ppns with high subjective importance of dieting and high SR success were shown to have faster RT to goal-related words when subliminally primed with tempting food words cf all other configurations of SR success and dieting importance

Front 35

Counteractive control Study #3

Back 35

Fishbach et al 2003, dieting women were primed by either diet, fattening food, or control words and then offered an apple or a twix. The temptation group had faster RT and higher goal intentions than the other groups

Front 36

II in unsuccessful dieters Study #1

Back 36

Kroese et al 2011, II significantly increased self-reported SR success over 1 week cf successful dieters

Front 37

II in unsuccessful dieters Study #2

Back 37

Kroese et al 2011, II group had faster RT to goal-related words when primed with "chocolate", and consumed less chocolate over 1 week cf control group

Front 38

Pie Chart Nudge Study

Back 38

Salmon et al 2014, ppns choose healthy option when told most others chose it also, if their self-control is low.

Front 39

Pringles Study

Back 39

Geier et al 2012, putting red chips at intervals led to fewer chips being consumed, with chip intervals negatively correlating with chips consumed

Front 40

Menu items Study

Back 40

Rozin et al 2011, menu item position changes order rate.

Front 41

Food Accessibility Study

Back 41

Dayan et al 2012, decreasing access to food reduces consumption by 8-16%

Front 42

Goal Disengagement in older adults

Back 42

Dunne et al 2011, older adults who have low goal disengagement show increases in depressive symptoms as functional disability increases

Front 43

Caregiver burden Study

Back 43

Wrosch et al 2013, in caregivers, high goal disengagement leads to lower depressive symptoms and caregiver burden, and higher goal re-engagement leads to higher caregiver burden and purpose in life

Front 44

Effects of Goal Disengagement

Back 44

Wrosch et al 2013, goal disengagement reduces negative emotion states (depressive symptoms), and ameliorate patterns of biological dysregulation and physical health problems if people experience unattainable goals