Bad Habits Flashcards
- Friese et al. (2016), implicit alcohol attitudes and drinking behaviour moderated by lPFC
- AIM: alcohol is guided by impulsive processes (dual-process model). High baseline lPFC activation is associated with self-control. Explored how baseline lPFC moderates relationship between implicit alcohol attitudes and drinking.
- METHOD: n=89 who were moderate drinkers: 1) baseline lPFC activity measured with EEG; 2) single category IAT, questionnaire on drinking habits, and AUDIT.
- RESULTS: a positive association between IAT score and drinking (but more strongly for low-baseline lPFC activity).
- CONCLUSION: dual-process model: impulsivity = drinking.
- Gibson et al. (2020), interventions to reduce adolescents sexual risk behaviour
- AIM: tested effectiveness of motivational interviewing vs. behavioural skill training (IV) in reducing sexual risk behaviours.
- METHODS: n=262 16 y.o. (mean) from juvie justice programs. IV = group, 3 DV = measured thrice (pre/post/3 months): theoretical mechanisms (sexual attitudes, self-efficacy etc.), sexual behaviour (freq. unprotected sex), and condom use.
- RESULTS: regarding condom use, both groups increase positive attitudes, self-efficacy, and behaviour, neither group increased perceived norm.
- CONCLUSION: interventions have alike mechanisms = use transdiagnostic mechanisms in future treatment interventions.
- Halpern et al. (2015), 4 financial-incentives for smoking cessation
- AIM: test effectiveness of monetary incentives in smoking cessation.
- METHOD: n=2538 smokers. 2x2 design: group (of 6) vs. individual interventions x 800$ reward if successful vs. 150$ refundable deposit + 650$ reward if successful, but lose deposit if unsuccessful (reward vs. reward + punishment).
- RESULTS: acceptance rate of intervention: reward-based = 90%; deposit-based = 13.7%. All incentives conditions were significantly more successful than normal care at 6 & 12 months, no sig. diff. between any 2x2 groups.
- CONCLUSION: people are most willing to join reward-based programs, ergo more successful.
- Schyns et al. (2020), exposure therapy vs. lifestyle intervention for obesity
- AIM: test effectiveness of exposure therapy (8 sessions) vs lifestyle intervention (usual treatment) on decreasing food cue reactivity in obese people.
- METHOD: n=45 overweight women. IV = treatment; 4 DV = snacking, eating psychopathology, food cue reactivity, and weight loss. ET focused on CS-US expectancy change.
- RESULTS: ET group significantly reduced body weight (2%), snacking, and binge eating freq. vs. control.
- Verplanken & Roy (2016), Habit Discontinuity Hypothesis and sustainable lifestyles
- AIM: test practical effectiveness of HDH (people are more susceptible to interventions during life changes).
- METHOD: n=800, 2x2 design: sustainability intervention vs. control x recently relocated household vs. no relocation. Intervention = personal interview, sustainable goodie bag, green directory, and newsletter. Measured self-reported frequencies of 25 environmental behaviours at baseline and 8 weeks.
- RESULTS: interaction effect between intervention and relocation. Effectiveness of life change dwells after 3 months - in support of HDH.
- Guerrieri et al. (2016), interaction impulsivity and varied food environment
- AIM: test if obesogenic environment + impulsivity = overeating.
- METHOD: n=78 8-10 y.o.
2x2x2 design (IV): low vs. high reward sensitivity x low vs. high response inhibition x monotonous vs. varied food environment. Main DV = caloric intake during taste test. Also tested impulsivity & BMI. - RESULTS: reward sensitivity interacted with environment (high sensitivity + obesogenic environment = more caloric intake). Not reward sensitivity, but response inhibition linked to overweight.
- CONCLUSION: reward sensitivity could cause overeating in an obesogenic environment, and low response inhibition may maintain overeating.
3 executive function abilities
- updating
- inhibition
- task-switching
- goal shifting (bad)
- means shifting (good)
Executive function and eating behaviours
EF contributes to self-regulation of eating behaviour by moderating the relationship between intention and behaviour. Interventions should target all EF abilities rather than just one
Dual-system model of healthy behaviour (aka reflective-impulsive model)
- reflective processes
- impulsive processes
- self-control (inhibiting impulses & transforming reflective processes into actions).
*note; activated schemata can be consistent (impulse and reflection align) or inconsistent (they compete).
3 behavioural change techniques
- changing contents of impulsive system by changing: automatic associations, attentional biases, and approach tendencies (joystick task)
- improving self-control by practicing executive functioning (go/no-go task)
- changing contents of reflective system: increase self-efficacy and motvation etc.
Situational & dispositional moderators of the dual-system
Situational: M&M study - depletion of self-regulatory resources (+high dietary restraint standards) positively associated with M&M consumption = ego-depletion & counterregulation effect.
Dispositional: trait self-control and working memory capacity
Theory of planned behaviour
Behaviour is based on intention, which in turn is influenced by attitudes, percieved norms, and self-efficacy.
Bridging the gap between reflective and impulsive system
The impulsive system is always active whereas the reflective system can be inactive. Whenever the reflective system is activated, it works parallel to the impulsive system - they are not diametrically opposed.
Bidirectionality of behaviour and cognition
Cognition can activate new behavioural schemata, and action too can activate new cognitive pathways.
Mode model
Similair to RIM, has spontaneous and deliberate processing mode. Argues that for the activation of the deliberate processes, one needs both motivation and oppertunity.
Theory of planned behaviour pros and cons
Pros: is widely used/recognized, is meant to predict intentions based on attitudes, self-efficacy, and norms, is meant to enable not motivate, and can be used in behaviour change programs.
Cons: often fails to predict behaviour, assumes behaviour is based on intentions rather than impulses, lack of consistent support for its effectiveness in behaviour change programns.
Reasoned action approach
Basis of TPB but includes external variables (e.g. environment, personality traits, and demographic) as influencing components of TPB. It also adds actual control as a mediator between self-efficacy and behaviour.
Sub-components of TPB
Attitudes:
- affective and cognitive
Percieved norms:
- descriptive (other’s behaviour) and injunctive (other’s approval of behaviour)
- subjective and objective (e.g. laws)
PBC:
- perceived control and self-efficacy
Additional behavioural predictors
Anticipated affective reactions, moral norms, self-identity, and past behaviours.
Intergrated behavioural model
Adds 4 components to the reasoned action approach that directly influence behaviour:
- Salience of behaviour
- Habits
- Environmental constraints
- Knowledge/skill of behaviour
*SHrEK
Moderators of intention behaviour relation
Conceptual factors:
- volition, intention, and expectation.
Reasoned action vs. social reaction (e.g. smoking)
Time interval (between intention and behaviour)
3 Intervention characteristics
- theoretical basis
- behaviour change method
- mode of delivery (format and source)
Effectiveness of interventions on behaviour change
Meta-analyses found that a medium to large change in intention resulted in a small to medium change in behaviour - significant, but not as effective as was previously thought.
Demand and commodities
Demand can be elastic (change) or inelastic (fixed) often based on product need and price = demand curve.
Commodities can be substitutional, complimmentary, or independent (e.g. price of butter goes up, people buy margirine)
Discounting
There are 3 primary discounting variables: delay/temporal, probability, and social.
*Addicts may engage in excessive probability discounting (undervaluing uncertain future rewards).
Hyperbolic discount model “present bias”
Models choice dynamics of e.g. valuing long-term goal higher than instant gratification, but when presented with conflicting immediate reward one engages with it.
