How can Intervention intentions guide efforts to decrease smoking/ guide health behaviours?

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

• IIs
• -Prestwich, Sheeran, Webb and Gollwitzer (2015)
• -Gollwitzer (1993)

Question 2

Paragraph 1

Answer 2

• BI-I
• -sheeran (2002)
• -Webb and Sheeran (2006)

Question 3

Paragraph 2

Answer 3

• effect sizes (sheeran, 2002; Koestner et al (2002; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, 2003; 2006)
• Carraro and Gaudreau (2013)
• Belanger-Gravel et al (2013)
• Webb et al (2012)
• Adriaanse et al (2011b)

Question 4

Paragraph 3

Answer 4

• Applications
• -Higgins and Conner (2003)
• -Armitage (2007)
• -Conner and Higgins (2010)

Question 5

Paragraph 4

Answer 5

• Higgins and Conner (2003)

- Conner and Higgins (2010)

Question 6

Conclusion

Answer 6

• IIs
• I-Behaviour
• Smoking, Conner and Higgins (2010)

Question 7

Prestwich, Sheeran, Webb and Gollwitzer (2015)

Answer 7

in order for an individual to form an implementation intention, the person must first identify a response that will lead to goal attainment and then anticipate a suitable opportunity to initiate the response.

Question 8

Gollwitzer (1993)

Answer 8

argues that by forming implementation intentions individuals pass control of intention enactment to the environment

Question 9

Sheeran (2002)

Answer 9

a meta-analysis of prospective tests of the intention-behaviour relationship. Across 422 studies, intentions explained 28% of the variance for behaviour. This is a large effect size
doesn’t measure whether the changes in intentions predict the changes in behaviour

Question 10

Webb and Sheeran (2006)

Answer 10

meta-analysis of 47 studies to address this and found that a medium-large size change in intentions lead to a small-medium change in behaviour.

Question 11

sheeran, (2002); Koestner et al (2002); Gollwitzer and Sheeran, (2003); (2006)

Answer 11

meta-analyses on goal achievement have shown implementation intentions to provide medium to large effect sizes from 0.55 to 0.70

Question 12

Carraro and Gaudreau (2013)

Answer 12

intervention on physical activity show the effect sizes to be 0.3

Question 13

Belanger-Gravel et al (2013)

Answer 13

a similar effect size of 0.24 was found after conducting a study on implementations intentions for physical activity

Question 14

Webb et al (2012)

Answer 14

emotional outcomes were found to have a very high effect size of 0.91

Question 15

Adriaanse et al (2011b)

Answer 15

smaller effect sizes for specific health behaviours such as physical activity and reducing unhealthy eating d=0.29

Question 16

Higgins and Conner, 2003

Answer 16

many applications of implementation intentions to health goals including smoking

Question 17

Armitage (2007)

Answer 17

study on how implementation intentions can increase quitting after 2 months and found significant results with 12% quitting, compared to only 2% quitting in the control group. They also found that it could reduce levels of nicotine dependence in adolescents.

Question 18

Conner and Higgins (2010)

paragraph 3

Answer 18

implementation intentions, if repeatedly formed every four months over a two-year period, led to lower self-reported rates of smoking (6.3%) compared to three comparison groups (self-efficacy group:34%; control group 1: 30.5%; control group 2: 34.5%) This was also found to be the case in objective measures of smoking,

Question 19

Higgins and Conner (2003)

Answer 19

there was no self-reported advantage of the implementation condition (0%) compared to the control group (6%),

Question 20

Conner and Higgins (2010)

Answer 20

• extended the previous study. repeated implementation intentions about how to refuse offers of cigarettes and reported the effects for self-reported levels of smoking and objective measures of smoking through a smokerlyzer which measured levels of Carbon monoxide.
• no differences between the 2 control conditions and the self-efficacy condition,
• after controlling for baseline smoking, sex, attitudes to smoking, friends and family smoking and multi-level nature of the data, analysis indicated that implementation intention intervention significantly reduced self-reported smoking compared to the other three conditions combined.
• Analysis of the objectively assessed smoking in a random sub-sample indicated implementation intentions intervention had reduced smoking levels compared to the other three conditions, the objective smoking effect size was also large (d=1.04),