How can Intervention intentions guide efforts to decrease smoking/ guide health behaviours? Flashcards
Intro
- IIs
- -Prestwich, Sheeran, Webb and Gollwitzer (2015)
- -Gollwitzer (1993)
Paragraph 1
- BI-I
- -sheeran (2002)
- -Webb and Sheeran (2006)
Paragraph 2
- 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)
Paragraph 3
- Applications
- -Higgins and Conner (2003)
- -Armitage (2007)
- -Conner and Higgins (2010)
Paragraph 4
- Higgins and Conner (2003)
- Conner and Higgins (2010)
Conclusion
- IIs
- I-Behaviour
- Smoking, Conner and Higgins (2010)
Prestwich, Sheeran, Webb and Gollwitzer (2015)
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.
Gollwitzer (1993)
argues that by forming implementation intentions individuals pass control of intention enactment to the environment
Sheeran (2002)
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
Webb and Sheeran (2006)
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.
sheeran, (2002); Koestner et al (2002); Gollwitzer and Sheeran, (2003); (2006)
meta-analyses on goal achievement have shown implementation intentions to provide medium to large effect sizes from 0.55 to 0.70
Carraro and Gaudreau (2013)
intervention on physical activity show the effect sizes to be 0.3
Belanger-Gravel et al (2013)
a similar effect size of 0.24 was found after conducting a study on implementations intentions for physical activity
Webb et al (2012)
emotional outcomes were found to have a very high effect size of 0.91
Adriaanse et al (2011b)
smaller effect sizes for specific health behaviours such as physical activity and reducing unhealthy eating d=0.29
Higgins and Conner, 2003
many applications of implementation intentions to health goals including smoking
Armitage (2007)
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.
Conner and Higgins (2010)
paragraph 3
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,
Higgins and Conner (2003)
there was no self-reported advantage of the implementation condition (0%) compared to the control group (6%),
Conner and Higgins (2010)
- 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),
