Nina Knoll1, Diana Hilda Hohl1, Jan Keller1, Natalie Schuez2, Aleksandra Luszczynska3, Silke Burkert4. 1. Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin. 2. School of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania. 3. Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities. 4. Institute of Medical Psychology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Action planning can help translate physical activity intentions into action by linking situational cues with behavioral responses. Dyadic planning extends action planning and refers to target persons forming plans for their own behavior change together with partners. This study investigated whether a dyadic planning intervention could increase physical activity in target persons and their partners, whether these effects were moderated by relationship quality and mediated by action control, activity-specific received partner support, and control. METHOD: Couples (n = 338; target persons randomized) were randomly assigned to (a) a dyadic planning condition (DPC); (b) an individual planning condition (IPC), in which target persons planned and partners worked on a distractor task; or (c) a control condition (CC), in which couples worked on a distractor task. During 3 assessments up to 6 weeks postintervention, moderate (primary outcome) and vigorous activity were objectively measured; other variables were self-reported. Multilevel and path models were fit. RESULTS: There were no beneficial direct effects of the intervention for DPC target persons. Over time, DPC partners' vigorous activity increased, but decreased again. At lower relationship quality, DPC target persons' activity decreased, whereas IPC target persons' vigorous activity increased. Mediation hypotheses were not supported. Mutual influence models indicated positive effects of partners' on target persons' moderate activity in DPC and CC, whereas for IPC, negative effects of target persons' on partners' moderate activity emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Findings revealed the complexity of effects of dyadic planning on behavior change. Adding relationship quality to the equation clarified effects of DPC and IPC on physical activity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Action planning can help translate physical activity intentions into action by linking situational cues with behavioral responses. Dyadic planning extends action planning and refers to target persons forming plans for their own behavior change together with partners. This study investigated whether a dyadic planning intervention could increase physical activity in target persons and their partners, whether these effects were moderated by relationship quality and mediated by action control, activity-specific received partner support, and control. METHOD: Couples (n = 338; target persons randomized) were randomly assigned to (a) a dyadic planning condition (DPC); (b) an individual planning condition (IPC), in which target persons planned and partners worked on a distractor task; or (c) a control condition (CC), in which couples worked on a distractor task. During 3 assessments up to 6 weeks postintervention, moderate (primary outcome) and vigorous activity were objectively measured; other variables were self-reported. Multilevel and path models were fit. RESULTS: There were no beneficial direct effects of the intervention for DPC target persons. Over time, DPC partners' vigorous activity increased, but decreased again. At lower relationship quality, DPC target persons' activity decreased, whereas IPC target persons' vigorous activity increased. Mediation hypotheses were not supported. Mutual influence models indicated positive effects of partners' on target persons' moderate activity in DPC and CC, whereas for IPC, negative effects of target persons' on partners' moderate activity emerged. CONCLUSIONS: Findings revealed the complexity of effects of dyadic planning on behavior change. Adding relationship quality to the equation clarified effects of DPC and IPC on physical activity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Theresa Pauly; Jan Keller; Nina Knoll; Victoria I Michalowski; Diana Hilda Hohl; Maureen C Ashe; Denis Gerstorf; Kenneth M Madden; Christiane A Hoppmann Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2020-01-01
Authors: Jacqui H Morris; Linda A Irvine; Stephan U Dombrowski; Brendan McCormack; Frederike Van Wijck; Maggie Lawrence Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Rachel Margaret Carr; Eleanor Quested; Andreas Stenling; Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani; Andrew Prestwich; Daniel Frank Gucciardi; Joanne McVeigh; Nikos Ntoumanis Journal: Health Psychol Behav Med Date: 2021-04-07
Authors: Theda Radtke; Aleksandra Luszczynska; Konstantin Schenkel; Stuart Biddle; Urte Scholz Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-07-24 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Karolina Zarychta; Anna Banik; Ewa Kulis; Monika Boberska; Theda Radtke; Carina K Y Chan; Aleksandra Luszczynska Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2020-02-07