Navin Kaushal1, Ryan E Rhodes2, John T Meldrum3, John C Spence4. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Montreal Heart Institute, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2. Behavioural Medicine Laboratory, Faculty of Education, University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 3. University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 4. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to investigate how habit strength in a preparatory and performance phase predicts exercise while accounting for intention. The secondary purpose was to determine the strength of potential habit antecedents (affective judgement, perceived behavioural control, consistency, and cues) in both exercise phases. DESIGN: This was a prospective study with measures collected at baseline and week 6. METHODS: Participants (n = 181) were a sample of adults (18-65) recruited across nine gyms and recreation centres who completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires after 6 weeks. RESULTS: Intention (β = .28, p = .00) and habit preparation (β = .20, p = .03), predicted exercise, and change of exercise with coefficients of β = .25, (p = .00) and β = .18, (p = .04), respectively, across 6 weeks but not habit performance (p>.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the distinction between the two phases of exercise and the importance of preparatory habit in predicting behaviour. Focusing on a consistent preparatory routine could be helpful in establishing an exercise habit. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? A recent meta-analysis found habit to correlate r = .43 with behaviour (Gardner, de Bruijn, & Lally, ). Verplanken and Melkevik () propose that habit in exercise should be measured in separate components. Phillips and Gardner () interpreted this as habitual instigation (thought) to exercise and execution. What does this study add? Extended pervious work and identified two distinct behavioural phases (preparation and performance) for exercise. Habit model revealed that temporal consistency was the strongest predictor in both phases of exercise. Intention and habit of preparatory behaviour predicted exercise fluctuations in gym members.
OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of this study was to investigate how habit strength in a preparatory and performance phase predicts exercise while accounting for intention. The secondary purpose was to determine the strength of potential habit antecedents (affective judgement, perceived behavioural control, consistency, and cues) in both exercise phases. DESIGN: This was a prospective study with measures collected at baseline and week 6. METHODS:Participants (n = 181) were a sample of adults (18-65) recruited across nine gyms and recreation centres who completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires after 6 weeks. RESULTS: Intention (β = .28, p = .00) and habit preparation (β = .20, p = .03), predicted exercise, and change of exercise with coefficients of β = .25, (p = .00) and β = .18, (p = .04), respectively, across 6 weeks but not habit performance (p>.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the distinction between the two phases of exercise and the importance of preparatory habit in predicting behaviour. Focusing on a consistent preparatory routine could be helpful in establishing an exercise habit. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? A recent meta-analysis found habit to correlate r = .43 with behaviour (Gardner, de Bruijn, & Lally, ). Verplanken and Melkevik () propose that habit in exercise should be measured in separate components. Phillips and Gardner () interpreted this as habitual instigation (thought) to exercise and execution. What does this study add? Extended pervious work and identified two distinct behavioural phases (preparation and performance) for exercise. Habit model revealed that temporal consistency was the strongest predictor in both phases of exercise. Intention and habit of preparatory behaviour predicted exercise fluctuations in gym members.
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Paul M Coen; Liliana C Baptista; Margaret B Bell; Devin Drummer; Sara A Harper; Manoel E Lixandrão; Jeremy S McAdam; Samia M O'Bryan; Sofhia Ramos; Lisa M Roberts; Rick B Vega; Bret H Goodpaster; Marcas M Bamman; Thomas W Buford Journal: Compr Physiol Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 8.915
Authors: Laura D Ellingson; Jeni E Lansing; Kathryn J DeShaw; Karissa L Peyer; Yang Bai; Maria Perez; L Alison Phillips; Gregory J Welk Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: P Lally; N Miller; A Roberts; R J Beeken; D M Greenfield; H W W Potts; N Counsell; N Latimer; C Thomas; L Smith; J Gath; F Kennedy; C Martin; L Wyld; A Fisher Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-03-29
Authors: Emily R Medd; Mark R Beauchamp; Chris M Blanchard; Valerie Carson; Benjamin Gardner; Darren Er Warburton; Ryan E Rhodes Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Stina J Grant; Mark R Beauchamp; Chris M Blanchard; Valerie Carson; Benjamin Gardner; Darren E R Warburton; Ryan E Rhodes Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-09-21 Impact factor: 3.295