Camille E Short1,2, Rik Crutzen3, Emma M Stewart4, Jessica O'Rielly5, Mathew Dry5, Andrew Skuse6, Pascale Quester7, Amanda L Rebar8, Corneel Vandelanotte8,9, Mitch J Duncan8,9,10, Andrew Vincent11. 1. Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. Camille.Short@unimelb.edu.au. 2. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences and Melbourne School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Camille.Short@unimelb.edu.au. 3. Department of Health Promotion/CAPHRI, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Experimental Psychology, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Giessen, Germany. 5. School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 6. Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 7. Adelaide Business School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 8. Physical Activity Research Group, Appleton Institute, School of Health, Medical and Applied Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia. 9. School of Medicine & Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medicine, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 10. Priority Research Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition, The University of Newcastle, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. 11. Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, persuasion can occur via two different routes (the central route and peripheral route), with the route utilized dependent on factors associated with motivation and ability. This study aimed to explore the moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) and perceived relevance on the processing of physical activity messages designed to persuade via either the central route or the peripheral route. METHOD: Participants (N = 50) were randomized to receive messages optimized for central route processing or messages optimized for peripheral route processing. Eye-tracking devices were used to assess attention, which was the primary outcome. Message perceptions and the extent of persuasion (changes in physical activity determinants) were also assessed via self-report as secondary outcomes. Moderator effects were examined using interaction terms within mixed effects models and linear regression models. RESULTS: There were no detected interactions between condition and NFC for any of the study outcomes (all ps > .05). Main effects of personal relevance were observed for some self-report outcomes, with increased relevance associated with better processing outcomes. An interaction between need for cognition and personal relevance was observed for perceived behavioral control (p = 0.002); greater relevance was associated with greater perceived behavioral control for those with a higher need for cognition. CONCLUSION: Matching physical activity messages based on NFC may not increase intervention efficacy. Relevance of materials is associated with greater change in physical activity determinants and may be more so among those with a higher NFC.
BACKGROUND: According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, persuasion can occur via two different routes (the central route and peripheral route), with the route utilized dependent on factors associated with motivation and ability. This study aimed to explore the moderating role of need for cognition (NFC) and perceived relevance on the processing of physical activity messages designed to persuade via either the central route or the peripheral route. METHOD: Participants (N = 50) were randomized to receive messages optimized for central route processing or messages optimized for peripheral route processing. Eye-tracking devices were used to assess attention, which was the primary outcome. Message perceptions and the extent of persuasion (changes in physical activity determinants) were also assessed via self-report as secondary outcomes. Moderator effects were examined using interaction terms within mixed effects models and linear regression models. RESULTS: There were no detected interactions between condition and NFC for any of the study outcomes (all ps > .05). Main effects of personal relevance were observed for some self-report outcomes, with increased relevance associated with better processing outcomes. An interaction between need for cognition and personal relevance was observed for perceived behavioral control (p = 0.002); greater relevance was associated with greater perceived behavioral control for those with a higher need for cognition. CONCLUSION: Matching physical activity messages based on NFC may not increase intervention efficacy. Relevance of materials is associated with greater change in physical activity determinants and may be more so among those with a higher NFC.
Authors: I A Nikoloudakis; R Crutzen; A L Rebar; C Vandelanotte; P Quester; M Dry; A Skuse; M J Duncan; C E Short Journal: Health Psychol Rev Date: 2018-10-22