Discrepancies in exercise intention and expectation: theoretical and applied issues

Future‐oriented emotions in the prediction of binge‐drinking intention and expectation: the role of anticipated and anticipatory emotions

“…Some authors have found similarities between the two concepts (Conner & Sparks, 1996;Fishbein, 1997;Ajzen, 2002), whilst others have found important differences (Gordon, 1990;Rhodes & Matheson, 2005). We tested in the context of a risk behavior (i.e.…”

“…Where BI is a plan, BE is a prediction Future-oriented emotions 3 (Gibbons, 2006). Moderators such as intention commitment and perceived control (Rhodes & Matheson, 2005) or level of experience (Carrera, Caballero, Muñoz, & Oceja, 2011;Pomery, Gibbons, Reis-Bergan, & Gerrard, 2009) must be taken into account to decide whether to use BI or BE (or both) as antecedents of behavior. Specifically, when individuals report low commitment, low perceived control and moderate experience it would be recommended to use BI and BE separately in order to make good predictions about future behavior.…”

Temporal Consequences, Message Framing, and Consideration of Future Consequences: Persuasion Effects on Adult Fruit Intake Intention and Resolve

“…In response to this poor predictive validity, Rhodes and Horne (2013) developed the Behavioral Resolve Scale, in which motivation is assessed via considerations of competing goals (e.g., I will eat two pieces of fruit, even when I feel like eating a snack) and contextual barriers (e.g., not having sufficient time to prepare fruit). Resolve resembles behavioral expectations (Rhodes & Matheson, 2005;Warshaw & Davis, 1985), in which an individual considers control limitations and motivation fluctuations as an adjunct to conscious intent (Warshaw & Davis, 1985). Although intention measures may indicate the direction of action (Rhodes & Horne, 2013), they may be poorer indicators of how much effort and strength an individual is willing to exert in order to meet behavioral goals compared to measures of expectation or resolve (Rhodes & Horne, 2013;Warshaw & Davis, 1985).…”

“…Traditional intention measures are conceptualized as a motivation to act (Ajzen, 1991) or the degree to which someone has conscious plans to perform (or not perform) a specific behavior (Rhodes & Matheson, 2005;Warshaw & Davis, 1985). Intentions are key outcomes in persuasive strategies (McGuire, 1984), but main effects of framed messages have often been absent for fruit intake intentions (Brug, Ruiter, & van Assema, 2003;De Bruijn, Visscher, & Mollen, 2015;Dijkstra, Rothman, & Pietersma, 2011;Van Assema, Martens, Ruiter, & Brug, 2001) and other health-related intentions (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012;O'Keefe & Jensen, 2007).…”

“…Because traditional intention measures discount fluctuations in motivation over (short) periods of time and interactions with more volitional variables (Rhodes & Horne, 2013;Rhodes & Matheson, 2005;Warshaw & Davis, 1985), there is a substantial gap between intention and behaviors (Sheeran, 2002;Webb & Sheeran, 2006). In response to this poor predictive validity, Rhodes and Horne (2013) developed the Behavioral Resolve Scale, in which motivation is assessed via considerations of competing goals (e.g., I will eat two pieces of fruit, even when I feel like eating a snack) and contextual barriers (e.g., not having sufficient time to prepare fruit).…”