Enacting Physical Activity Intention

Identifying as someone who avoids virus transmission strengthens physical distancing habit‐behaviour relationships: A longitudinal multi‐national study during the COVID‐19 pandemic

“…These findings extend on a building body of evidence that considered the impact of habit and identity on behaviour at a between‐person level (e.g. Carfora et al, 2017 ; Charng et al, 1988 ; Gardner, de Bruijn, & Lally, 2012 ; Lally et al, 2010 ), and theoretical notions that identity and habit play roles in behavioural change and maintenance (Rhodes et al, 2021 ; Rhodes & Sui, 2021 ; Verplanken & Sui, 2019 ). Additionally, the study extends on a building body of evidence revealing that habit strength is an important predictor of physical distancing behaviour (Hagger et al, 2020 , 2021 ).…”

“…Gardner & Lally, 2013 ; Kaushal et al, 2018 ; Luyckx et al, 2008 ; Tilden et al, 2005 ). Although the roles of identity and habit have been theorised and evidenced as essential for maintained behaviour change (Rhodes et al, 2021 ; Rhodes & Sui, 2021 ; Verplanken & Sui, 2019 ), this is the first study to demonstrate there is synergy at play between habit and identity in influence on behaviour. Our findings suggest that habit strength comes into play most for people without strong identities relevant to that behaviour.…”

“…Both identity and habit strength have been found to enhance behavioural maintenance (Rhodes et al, 2021 ; Rhodes & Sui, 2021 ; Verplanken & Sui, 2019 ), but it has not yet been tested whether there is synergy at play in these effects. Both identity and habit strength influence behaviour through reward mechanisms; habits form through reward (de Wit & Dickinson, 2009 ), and achieving identity standards can be rewarding (Spruijt‐Metz et al, 2015 ).…”

Reflecting on physical activity across 2 years of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Predictors of intention‐behavior profiles

“…To explore the relative contribution of reflective (affective and instrumental attitudes, perceived capability, and opportunity), regulatory (planning/self‐monitoring), and reflexive processes (habit and identity), we used hierarchical blocks of predictors in the discriminant function analysis. Considering a small‐medium effect size ( f = .18) from prior research using M‐PAC (Rhodes et al, 2021 ), an alpha of .01, and a power of .80, 65 participants were needed in a particular intention‐behavior profile to be included in the analyses (Faul et al, 2007 ). Due to the large sample size and number of statistical tests, alpha was set at a slightly more conservative p < .01 and effect sizes were estimated to aid in the interpretation of the inferential statistics results.…”

“…Due to the large sample size and number of statistical tests, alpha was set at a slightly more conservative p < .01 and effect sizes were estimated to aid in the interpretation of the inferential statistics results. Specifically, for the associations with the discriminant function, we used r = .15 as the minimum recommended effect size based on past research (Rhodes et al, 2021 ). Similarly, for supplementing Bonferroni post hoc mean differences, we used d = .30 as the minimum recommended effect size based on comparable past research with M‐PAC (Rhodes et al, 2021 ).…”