Interpersonal pursuit of intrapersonal health goals: Social cognitive–motivational mechanisms by which social support promotes self‐regulatory success

Abstract

The short‐ and long‐term health benefits of both regular physical activity and healthy eating are well established for persons of all ages. Despite publicity about these benefits and publications of activity and healthy‐eating guidelines, many people struggle with implementing exercise and eating goals. With this work, we propose multiple social cognitive–motivational mechanisms by which social support can promote self‐regulatory success in these domains. Specifically, we outline how interpersonal processes can improve both action planning and action control across the pre‐action, action, and post‐action phases of physical activity and healthy‐eating goal pursuit. We suggest that close relationships offer a promising avenue for improving and promoting individual‐level health behavior. We also discuss limitations, costs, and potential future interventions relating to health, social support, and interpersonal processes.

The Role of Individual and Dyadic Planning in Couples’ Daily Goal Pursuits

“…Planning has been identified as an effective strategy in mitigating this gap (Gollwitzer, 1999). However, whereas the literature tends to focus on planning as an intrapersonal process, the significance of interpersonal processes to individuals’ goal pursuit has recently been acknowledged (e.g., Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2010; Riccio et al, 2019). The current study was grounded in the TGD model (Fitzsimons et al, 2015), which argues that in close relationships, especially intimate ones, there are often close ties between partners’ goals, resources, demands, and goal-related outcomes, resulting in an interdependent goal-regulating system.…”

“…One interpretation of these findings is that it is better for individuals to focus their regulatory efforts on individual-based strategies at the more global level. Habitually relying on dyadic-based strategies may not be as beneficial, and even, at times, can be counterproductive and lead to social loafing and effort outsourcing (e.g., Riccio et al, 2019). In other words, DP may have a context-dependent effect; that is, it is effective in some situations, but not as a more general chronic strategy.…”

“…In particular, the process of contrasting the target goal and its possible obstacles helps people construct more realistic plans, thus often enhancing the salubrious effect of planning (Adriaanse et al, 2010). Social modeling is another possible mechanism for the effect of DP (Riccio et al, 2019). When the partner has more experience and expertise than the planner as to appropriate goal-related behaviors (e.g., doing physical activity to lose weight; Gorin et al, 2008), the process of DP may inform people of realistic ways to overcome potential barriers.…”

“…Drawing on TGD (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2015) and other-related models (Riccio et al, 2019) highlighting the paramount role of close relationships in people’s goal pursuit, the current studies examined the effect of incorporating one’s partner in the planning process. In line with previous findings (e.g., Burkert et al, 2011), the results suggest that considering partner involvement in goal-related processes can shed light on how people succeed or fail in bridging the gap between their intentions and goal-promoting behaviors.…”

Is Burden Always Bad? Emerging Low-Burden Approaches to Mobile Dietary Self-monitoring and the Role Burden Plays with Engagement

“…Evidence shows that perceived social support is positively linked to dietary behaviors both directly and indirectly, including through dietary self-regulation (Anderson-Bill et al, 2011;Anderson et al, 2007;Lemstra et al, 2016;Riccio et al, 2019). To provide social support to promote dietary self-monitoring, various approaches have been examined, including capitalizing on existing social relationships (Gorin et al, 2005;Samuel-Hodge et al, 2017;West et al, 2016), providing support messages via automated tailored feedback or sharing feedback via social media groups (e.g., Twitter; Facebook) (Chung et al, 2017;Napolitano et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2012).…”