2004
DOI: 10.1348/1359107042304605
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Promoting exercise behaviour: An integration of persuasion theories and the theory of planned behaviour

Abstract: There may be several potential explanations for the lack of effects, including the interaction between the type of persuasive information (TPB implications) and sources of persuasion and how these persuasive messages are processed (elaboration likelihood model/cognitive response implications). The theoretical implications of this research are discussed with a view towards future directions for exercise promotion initiatives using theoretically driven interventions.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

6
74
1
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(84 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
6
74
1
3
Order By: Relevance
“…There was no significant interaction between message frame and temporal focus for high-autonomy participants; only those perceiving behaviour to be externally regulated (i.e., low-autonomy participants with lower levels of perceived choice over behaviour) appeared to respond to the manipulation. We did not find a main effect for message framing; our findings were thus consistent with previous research which has found no direct effect of message framing on message persuasiveness (e.g., Bernstein et al, 2015;Jones et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…There was no significant interaction between message frame and temporal focus for high-autonomy participants; only those perceiving behaviour to be externally regulated (i.e., low-autonomy participants with lower levels of perceived choice over behaviour) appeared to respond to the manipulation. We did not find a main effect for message framing; our findings were thus consistent with previous research which has found no direct effect of message framing on message persuasiveness (e.g., Bernstein et al, 2015;Jones et al, 2004).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Some studies have reported no effect of message framing (e.g., Brug, et al, 2003;Jones, et al, 2004) and others have found effects in the opposite direction to that predicted by Rothman and Salovey (O'Connor et al, Message Frame, Temporal Focus, Autonomy 4 1996;Williams et al, 2001). Moreover, researchers have found that a range of contextual and dispositional variables can moderate the persuasive effects of loss-and gain-framed messages (see Covey, 2014, for a review).…”
Section: Message Framingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However the integration of regulatory focus theory into the standard method has utility and may explain null findings in research from the physical activity and health communication domain. For example, two investigations comparing the effectiveness of messages emphasizing benefits of physical activity versus costs of inactivity reported null findings at the 2-week follow-up (Jones, Sinclair, & Courneya, 2003;Jones, Sinclair, Rhodes, & Courneya, 2004). Results from the current study suggest that any message effect, and in particular the messages emphasizing benefits (i.e., promotion-focused messages), may have been suppressed as a result of individual differences in regulatory focus.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 55%
“…Ability to process is frequently operationalised as message utility (Burgoon et al, 2002;Pratkanis and Greenwald, 1993). Researchers have assessed source credibility as the extent to which the source is seen as credible and competent (Jones et al, 2004) knowledgeable and reliable (Wu and Shaffer, 1987), expert and trustworthy (Hu and Sundar, 2010). Argument quality in the message can be judged by criteria such as believability (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986b), whether the message is memorable (Updegraff et al, 2007), understandable and clear (Park et al, 2007).…”
Section: Isolating the Elaboration Likelihood Model And The Theory Ofmentioning
confidence: 99%