Are current elicitation techniques for barriers and enablers confounded with motivation? How natural language may hinder theory‐guided research

Objectives The objective of this study was to compare standard elicitation techniques for barriers and enablers for physical activity and sleep behaviours, to an alternative approach whereby participants were told to only consider the literal meanings of the words prevent/enable. Design Randomized c...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of health psychology 2021-09, Vol.26 (3), p.839-860
Hauptverfasser: Branscum, Paul W., Williams, David M., Rhodes, Ryan E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives The objective of this study was to compare standard elicitation techniques for barriers and enablers for physical activity and sleep behaviours, to an alternative approach whereby participants were told to only consider the literal meanings of the words prevent/enable. Design Randomized controlled design. Methods College students were randomized to either a standard methods group (n = 177) (what prevents you from doing behaviour X) or a vignette group (n = 176) to encourage them to think of the literal meaning of the words prevent/enable. Responses were then codified by two blinded researchers. Results Students reported significantly different types of control beliefs between groups. Those in the standard group reported significantly more overall beliefs (p’s 
ISSN:1359-107X
2044-8287
DOI:10.1111/bjhp.12507