The Road to Exercise Is Filled With Good Intentions: Why Don't My Proximal Exercise Intentions Match My Actions?

Abstract

Difficulty in following through with proximal exercise intentions (PIs) may be associated with experiencing frequent, limiting perceived reasons (factors causing indecision) and low self-regulatory efficacy (SRE) to cope. Differences in reason frequency, limitation, and SRE between adults whose PI frequency matched their exercise frequency and adults whose PI frequency was higher than their actual frequency (mismatched) were examined. Participants (N = 163) completed Web-based measures of reason frequency, limitation, coping strategies and related SRE, intention, and exercise for the prior 4 weeks. A multivariate analysis of variance comparing matched (n = 89) with mismatched (n = 74) groups was significant. Matched participants reported significantly lower reason limitation and higher SRE, suggesting that they may have the SRE to buffer negative effects of limiting reasons.

Physical activity in women with arthritis: Examining perceived barriers and self‐regulatory efficacy to cope

“…Similar to prior research (43), frequency of planned physical activity over the prior 2 weeks was assessed immediately after the control definition. Participants were asked, “On average, how many days each week in the last 2 weeks did you actually do planned physical activity?” Responses ranged from 0–7 days each week.…”

“…Similar to previous research (39, 43) and based upon recommendations (31, 38), a definition of barriers was provided to ensure clarity and common respondent interpretation and perception. Barriers were defined as factors causing indecision about completing planned physical activity (43). After reading the definition, participants indicated whether they could think of ≥1 barrier that occurred in the prior 2 weeks and, if so, they could list up to 3 barriers.…”

“…Similar to methods used in prior research (39, 43) and based upon recommendations (44), participants listed a cognitive and/or behavioral strategy that they used in attempts to cope with each reported barrier in the prior 2 weeks. Cognitive strategies were defined as what they tried to think about and behavioral strategies were defined as what they tried to do to cope with the reported barrier (39).…”

“…The phenomenology of the types of barriers and coping strategies reported by the participants were then presented. Three researchers independently categorized each barrier as personal, situational, or unclassifiable (16, 43). Personal and situational barriers were also categorized as being general (i.e., common across adult populations) or arthritis‐specific (i.e., common to only individuals with arthritis) (38, 40).…”

“…A similar procedure was followed to categorize the coping strategies. Using definitions outlined in coping theory (46) and similar to prior research (43), 3 researchers independently coded each coping strategy as cognitive, behavioral, a combination of cognitive and behavioral, emotion‐focused, or no coping strategy. Strategies were also categorized as general or arthritis‐specific.…”