“You Can't Always Get What You Want”: A Novel Research Paradigm to Explore the Relationship between Multiple Intentions and Behaviours

Abstract

ObjectiveResearch investigating cognitive moderators of the intention–behaviour relationship and psychological consequences of failure to enact intentions is usually conducted in a single‐behaviour paradigm. A multiple‐behaviour paradigm is introduced which overcomes bias inherent to single‐behaviour designs and allows testing of novel hypotheses. Two exploratory studies illustrate the utility of this new paradigm by investigating the role of cognitive predictors and psychological correlates of intention–behaviour relationships.MethodThe proposed method involves measuring multiple intentions across common areas of life activity at baseline and corresponding behaviours at follow‐up. In two studies, 51 intentions and behaviours were assessed (49 by self‐report, 2 objectively). In Study 1, participants (n = 126) also completed self‐reported measures of everyday cognitive failures and dysexecutive behaviours, crystallised intelligence (Mill Hill Vocabulary Scale) at baseline and Quality of Life (QoL; follow‐up). In Study 2, objective executive function measures (Stroop, Go/NoGo task and Word Fluency test) were completed by N = 30 participants.ResultsThe total number of intentions, cognitive, and QoL measures were unrelated to the percentage of intentions enacted. Crystallised intelligence was related to successful intention implementation and problems with emotion regulation were associated with forming fewer intentions and with fewer failed intentions. QoL was strongly related with more intentions, regardless of whether or not these were implemented. Study 2 showed that cognitive flexibility (word fluency) and task errors, rather than Stroop effect and Go/No‐Go performance were related, to intention–behaviour congruence.ConclusionIntention–behaviour relationships might be better understood when considering the multiple intentions and behaviours that people are engaged in at once at any one point in time. A multiple‐behaviour paradigm suggests novel hypotheses. Preliminary findings reported here require replication. Anticipated applications of the paradigm are outlined and discussed.

The centrality of health behaviours: A network analytic approach

“…However, as predicted, sleeping behaviours were highly central in the network of health behaviours. These deficits may lead to failure in implementing intentions to engage in healthy behaviours (Sniehotta et al, 2016). Inadequate or insufficient sleep can also impair cognitive, emotional, and coping abilities (Beebe, 2011;Dahl, 1996) and have adverse effects on learning and decision making (Whitney, Hinson, Jackson, & Van Dongen, 2015).…”

“…Studies have also shown that engaging in one health behaviour can influence engagement in other behaviours through processes such as cognitive transfer of psychological resources across behaviours (Fleig, Kerschreiter, Schwarzer, Pomp, & Lippke, 2014;Fleig, K€ uper, Lippke, Schwarzer, & Wiedemann, 2015). While several efforts have recently been undertaken to examine interrelationships among multiple health behaviours (McEachan, Lawton, & Conner, 2010;Nudelman & Shiloh, 2015;Sniehotta, Presseau, Allan, & Ara ujo-Soares, 2016), studies in this vein have yet to identify core behaviours that are highly connected and thus are likely to be particularly useful targets for interventions. While several efforts have recently been undertaken to examine interrelationships among multiple health behaviours (McEachan, Lawton, & Conner, 2010;Nudelman & Shiloh, 2015;Sniehotta, Presseau, Allan, & Ara ujo-Soares, 2016), studies in this vein have yet to identify core behaviours that are highly connected and thus are likely to be particularly useful targets for interventions.…”

How actionable are staff behaviours specified in policy documents? A document analysis of protocols for managing deteriorating patients

“…Within the policy documents, we found examples of instructions where the actor was directed to enact multiple behaviours in the same context (Sniehotta, Presseau, Allan, & Araújo‐Soares, ). This was more common in escalation behaviour statements, where nursing staff were directed to contact a number of different “efferent limb” responders, for example: “ notify a doctor, a critical care nurse, and/or a nurse practitioner.” In response to these instructions, we pose these questions: Should these behaviours occur in sequence or concurrently?…”

A longitudinal examination of the interrelationships between multiple health behaviors in cancer patients

“…Moreover, researchers investigating single HB change intervention should carefully monitor other HBs. Indeed, cognitive or behavioral efforts that are invested to modify a specific HB decrease the ability to maintain other HBs (Martins, Morgan, & Truby, 2008;Sniehotta, Presseau, Allan, & Araújo-Soares, 2016).…”