Theories of physical activity behaviour change

A history and synthesis of approaches

Ryan E. Rhodes, Desmond McEwan, Amanda L. Rebar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Most people in developed countries are not physically active enough to reap optimal health benefits so effective promotion strategies are warranted. Theories of behaviour change are essential to understand physical activity and provide an organizing framework for effective intervention. The purpose of this paper was to provide a narrative historical overview of four key theoretical frameworks (social cognitive, humanistic, dual process, socioecological) that have been applied to understand and change physical activity over the last three decades. Methods: Our synthesis of research included the brief history, basic efficacy, strengths, and potential weaknesses of these approaches when applied to physical activity. Results: The dominant framework for understanding physical activity has been in the social cognitive tradition, and it has provided valuable information on key constructs linked to physical activity. The humanistic framework for understanding physical activity has seen a surge in research in the last decade and has demonstrated initial effectiveness in both explaining and intervening on behaviour. The most recent and understudied framework for understanding physical activity is dual process models, which may have promise to provide a broader perspective of motivation by considering non-conscious and hedonic determinants of physical activity. Finally, the individual-level focus of all three of these approaches is contrasted by the socioecological framework, which has seen considerable research attention in the last 15 years and has been instrumental in understanding the role of the built environment in physical activity behaviour and critical to shaping public health policy in government. Conclusions: Despite the strengths of all four frameworks, we noted several weaknesses of each approach at present and highlight several newer applications of integrated models and dynamic models that may serve to improve our understanding and promotion of physical activity over the next decade.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)100-109
Number of pages10
JournalPsychology of Sport and Exercise
Volume42
Early online date19 Nov 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 19 Nov 2018

Keywords

  • Dual process theories
  • Exercise
  • Self-determination theory
  • Social cognitive theories
  • Socioecological model

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

Theories of physical activity behaviour change : A history and synthesis of approaches. / Rhodes, Ryan E.; McEwan, Desmond; Rebar, Amanda L.

In: Psychology of Sport and Exercise, Vol. 42, 19.11.2018, p. 100-109.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e242c2340f364989b22f655afd885fb7,
title = "Theories of physical activity behaviour change: A history and synthesis of approaches",
abstract = "Background: Most people in developed countries are not physically active enough to reap optimal health benefits so effective promotion strategies are warranted. Theories of behaviour change are essential to understand physical activity and provide an organizing framework for effective intervention. The purpose of this paper was to provide a narrative historical overview of four key theoretical frameworks (social cognitive, humanistic, dual process, socioecological) that have been applied to understand and change physical activity over the last three decades. Methods: Our synthesis of research included the brief history, basic efficacy, strengths, and potential weaknesses of these approaches when applied to physical activity. Results: The dominant framework for understanding physical activity has been in the social cognitive tradition, and it has provided valuable information on key constructs linked to physical activity. The humanistic framework for understanding physical activity has seen a surge in research in the last decade and has demonstrated initial effectiveness in both explaining and intervening on behaviour. The most recent and understudied framework for understanding physical activity is dual process models, which may have promise to provide a broader perspective of motivation by considering non-conscious and hedonic determinants of physical activity. Finally, the individual-level focus of all three of these approaches is contrasted by the socioecological framework, which has seen considerable research attention in the last 15 years and has been instrumental in understanding the role of the built environment in physical activity behaviour and critical to shaping public health policy in government. Conclusions: Despite the strengths of all four frameworks, we noted several weaknesses of each approach at present and highlight several newer applications of integrated models and dynamic models that may serve to improve our understanding and promotion of physical activity over the next decade.",
keywords = "Dual process theories, Exercise, Self-determination theory, Social cognitive theories, Socioecological model",
author = "Rhodes, {Ryan E.} and Desmond McEwan and Rebar, {Amanda L.}",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.010",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "100--109",
journal = "Psychology of Sport and Exercise",
issn = "1469-0292",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Theories of physical activity behaviour change

T2 - A history and synthesis of approaches

AU - Rhodes, Ryan E.

AU - McEwan, Desmond

AU - Rebar, Amanda L.

PY - 2018/11/19

Y1 - 2018/11/19

N2 - Background: Most people in developed countries are not physically active enough to reap optimal health benefits so effective promotion strategies are warranted. Theories of behaviour change are essential to understand physical activity and provide an organizing framework for effective intervention. The purpose of this paper was to provide a narrative historical overview of four key theoretical frameworks (social cognitive, humanistic, dual process, socioecological) that have been applied to understand and change physical activity over the last three decades. Methods: Our synthesis of research included the brief history, basic efficacy, strengths, and potential weaknesses of these approaches when applied to physical activity. Results: The dominant framework for understanding physical activity has been in the social cognitive tradition, and it has provided valuable information on key constructs linked to physical activity. The humanistic framework for understanding physical activity has seen a surge in research in the last decade and has demonstrated initial effectiveness in both explaining and intervening on behaviour. The most recent and understudied framework for understanding physical activity is dual process models, which may have promise to provide a broader perspective of motivation by considering non-conscious and hedonic determinants of physical activity. Finally, the individual-level focus of all three of these approaches is contrasted by the socioecological framework, which has seen considerable research attention in the last 15 years and has been instrumental in understanding the role of the built environment in physical activity behaviour and critical to shaping public health policy in government. Conclusions: Despite the strengths of all four frameworks, we noted several weaknesses of each approach at present and highlight several newer applications of integrated models and dynamic models that may serve to improve our understanding and promotion of physical activity over the next decade.

AB - Background: Most people in developed countries are not physically active enough to reap optimal health benefits so effective promotion strategies are warranted. Theories of behaviour change are essential to understand physical activity and provide an organizing framework for effective intervention. The purpose of this paper was to provide a narrative historical overview of four key theoretical frameworks (social cognitive, humanistic, dual process, socioecological) that have been applied to understand and change physical activity over the last three decades. Methods: Our synthesis of research included the brief history, basic efficacy, strengths, and potential weaknesses of these approaches when applied to physical activity. Results: The dominant framework for understanding physical activity has been in the social cognitive tradition, and it has provided valuable information on key constructs linked to physical activity. The humanistic framework for understanding physical activity has seen a surge in research in the last decade and has demonstrated initial effectiveness in both explaining and intervening on behaviour. The most recent and understudied framework for understanding physical activity is dual process models, which may have promise to provide a broader perspective of motivation by considering non-conscious and hedonic determinants of physical activity. Finally, the individual-level focus of all three of these approaches is contrasted by the socioecological framework, which has seen considerable research attention in the last 15 years and has been instrumental in understanding the role of the built environment in physical activity behaviour and critical to shaping public health policy in government. Conclusions: Despite the strengths of all four frameworks, we noted several weaknesses of each approach at present and highlight several newer applications of integrated models and dynamic models that may serve to improve our understanding and promotion of physical activity over the next decade.

KW - Dual process theories

KW - Exercise

KW - Self-determination theory

KW - Social cognitive theories

KW - Socioecological model

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85057138688&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.010

DO - 10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.010

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 100

EP - 109

JO - Psychology of Sport and Exercise

JF - Psychology of Sport and Exercise

SN - 1469-0292

ER -