Insights into effects of individual, dyadic, and collaborative planning interventions on automatic, conscious, and social process variables

Ewa Kulis; Zofia Szczuka; Anna Banik; Maria Siwa; Monika Boberska; Nina Knoll; Theda Radtke; Urte Scholz; Ryan E Rhodes; Aleksandra Luszczynska

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115477

Insights into effects of individual, dyadic, and collaborative planning interventions on automatic, conscious, and social process variables

Soc Sci Med. 2022 Dec:314:115477. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115477. Epub 2022 Oct 29.

Authors

Ewa Kulis¹, Zofia Szczuka², Anna Banik³, Maria Siwa⁴, Monika Boberska⁵, Nina Knoll⁶, Theda Radtke⁷, Urte Scholz⁸, Ryan E Rhodes⁹, Aleksandra Luszczynska¹⁰

Affiliations

¹ Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: ekulis@swps.edu.pl.
² Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: zszczuka@swps.edu.pl.
³ Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: abanik@swps.edu.pl.
⁴ Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: msiwa@st.swps.edu.pl.
⁵ Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland. Electronic address: mboberska@swps.edu.pl.
⁶ Department of Education and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Allee 45, 14195, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: nina.knoll@fu-berlin.de.
⁷ Department of Psychology, University of Wuppertal, Gaussstrasse 20, 42119, Wuppertal, Germany. Electronic address: radtke@uni-wuppertal.de.
⁸ Department of Psychology, Applied Health and Social Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: urte.scholz@psychologie.uzh.ch.
⁹ Behavioural Medicine Laboratory, School of Exercise Science, Physical and Health Education, University of Victoria, McKinnon Building 3800 Finnerty Road Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada. Electronic address: rhodes@uvic.ca.
¹⁰ Wroclaw Faculty of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Aleksandra Ostrowskiego 30b, 53238, Wroclaw, Poland; Melbourne Centre for Behavior Change, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Redmond Barry Building, Parkville Campus, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia. Electronic address: aluszczy@uccs.edu.

PMID: 36356331
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115477

Abstract

Objective: Going beyond the effects of individual planning ("I-for-me"), we investigate the associations of dyadic ("we-for-me") and collaborative ("we-for-us") planning with automatic, conscious, and social process variables that may elucidate the differences through which these three types of planning operate. We tested the effects of three planning interventions on: (1) habit strength, representing an automatic process, (2) the use of individual planning, representing a conscious process, (3) the use of collaborative planning, representing conscious and social processes, and (4) collaborative social control, representing a social process.

Methods: N = 320 adults were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) the active control condition, (2) the individual planning condition, (3) the dyadic planning condition, or (4) the collaborative planning condition. Self-reported data on habit strength, the use of individual planning, the use of collaborative planning, and collaborative social control were assessed at baseline and at the 9-week follow-up. Analyses used linear mixed modelling.

Results: Compared to the control group, participants in the individual planning condition had stronger habits at the 9-week follow-up. Those in the dyadic planning condition reported higher levels of the use of collaborative planning and higher levels of collaborative social control at the follow-up. Finally, compared to those assigned to the control group, participants in the collaborative planning condition reported stronger habits, higher levels of the use of both individual and collaborative planning, and higher levels of collaborative social control at the follow-up.

Conclusions: Individual, dyadic, and collaborative planning interventions may result in distinct patterns of changes in the variables representing automatic, conscious, and social processes. In particular, changes in automatic, conscious and social process variables, evoked by the collaborative "we-for-us" planning intervention may reflect the major regulatory effort of forming joint plans and subsequently integrating regular joint exercise into the weekly schedule.

Keywords: Habit; Physical activity; Planning; Randomized controlled trial; Social control.

Publication types

Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adult
Exercise
Habits*
Humans
Self Report
Social Control, Formal