This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: The review identifies many aspects that relate to moti- vation, from threat appraisals and subjective norms to outcome expectancies. Someone needs to determine how all these constructs fit together and whether they affect behaviour directly or via intentions. Further, to what extent are constructs such as susceptibility and perceived threat the same, and if they differ, how? In the area of self-regulation the challenges are similar. They identify three theories that argue for more specific intentions or plans: goal specificity (SMART), implementation intentions, and theTACT approach. How do these differ and, if so, which should we choose? Is there still a role for general overarching goals? Further, it is not clear how self-efficacy fits with the specific self-regulatory strategies; is it simply a summary of the person’s confi- dence in their self-regulatory capacity, or something more? The authors pick out the self-monitoring element from control theory to highlight the until recently neglected reality that the way in which we think about our experiences affects the way we respond , but do not mention other approaches to tackling this issue such as mindfulness techniques for altering the potency of exter- nal cues to act compared to internal ones (feelings, memories, etc.). There is increasing evidence that for hard-to-maintain behaviour change, for example addictions such as smoking, the determinants of trying are different to the determinants of success [4,5]. How do the tools from these theories relate to the two aspects of behaviour change? The data from smoking cessation generally support the predictive value of wanting as a predictor of trying , but such motivational variables play much attenuated roles in maintenance. Recently we  found that expectancies (primarily around value of smoking, because positive expectancies for being quit did not predict) had their impact on maintenance of cessation attempts via experienced urges to smoke and self-efficacy, the capacity of the self-control mechanisms to resist. It may be that motivational factors are primary for trying, while self-regulatory processes are central to mainte- nance (although each can clearly also influence the other). Webb et al. end by urging us to be more systematic in describing the components of interventions that we test. I think that will be easier to undertake if we focus upon the intervention components, rather than the theories from which they originate, and someone conducts a better job of sorting out the sets of equivalent (or near- equivalent) interventions and constructs described differ- ently by the various theories. If the constructs really are different, it would help to define them in terms of how they differ from related ones, but if they are the same, then relabelling them as such....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/02/2012 for the course COM 498 taught by Professor Jenniferbevan during the Fall '11 term at Chapman University .
- Fall '11