4.3 Article

A dual process model to predict adolescents' screen time and physical activity

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY & HEALTH
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 827-846

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2021.1988598

Keywords

Physical activity; screen time; reasoned action approach; automaticity; structural equation modelling

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to examine the predictors of physical activity and screen time in adolescents. The results showed a negative correlation between physical activity and screen time, and intentions and habits were found to be the key predictors for both behaviors.
Objective Many adolescents report a lack of physical activity (PA) and excess screen time (ST). Psychological theories aiming to understand these behaviours typically focus on predictors of only one behaviour. Yet, behaviour enactment is often a choice between options. This study sought to examine predictors of PA and ST in a single model. Variables were drawn from dual process models, which portray behaviour as the outcome of deliberative and automatic processes. Design 411 Finnish vocational school students (age 17-19) completed a survey, comprising variables from the Reasoned Action Approach (RAA) and automaticity pertaining to PA and ST, and self-reported PA and ST four weeks later. Main outcome measures Self-reported time spent on PA and ST and their predictors. Results PA and ST correlated negatively (r = -.17, p = .03). Structural equation modelling revealed that intentions and habit for PA predicted PA while ST was predicted by intentions and habit for ST and negatively by PA intentions. RAA-cognitions predicted intentions. Conclusion PA and ST and their psychological predictors seem to be weakly interlinked. Future studies should assess more behaviours and related psychological influences to get a better picture of connections between different behaviours.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available