TY - JOUR
T1 - Prioritizing intentions on the margins
T2 - Effects of marginally higher prioritization strategies on physical activity participation
AU - Chatzisarantis, Nikos L.D.
AU - Barkoukis, Vassilis
AU - Petridis, Panagiotis
AU - Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Cecilie
AU - Ntoumanis, Nikos
AU - Gountas, Sandra
AU - Gountas, John
AU - Adam, Dimitrios
AU - Hagger, Martin S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Human Kinetics, Inc.
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - Previous research documented that "extremely high prioritization" strategies that involved allocation of all resources for time or energy on pursuing goals related to leisure-time physical activity and none of available resources on competing behavioral goals were optimal in terms of yielding highest levels of participation in physical activities. This study examined whether a "marginally higher prioritization" strategy that involved an intention to invest large but slightly more resources on physical activity than competing behaviors was optimal. In addition, we examined whether linear and quadratic models supported different conclusions about optimal prioritizations strategies. Response surface analyses of a quadratic model revealed that marginally higher prioritization was the most effective strategy. In addition, a linear regression model led us to incorrectly reject a "simultaneous goal pursuit" strategy in favor of an extremely high prioritization strategy. Findings suggest that prioritization strategies that "garner" low opportunity costs are the most optimal.
AB - Previous research documented that "extremely high prioritization" strategies that involved allocation of all resources for time or energy on pursuing goals related to leisure-time physical activity and none of available resources on competing behavioral goals were optimal in terms of yielding highest levels of participation in physical activities. This study examined whether a "marginally higher prioritization" strategy that involved an intention to invest large but slightly more resources on physical activity than competing behaviors was optimal. In addition, we examined whether linear and quadratic models supported different conclusions about optimal prioritizations strategies. Response surface analyses of a quadratic model revealed that marginally higher prioritization was the most effective strategy. In addition, a linear regression model led us to incorrectly reject a "simultaneous goal pursuit" strategy in favor of an extremely high prioritization strategy. Findings suggest that prioritization strategies that "garner" low opportunity costs are the most optimal.
KW - Behavioral conflict
KW - Opportunity costs
KW - Prioritization
KW - Quadratic model
KW - Response surface analysis
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85009726489
U2 - 10.1123/jsep.2016-0130
DO - 10.1123/jsep.2016-0130
M3 - Article
C2 - 27736281
AN - SCOPUS:85009726489
SN - 0895-2779
VL - 38
SP - 355
EP - 366
JO - Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
JF - Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
IS - 4
ER -