Amaratunga - Heart Foundation - IMPROVING NUTRITION USING A PSYCHOSOCIAL INTERVENTION FOR BREAKFAST...
1
IMPROVING NUTRITION USING A PSYCHOSOCIAL INTERVENTION FOR BREAKFAST CONSUMPTION? Introduction Breakfast is associated with a number of physical and psychosocial health outcomes, including a decrease in risk of cardiovascular disease (Rampersaud, Pereira, Girard, Adams, & Metzl, 2005). However, only 61% of Australian young people regularly consume a morning meal (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997). Research into other health behaviours has suggested that interventions which frame heath messages in terms of health benefits are more successful than factually equivalent interventions which emphasise health risks (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). Framing effects have not previously been investigated in the context of breakfast consumption. Results As expected levels of TPB variables at baseline were found to predict breakfast consumption at follow-up. Contrary to expectations, no differences in behaviour or any psychosocial variables were found between the positive and negative framing conditions at follow-up. Both interventions led to significant increases in positive attitudes towards breakfast when compared to the control group. Individuals in the control group experienced a decline PBC over the course of the intervention. This was not observed in either intervention group. No significant changes in behaviour or subjective norm were observed for either experimental group. Rajith Amaratunga, Barbara Mullan, and Emily Kothe School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Australia Aim The present study investigated the use of positively and negatively framed breakfast messages in increasing breakfast consumption, and social cognitions related to breakfast, over a four week follow-up. The aim of the study was to examine the effects of two brief, web-based, psychosocial interventions. Factually equivalent messages were designed for the two framing conditions based on principles from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Azjen, 1991) and utilising Implementation Intentions (Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). The influence of the intervention on attitude, subjective norm, perceived behaviour control, intention and behaviour was investigated. Conclusion Based on the present findings it is difficult to how best to frame health messages when attempting to promote positive beliefs about breakfast. While the current interventions led to more positive beliefs about breakfast consumption these changes were not effectively translated to change in breakfast eating behaviour. Further research should be conducted to determine how to best translate these changes in cognition to change in breakfast consumption Method Acknowledgements This study would not have been possible without the time and effort of those who participated in this research. As always they have our deepest gratitude. The authors would also like to thank Cara Wong and Adrian Macarthur-King for their support. Participants (N=109) were randomly assigned to one of three groups. Positive framing: Messages emphasising the health benefits of breakfast consumption and the implementation intention task. Negative framing: Messages emphasising the health risks of breakfast skipping and the implementation intention task. Control: Distracter task In all groups, breakfast related attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioural control were measured at both occasions. Breakfast eating behaviour was assessed at baseline and four week follow-up. Figure 1. Sample of positive framing message Figure 2. Sample of negative framing message Attitudes Subjective Norm PBC Intention Behaviour -0.024 .197 .535** .704** .187 R 2 = .368** R 2 = .520** Figure 3: Model 1 with standardized regression coefficients (β) (Note * p <.05; ** p<.001) 0 2 4 6 8 Behaviour Attitude PBC Subjective Norm Negative Frame Positive Frame Figure 4. Between group comparison of follow-up scores: TPB variables and behaviour 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Positive Framing Negative Framing Control Group Figure 5. Change in attitude towards breakfast consumption Figure 6. Change in PBC -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 -0.0 0.2 Positive Framing Negative Framing Control
-
Upload
emily-kothe -
Category
Documents
-
view
114 -
download
1
Transcript of Amaratunga - Heart Foundation - IMPROVING NUTRITION USING A PSYCHOSOCIAL INTERVENTION FOR BREAKFAST...
IMPROVING NUTRITION USING A PSYCHOSOCIAL INTERVENTION FOR
BREAKFAST CONSUMPTION?
Introduction
Breakfast is associated with a number of physical and psychosocial health outcomes, including a decrease in risk of cardiovascular disease (Rampersaud, Pereira, Girard, Adams, & Metzl, 2005). However, only 61% of Australian young people regularly consume a morning meal (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997).
Research into other health behaviours has suggested that interventions which frame heath messages in terms of health benefits are more successful than factually equivalent interventions which emphasise health risks (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). Framing effects have not previously been investigated in the context of breakfast consumption.
Results
As expected levels of TPB variables at baseline were found to predict breakfast consumption at follow-up.
Contrary to expectations, no differences in behaviour or any psychosocial variables were found between the positive and negative framing conditions at follow-up.
Both interventions led to significant increases in positive attitudes towards breakfast when compared to the control group.
Individuals in the control group experienced a decline PBC over the course of the intervention. This was not observed in either intervention group.
No significant changes in behaviour or subjective norm were observed for either experimental group.
Rajith Amaratunga, Barbara Mullan, and Emily KotheSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Australia
Aim
The present study investigated the use of positively and negatively framed breakfast messages in increasing breakfast consumption, and social cognitions related to breakfast, over a four week follow-up.
The aim of the study was to examine the effects of two brief, web-based, psychosocial interventions. Factually equivalent messages were designed for the two framing conditions based on principles from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Azjen, 1991) and utilising Implementation Intentions (Gollwitzer & Brandstatter, 1997). The influence of the intervention on attitude, subjective norm, perceived behaviour control, intention and behaviour was investigated.
Conclusion
Based on the present findings it is difficult to how best to frame health messages when attempting to promote positive beliefs about breakfast.
While the current interventions led to more positive beliefs about breakfast consumption these changes were not effectively translated to change in breakfast eating behaviour.
Further research should be conducted to determine how to best translate these changes in cognition to change in breakfast consumption
Method
Acknowledgements
This study would not have been possible without the time and effort of those who participated in this research. As always they have our deepest gratitude. The authors would also like to thank Cara Wong and Adrian Macarthur-King for their support.
Participants (N=109) were randomly assigned to one of three groups.
Positive framing: Messages emphasising the health benefits of breakfast consumption and the implementation intention task.
Negative framing: Messages emphasising the health risks of breakfast skipping and the implementation intention task.
Control: Distracter task
In all groups, breakfast related attitudes, social norms, and perceived behavioural control were measured at both occasions. Breakfast eating behaviour was assessed at baseline and four week follow-up.
Figure 1. Sample of positive framing message
Figure 2. Sample of negative framing message
Attitudes
Subjective Norm
PBC
Intention Behaviour
-0.024
.197
.535**
.704**
.187
R2 = .368** R2 = .520**
Figure 3: Model 1 with standardized regression coefficients (β) (Note * p <.05; ** p<.001)
0 2 4 6 8
Behaviour
Attitude
PBC
Subjective Norm
NegativeFrame
PositiveFrame
Figure 4. Between group comparison of follow-up scores: TPB variables and behaviour
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
PositiveFraming
NegativeFraming
Control Group
Figure 5. Change in attitude towards breakfast consumption
Figure 6. Change in PBC
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
-0.0
0.2
PositiveFraming
NegativeFraming
Control
