多重动机如何在具有诱人选择的情况下促进决策:来自两个情景研究的证据。

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Celina R Furman, Sarah C Volz, Traci Mann, Alexander J Rothman
{"title":"多重动机如何在具有诱人选择的情况下促进决策:来自两个情景研究的证据。","authors":"Celina R Furman, Sarah C Volz, Traci Mann, Alexander J Rothman","doi":"10.1080/08870446.2025.2560360","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Both affectively-charged and reflective motivation may be necessary to sustain recommended physical activity (PA) guidelines, especially in contexts with tempting alternatives. However, our understanding of how different sources of motivation facilitate PA across contexts is limited. This paper presents a novel value-based model that specifies how affectively-charged and reflective motivation interact to support PA decisions based on available alternatives at a given decision point.</p><p><strong>Methods and measures: </strong>Two scenario studies tested model assumptions by examining one's general intrinsic motivation for PA (form of affectively-charged motivation), and the reasons one would think of to motivate their PA when faced with alternatives with varying levels of temptingness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In less tempting scenarios, intrinsic motivation was positively associated with selection of affective reasons (Study 1). In more tempting scenarios, instrumental reasons were generally selected, although the specific type of reason differed based on intrinsic motivation (Study 2).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings suggest that instrumental reasons, which motivate behavior through reflective processes, may be particularly important for people when faced with highly tempting alternatives or if they do not find PA to be intrinsically rewarding. More research is needed to determine whether these patterns of motive selection effectively facilitate behavior.</p>","PeriodicalId":20718,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Health","volume":" ","pages":"1-28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How multiple motives facilitate decisions to exercise in contexts with tempting alternatives: evidence from two scenario studies.\",\"authors\":\"Celina R Furman, Sarah C Volz, Traci Mann, Alexander J Rothman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08870446.2025.2560360\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Both affectively-charged and reflective motivation may be necessary to sustain recommended physical activity (PA) guidelines, especially in contexts with tempting alternatives. However, our understanding of how different sources of motivation facilitate PA across contexts is limited. This paper presents a novel value-based model that specifies how affectively-charged and reflective motivation interact to support PA decisions based on available alternatives at a given decision point.</p><p><strong>Methods and measures: </strong>Two scenario studies tested model assumptions by examining one's general intrinsic motivation for PA (form of affectively-charged motivation), and the reasons one would think of to motivate their PA when faced with alternatives with varying levels of temptingness.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In less tempting scenarios, intrinsic motivation was positively associated with selection of affective reasons (Study 1). In more tempting scenarios, instrumental reasons were generally selected, although the specific type of reason differed based on intrinsic motivation (Study 2).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings suggest that instrumental reasons, which motivate behavior through reflective processes, may be particularly important for people when faced with highly tempting alternatives or if they do not find PA to be intrinsically rewarding. More research is needed to determine whether these patterns of motive selection effectively facilitate behavior.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20718,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology & Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2025.2560360\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2025.2560360","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:情感动机和反思动机对于维持推荐的体育活动(PA)指南可能都是必要的,特别是在具有诱人替代方案的情况下。然而,我们对不同的动机来源如何促进跨上下文的PA的理解是有限的。本文提出了一种新的基于价值的模型,该模型指定了在给定决策点上,基于可用替代方案的有效动机和反思动机如何相互作用以支持PA决策。方法和措施:两个场景研究通过检查个人行为的一般内在动机(情感驱动动机的形式),以及当面对具有不同程度诱惑的选择时,人们会想到激励个人行为的原因,来测试模型假设。结果:在不太诱人的场景中,内在动机与情感原因的选择呈正相关(研究1)。在更诱人的场景中,通常会选择工具原因,尽管具体原因类型因内在动机而异(研究2)。结论:研究结果表明,当人们面对非常诱人的选择,或者他们不认为PA具有内在的回报时,工具性原因(通过反思过程激励行为)可能特别重要。需要更多的研究来确定这些动机选择模式是否有效地促进了行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How multiple motives facilitate decisions to exercise in contexts with tempting alternatives: evidence from two scenario studies.

Objective: Both affectively-charged and reflective motivation may be necessary to sustain recommended physical activity (PA) guidelines, especially in contexts with tempting alternatives. However, our understanding of how different sources of motivation facilitate PA across contexts is limited. This paper presents a novel value-based model that specifies how affectively-charged and reflective motivation interact to support PA decisions based on available alternatives at a given decision point.

Methods and measures: Two scenario studies tested model assumptions by examining one's general intrinsic motivation for PA (form of affectively-charged motivation), and the reasons one would think of to motivate their PA when faced with alternatives with varying levels of temptingness.

Results: In less tempting scenarios, intrinsic motivation was positively associated with selection of affective reasons (Study 1). In more tempting scenarios, instrumental reasons were generally selected, although the specific type of reason differed based on intrinsic motivation (Study 2).

Conclusion: Findings suggest that instrumental reasons, which motivate behavior through reflective processes, may be particularly important for people when faced with highly tempting alternatives or if they do not find PA to be intrinsically rewarding. More research is needed to determine whether these patterns of motive selection effectively facilitate behavior.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
3.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Psychology & Health promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to health and illness. The contents include work on psychological aspects of physical illness, treatment processes and recovery; psychosocial factors in the aetiology of physical illnesses; health attitudes and behaviour, including prevention; the individual-health care system interface particularly communication and psychologically-based interventions. The journal publishes original research, and accepts not only papers describing rigorous empirical work, including meta-analyses, but also those outlining new psychological approaches and interventions in health-related fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信