Paul T Fuglestad, Alexander J Rothman, Jennifer A Linde
{"title":"在自主干预中应用监管焦点理论鼓励减肥。","authors":"Paul T Fuglestad, Alexander J Rothman, Jennifer A Linde","doi":"10.1007/s12529-023-10180-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Regulatory focus theory proposes two self-regulatory systems: promotion focus-related to fulfilling aspirations and maximizing positive outcomes-and prevention focus-related to fulfilling responsibilities and avoiding negative outcomes. Building on research demonstrating associations between regulatory focus and weight outcomes, a proof-of-concept weight control intervention framed intervention procedures in terms of promotion or prevention focus and descriptively examined whether the impact of the intervention conditions depended on dispositional regulatory focus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After random assignment to control (received pamphlet on diet and physical activity), promotion, or prevention conditions (1.5-hour baseline sessions; detailed manuals; 1-hour sessions at 3 months), community participants from a metropolitan area in the United States (N = 57; age M = 40; BMI M = 30.9) completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire and were weighed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Longitudinal analysis was conducted with SAS Proc Mixed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Estimated weight change was -2.99 kg, 95% CI [-4.65, -1.32], in the promotion condition, -1.70 kg, 95% CI [-3.29, -0.12], in the prevention condition, and -0.18 kg, 95% CI [-1.42, 1.05], in the control condition. Exploratory analyses revealed that for relatively more promotion-focused participants, estimated weight change was -1.43 kg, 95% CI [-3.38, 0.51], in the promotion condition, +0.48 kg, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.97], in the prevention condition, and -1.09 kg, 95% CI [-2.32, 0.14], in the control condition. For relatively more prevention-focused participants, estimated weight change was -5.19 kg, 95% CI [-7.14, -3.25], in the promotion condition, -3.35 kg, 95% CI [-4.83, -1.86], in the prevention condition, and +0.42 kg, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.65], in the control condition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results suggest that self-directed, promotion-focused interventions may be effective and that tailoring to self-regulatory dispositions may not be of additional benefit in initiating weight loss.</p>","PeriodicalId":54208,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Applying Regulatory Focus Theory to Encourage Weight Loss in a Self-directed Intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Paul T Fuglestad, Alexander J Rothman, Jennifer A Linde\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12529-023-10180-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Regulatory focus theory proposes two self-regulatory systems: promotion focus-related to fulfilling aspirations and maximizing positive outcomes-and prevention focus-related to fulfilling responsibilities and avoiding negative outcomes. Building on research demonstrating associations between regulatory focus and weight outcomes, a proof-of-concept weight control intervention framed intervention procedures in terms of promotion or prevention focus and descriptively examined whether the impact of the intervention conditions depended on dispositional regulatory focus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After random assignment to control (received pamphlet on diet and physical activity), promotion, or prevention conditions (1.5-hour baseline sessions; detailed manuals; 1-hour sessions at 3 months), community participants from a metropolitan area in the United States (N = 57; age M = 40; BMI M = 30.9) completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire and were weighed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Longitudinal analysis was conducted with SAS Proc Mixed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Estimated weight change was -2.99 kg, 95% CI [-4.65, -1.32], in the promotion condition, -1.70 kg, 95% CI [-3.29, -0.12], in the prevention condition, and -0.18 kg, 95% CI [-1.42, 1.05], in the control condition. Exploratory analyses revealed that for relatively more promotion-focused participants, estimated weight change was -1.43 kg, 95% CI [-3.38, 0.51], in the promotion condition, +0.48 kg, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.97], in the prevention condition, and -1.09 kg, 95% CI [-2.32, 0.14], in the control condition. For relatively more prevention-focused participants, estimated weight change was -5.19 kg, 95% CI [-7.14, -3.25], in the promotion condition, -3.35 kg, 95% CI [-4.83, -1.86], in the prevention condition, and +0.42 kg, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.65], in the control condition.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Results suggest that self-directed, promotion-focused interventions may be effective and that tailoring to self-regulatory dispositions may not be of additional benefit in initiating weight loss.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-023-10180-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/4/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-023-10180-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:调节重点理论提出了两种自我调节系统:促进重点与实现愿望和最大化积极结果有关,预防重点与履行责任和避免消极结果有关。一项概念验证性体重控制干预以研究为基础,证明了调节焦点与体重结果之间的关联,干预程序以促进或预防焦点为框架,并描述性地考察了干预条件的影响是否取决于处置性调节焦点:在随机分配到对照组(收到有关饮食和体育锻炼的小册子)、促进组或预防组(1.5 小时的基线课程;详细手册;3 个月后的 1 小时课程)之后,来自美国大都会地区的社区参与者(N = 57;年龄 M = 40;体重指数 M = 30.9)填写了调控重点问卷,并在基线、3 个月和 6 个月时称重。使用 SAS Proc Mixed 进行纵向分析,采用限制性最大似然估计:在促进条件下,估计体重变化为-2.99 千克,95% CI [-4.65, -1.32] ;在预防条件下,估计体重变化为-1.70 千克,95% CI [-3.29, -0.12];在控制条件下,估计体重变化为-0.18 千克,95% CI [-1.42, 1.05]。探索性分析显示,对于相对更注重促进的参与者,在促进条件下,估计体重变化为-1.43 千克,95% CI [-3.38, 0.51];在预防条件下,估计体重变化为+0.48 千克,95% CI [-1.01, 1.97];在控制条件下,估计体重变化为-1.09 千克,95% CI [-2.32, 0.14]。对于相对更注重预防的参与者,在促进条件下,估计体重变化为-5.19千克,95% CI [-7.14,-3.25];在预防条件下,估计体重变化为-3.35千克,95% CI [-4.83,-1.86];在控制条件下,估计体重变化为+0.42千克,95% CI [-0.81,1.65]:结果表明,以自我为导向、以促进为重点的干预措施可能是有效的,而针对自我调节倾向的干预措施可能不会对开始减肥产生额外的益处。
Applying Regulatory Focus Theory to Encourage Weight Loss in a Self-directed Intervention.
Background: Regulatory focus theory proposes two self-regulatory systems: promotion focus-related to fulfilling aspirations and maximizing positive outcomes-and prevention focus-related to fulfilling responsibilities and avoiding negative outcomes. Building on research demonstrating associations between regulatory focus and weight outcomes, a proof-of-concept weight control intervention framed intervention procedures in terms of promotion or prevention focus and descriptively examined whether the impact of the intervention conditions depended on dispositional regulatory focus.
Methods: After random assignment to control (received pamphlet on diet and physical activity), promotion, or prevention conditions (1.5-hour baseline sessions; detailed manuals; 1-hour sessions at 3 months), community participants from a metropolitan area in the United States (N = 57; age M = 40; BMI M = 30.9) completed the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire and were weighed at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Longitudinal analysis was conducted with SAS Proc Mixed using restricted maximum likelihood estimation.
Results: Estimated weight change was -2.99 kg, 95% CI [-4.65, -1.32], in the promotion condition, -1.70 kg, 95% CI [-3.29, -0.12], in the prevention condition, and -0.18 kg, 95% CI [-1.42, 1.05], in the control condition. Exploratory analyses revealed that for relatively more promotion-focused participants, estimated weight change was -1.43 kg, 95% CI [-3.38, 0.51], in the promotion condition, +0.48 kg, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.97], in the prevention condition, and -1.09 kg, 95% CI [-2.32, 0.14], in the control condition. For relatively more prevention-focused participants, estimated weight change was -5.19 kg, 95% CI [-7.14, -3.25], in the promotion condition, -3.35 kg, 95% CI [-4.83, -1.86], in the prevention condition, and +0.42 kg, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.65], in the control condition.
Conclusions: Results suggest that self-directed, promotion-focused interventions may be effective and that tailoring to self-regulatory dispositions may not be of additional benefit in initiating weight loss.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Behavioral Medicine (IJBM) is the official scientific journal of the International Society for Behavioral Medicine (ISBM). IJBM seeks to present the best theoretically-driven, evidence-based work in the field of behavioral medicine from around the globe. IJBM embraces multiple theoretical perspectives, research methodologies, groups of interest, and levels of analysis. The journal is interested in research across the broad spectrum of behavioral medicine, including health-behavior relationships, the prevention of illness and the promotion of health, the effects of illness on the self and others, the effectiveness of novel interventions, identification of biobehavioral mechanisms, and the influence of social factors on health. We welcome experimental, non-experimental, quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies as well as implementation and dissemination research, integrative reviews, and meta-analyses.