Premium
Are current elicitation techniques for barriers and enablers confounded with motivation? How natural language may hinder theory‐guided research
Author(s) -
Branscum Paul W.,
Williams David M.,
Rhodes Ryan E.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
british journal of health psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.05
H-Index - 88
eISSN - 2044-8287
pISSN - 1359-107X
DOI - 10.1111/bjhp.12507
Subject(s) - vignette , psychology , literal (mathematical logic) , meaning (existential) , social psychology , control (management) , randomized controlled trial , applied psychology , natural (archaeology) , cognitive psychology , linguistics , psychotherapist , medicine , computer science , artificial intelligence , philosophy , surgery , archaeology , history
Objectives The objective of this study was to compare standard elicitation techniques for barriers and enablers for physical activity and sleep behaviours, to an alternative approach whereby participants were told to only consider the literal meanings of the words prevent/enable. Design Randomized controlled design. Methods College students were randomized to either a standard methods group ( n = 177) (what prevents you from doing behaviour X) or a vignette group ( n = 176) to encourage them to think of the literal meaning of the words prevent/enable. Responses were then codified by two blinded researchers. Results Students reported significantly different types of control beliefs between groups. Those in the standard group reported significantly more overall beliefs ( p ’s < .05, except sleep/enable), suggesting poorer discrimination in interpreting what was meant by ‘prevent’ and ‘enable’. Conclusions This study demonstrates when self‐efficacy‐related control beliefs are elicited, natural language words such as ‘prevent’ and ‘enable’ have the potential to confuse people about the intent of the question.