↓ Skip to main content

Financial motivation undermines potential enjoyment in an intensive diet and activity intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Behavioral Medicine, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Financial motivation undermines potential enjoyment in an intensive diet and activity intervention
Published in
Journal of Behavioral Medicine, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10865-013-9542-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arlen C. Moller, Joanna Buscemi, H. Gene McFadden, Donald Hedeker, Bonnie Spring

Abstract

The use of material incentives in healthy lifestyle interventions is becoming widespread. However, self-determination theory (SDT) posits that when material incentives are perceived as controlling, they undermine intrinsic motivation. We analyzed data from the Make Better Choices trial-a trial testing strategies for improving four risk behaviors: low fruit-vegetable intake, high saturated fat intake, low physical activity, and high sedentary activity. At baseline, participants reported the degree to which financial incentives were an important motivator (financial motivation); self-reported enjoyment of each behavior was assessed before and after the 3-week incentivization phase. Consistent with SDT, after controlling for general motivation and group assignment, lower financial motivation predicted more adaptive changes in enjoyment. Whereas participants low in financial motivation experienced adaptive changes, adaptive changes were suppressed among those high in financial motivation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 20 16%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 23 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Sports and Recreations 10 8%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 34 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#12,835,374
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#687
of 1,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,246
of 211,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Behavioral Medicine
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.