↓ Skip to main content

Mental contrasting as a behaviour change technique: a systematic review protocol paper of effects, mediators and moderators on health

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Mental contrasting as a behaviour change technique: a systematic review protocol paper of effects, mediators and moderators on health
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0382-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ainslea Cross, David Sheffield

Abstract

Mental contrasting is a self-regulation strategy that is required for strong goal commitment. In mental contrasting, individuals firstly imagine a desired future or health goal that contrasted with the reality proceeding the goal state, which after reflection is viewed as an obstacle (Oettingen et al. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:736-753, 2001). Mentally contrasting a positive future with reality enables individuals to translate positive attitudes and high efficacy into strong goal commitment. A systematic review of the literature is proposed to explore the efficacy of mental contrasting as a behaviour change technique (Michie et al., Ann Behav Med 46: 81-95, 2013) for health. The review also aims to identify the effects of mental contrasting on health-related behaviour, as well as identifying mediator and moderator variables. This will be the first systematic review of mental contrasting as a health behaviour change technique. With sufficient studies, a meta-analysis will be conducted with sensitivity and sub group analyses. If meta-analysis is not appropriate, a narrative synthesis of the reviewed studies will be conducted. Review protocol registered on PROSPERO reference CRD42016034202 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Other 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 10 30%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 58%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 3 9%

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 28 November 2016.
All research outputs
#7,440,576
of 14,698,477 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#833
of 1,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,166
of 381,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#63
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,698,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 381,907 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.