↓ Skip to main content

A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss–The Long Way from Good Intentions to Physical Activity Mediated by Planning, Social Support, and Self-Regulation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
A Rolling Stone Gathers No Moss–The Long Way from Good Intentions to Physical Activity Mediated by Planning, Social Support, and Self-Regulation
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01024
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juliane Paech, Aleksandra Luszczynska, Sonia Lippke

Abstract

Although many people know that an active lifestyle contributes to health they fail to translate their intentions into action. This has been explained by deficits in self-management and resources, such as enabling social support, planning, and self-regulation in the face of barriers. The present study examines the role of perceived social support, planning, and self-regulation in facilitating physical activity. In a prospective online study, intention was assessed at baseline (Time 1), planning and social support at 4-week follow-up (Time 2), self-regulation and physical activity at 6-month follow-up (Time 3). A path analysis was conducted to shed light on mediating psychological mechanisms contributing to maintenance of physical activity. Perceived support (Time 2), planning (Time 2), and self-regulation (Time 3) mediated the link from intention (Time 1) to physical activity (Time 3); the specific and total indirect effects were significant. Findings suggest that perceived social support, planning, and self-regulation can bridge the intention-behavior gap. Behavior change interventions should target those mechanisms in vulnerable individuals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Master 5 12%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 32%
Sports and Recreations 4 10%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 August 2016.
All research outputs
#18,812,604
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,916
of 31,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#273,155
of 357,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#331
of 392 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 357,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 392 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.