The Social Regulation of Activity and Inactivity: Implications for Behavior Prediction and Change

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The Social Regulation of Activity and Inactivity: Implications for Behavior Prediction and Change"

Tracy Adams
6 years ago
Views:

1 The Social Regulation of Activity and Inactivity: Implications for Behavior Prediction and Change Dolores Albarracín University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign

2 Principle of correspondence: Fishbein & Ajzen (1977)

3 Activity Levels Sleep Awake Low energy High energy Low behavior Intensity or frequency High behavior intensity or frequency

4 Natural Variability in Hibernation in Bears May June July August September October November December January March April Hybernation Chance

6 Individual Differences Biological regulation: Metabolic levels (Lawrence, Thongprasert, & Durnin, 1988) Processing speed (Anderson, 1992) Genetic bases of bipolar disorder or impulsivity (American Psychiatric Association, 2005) Social factors Psychometric scales Mania Locomotion (Kruglanski et al., 2000) Chronic affective activation vs. inhibition (elation vs. depression; Carver & White, 1994)

7 Social Regulation of Activity Level 2 Questions: Can social groups exert control over general activity levels? What are the behavioral, motivational, and cognitive consequences of this control? Are there social and health consequences?

8 This Talk 1. Discuss symbolic regulation of general activity levels 2. Present experimental effects of action and inaction concepts on situationallyinduced behavior and cognition 3. Describe goals as one mediating mechanism of these effects 4. Discuss social and health implications (political participation; cross-national data) and social basis for these effects

9 Hypothesis 2011 Dolores Albarracin - DO NOT COPY OR USE

10 Symbols or Concrete Stimuli go

11 Associations of Concepts of Action and Inaction (McCulloch, Albarracin, & Hong, 2011) Action (Cognitive or Motor Output): Energy demand Abstract thinking, planning Movement Examples: running, intellectual problem solving Inaction: Less energy demand or effort lack of movement behavioral abstinence (e.g., Roese, Hur, & Pennington, 1999) Examples: sleeping, daydreaming Endstates

12 Social Regulation Stimuli, Messages General Attitudes and Goals Specific Behavior Procedures Attitudes (Allport, 1935; Fishbein, 1967; Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957; Triandis, 1977): Favorable evaluations of active vs. inactive behaviors Goals (Bargh et al., 2001; Kruglanski et al., 2002; Moskowitz, Li, & Kirk, 2004): Current mobilization of resources to achieve doing. Same for not doing Procedures (Smith, 1994; Willingham; 1998; Wyer, 2004): Behavioral routines linked to the concepts of action vs. inaction

13 Goal Properties When goals are activated, behavior should persist until goal satisfaction (Bargh et al., 2001; Förster, Liberman, & Higgins, 2005; Kruglanski et al., 2002; Lewin, 1935; Moskowitz, Li, & Kirk, 2004; Zeigarnik, 1927 ) Sensitive to maximizing active or inactive outcomes

14 Theoretical Importance These goals were never proposed Validate hierarchical systems Control other goals, even fairly high level ones Inaction not as failure to act, but a goal Top-down control with ironic consequences

15 Counterintuitive Consequences General action goals may elicit: planning and productive behavior Impulsive behavior

16 Laboratory Methods: Words of Action or Inaction active doing go still pause relax Relevant Stats

17 Tasks During Priming Across Studies 1. Word-completion exercise: A_TIVE = ACTIVE 2. Brief exposure to words (50 ms) 3. Subliminal exposure to words: Foveal, 15 ms with backward and forward masks

18 Experimental Design Prime Task Dichotomy with active vs. inactive choices, or various intensities Action ( active, doing, behavior ) Inaction ( interrupt, pause, stop ) Control ( moon, pear )

19 Doodling on a Piece of Paper vs. Resting (Word Search) Percentage of participants doodling Action prime Inaction prime X 2 (98) = 6.94, p<.008 OR = 3.5, d = 0.69 Albarracin, Handley, Noguchi, McCulloch, Li, Leeper, Earl, & Hart, 2008

20 Mouse Clicks Counting Behaviors of Actor (Word Search) Number of Behaviors Action prime Control prime Inaction prime 24 F (2, 151) = 3.32, p<.04 d = 0.56 Error bars are SEs Unitization Measure: Lassiter, Stone, & Rogers, 1988 Albarracin, Handley, Noguchi, McCulloch, Li, Leeper, Earl, & Hart, 2008

21 Recall of Scientific Information (Brief Exposure) 0.6 Proportion of Recall Action prime Inaction prime 0.3 F (1, 35) = 5.55, p<.03 d = 0.36 Albarracin, Handley, Noguchi, McCulloch, Li, Leeper, Earl, & Hart, 2008

22 Exercising (Word Search) Sec Action prime Control prime F (1, 27) = 2.95, p =.097 d = 0.65 Lepper & Albarracin, 2006

23 Exercising (Subliminal Priming) Sec Action prime Control prime F (1, 47) = 4.46, p =.04 d = 0.61 Lepper & Albarracin, 2006

24 Conclusion Mean d = 0.58, p< , N = 507, Homogeneity Q (7) = 1.41, p <.99 Albarracin et al. (2008), Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Albarracin et al. (2009), Obesity Laran (2009), Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Gendolla & Silvestrini (2010), Psychological Science Noguchi, Handley, & Albarracin (2011), Psychological Science Albarracin & Handley (in press), Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Across behaviors: general action concepts = increases in activity general inaction concepts = decreases in activity

25 Similarities and Differences with Prior Research Similarity: Use of priming to induce behavior Differences: Effects are driven by general commands that are linked to a current task in the focus of attention Priming old may be inducing general in addition to specific goals Processes? 2011 Dolores Albarracin - DO NOT COPY OR USE

26 Underlying Processes Goals: Goals exert an effect until satisfied (Förster, Liberman, & Higgins, 2005; Marsh, Hicks, & Bink, 1998; Zeigarnik, 1927). Sensitive to maximizing active or inactive outcomes.

27 Endstate is Motivating Experiment: 2 (Word Search: Action vs. Inaction Prime) x 2 (Set up of solve problems vs. rest: Control vs. means to opposite endstate); N = 102 Control-task set-up: just option of 30 seconds of problem solving vs. resting Experimental-task set-up (problem solving means more rest later): 30-second rest to perform 3 minutes of problem solving 30-second problem solving to 3-minute rest DV = problem solving vs. resting

28 Albarracin, Handley, Noguchi, McCulloch, Li, Leeper, Earl, & Hart, Dolores Albarracin - DO NOT COPY OR USE % Problem Solving Immediate Problem Solving p<.06 p<.002 Problem Soving vs. Rest Problem Solving Now Means More Rest Later Action prime Inaction prime Logistic Regression, Wald Test (1) = 7.45, p<.006

29 Underlying Processes Goals: Not solely a procedure. Sensitive to maximizing active or inactive outcomes.

30 Social and Health Implications What produces similar effects in real life? Whatever facilitates action: Space, resources Media Implications for: Political participation Physical and metal health

31 Effects of Space Large spaces, lots of resources, both enable activity Could create action patterns by proceduralization or goal inducement

32 Median House Size in the US (

33 Room Size: Experiments Between subjects assignment to small (24 SF; 192 CF) room or large room (~140 FT; 1120 CF) Experiments: Experiment 1: Measures of intentions to purchase a variety of products. Experiment 2: Go No Go Task: Participants must go to the word cake and not go to sex or go to sex and not go to cake : False alarms

34 Room Size: Experiment 1 (Xu, Noguchi, & Albarracin, 2010)

35 Results 2011 Dolores Albarracin - DO NOT COPY OR USE

36 Conclusion Structural variables influence activity level, in this case impulsivity

37 Political Participation Archival data correlating an index of activity and political participation Experiment 1: Amount of time volunteered for a political cause Experiment 2: Participation in the 2008 US election: Voting in the presidential election, trying to influence the vote of others during the presidential election, and helping with campaign work for a party or a candidate

38 Archival Data about Participation in US States Action index: Index of physical activity for each US state Consumption of stimulants Percentage of obese individuals Political participation: Meetings, rallies, voter turnout etc

3 2 1 Political 0 Participation -2-1 0 1 2-1

39 3 2 1 Political 0 Participation Action Index Noguchi, Handley, & Albarracin 2011

40 Commitment to Activism (Word Search) Minutes to Make Phone Calls (Activism) Action Inaction 12 F (1, 75) = 3.86, p <.05 d = 0.45 Noguchi, Handley, & Albarracin 2011

41 F (2, 90) = 3.17, p <.05 Noguchi, Handley, & Albarracin 2011

42 Communication Media

44 Number of Raisins (Messages) Number of raisins Exercise messages Control messages F(1,53) = 4.04, p <.05 Albarracin, Wei, & Leeper, 2009

45 Eating (Word Search) Number of grapes Action prime Control prime F (1,27) = 5.75, p<.02 d = 0.91 Albarracin, Wang, & Leeper, 2009

46 Mental Health Implications Favorable Attitudes toward Action: Impulsivity Favorable Attitudes toward Inaction: Tranquility, but perhaps more anxiety Vary across nations

47 Existing Ethno-Psychiatry 2011 Dolores Albarracin - DO NOT COPY OR USE Study (World Health Organization): House to House DSM-VI Interview 7 12-Month Prevalence Impulse-Control Disorders % US Colombia Ukraine Beijing Lebanon France Mexico Netherlands Japan Belgium Shanghai Spain Germany Italy Nigeria

49 Mental Health Measures Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-11, Patton, Stanford, & Barratt,1995): Impulsivity (1-4): I act on impulse. I act on the spur of the moment. I walk and move fast. I solve problems by trial-and-error. I talk fast.

50 Attitude Scales (1-7 Agree- Disagree) Attitudes towards action: I would rather engage in activities than do nothing. Being active is pleasant. Attitudes toward inaction: Being inactive is pleasant. Relaxing decreases your productivity.

51 Impulsivity Means

52 ACT_1 ACT_2 INACT_3 Attitudes toward General Action E4 US (vs. Japan) Impulsivity Attitudes toward General Inaction INACT_1 INACT_2 INACT_3 E4 E5 E6 E4 E5 E5 E6 E6 BIS_IMP1 BIS_IMP2 BIS_IMP3

53 β = 0.04 (0.29***) β = 0.39*** Attitudes toward General Action β = 0.44*** US (vs. Japan) β = 0.50*** Attitudes toward General Inaction β = 0.15 Impulsivity

54 Conclusions Cross-national differences in psychological functioning correlate with cross-national differences in attitudes toward action

55 General Conclusions 1. General action and inaction goals can be set through information of the type presented in social settings 2. Action and inaction concepts can each increase and decrease desirable and undesirable behaviors 3. Effects have goal properties 4. These goals can vary across social groups 5. They correlate with socially relevant issues like impulsivity and political participation

56 Studying these issues will clarify how to set goals that lead to productive, symptom-free lives.

57 $$$$

58 still

59 ++++++

60 pause

61 $$$$

62 stop

63 ++++++

Acknowledgments Lab Experiments: Ian Handley Kenji Noguchi Casey McCulloch Hong Li Josh Leeper Allison Earl Jing Xu Will Hart Wei Wang Cross-nation study: Hong Li

64 Acknowledgments Lab Experiments: Ian Handley Kenji Noguchi Casey McCulloch Hong Li Josh Leeper Allison Earl Jing Xu Will Hart Wei Wang Cross-nation study: Hong Li Kenji Noguchi Tarcan Kumkale Josh Leeper Ringo Ho Darius Chan Fernando Garcia Javier Arce Masatake Ikemi Allan Bernardo Rolando Diaz-Loving Pilar Carrera Lucia Mannetti

Survey Research. We can learn a lot simply by asking people what we want to know... THE PREVALENCE OF SURVEYS IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH

Survey Research. We can learn a lot simply by asking people what we want to know... THE PREVALENCE OF SURVEYS IN COMMUNICATION RESEARCH Survey Research From surveys we can learn how large groups of people think and act. To trust generalizations made on the basis of surveys, however, the sample must be representative, the response rate