Today we are going to reconcile two theories, Regulatory Fit Theory and Self-determination theory in explaining the sustenance of exercise motivation over time
The problems with previous research on RFT are that they tend to usein terms of how long motivation can be sustained as explained by RFTUsed bootstrapping to find out exactly how causal relns occurPractical goal of our study
RFT is a Micro-levelGoal pursuit theoryThatdelineates two self-regulatory orientations: promotion focus and prevention focus.To clarify, promotion is not solely gain-seeking and prevention is not solely loss-aversion.The crux is that promotive and preventive orientations represent success and failure differently. Success for promotion is the presence of gains while success for prevention is the absence of losses, In our study, we have used the RFT way of looking at gain-loss message framing.
RFT says that you can use message framing and CE to prime psychological states in people. For example, the congruent interaction of prevention focus matched with interdependent self-construal will elicit value derived from fit in terms of greater motivational intensity that sustains goal pursuit.
However, if you try to match prevention focus with independent self-construal…
SDT is macrolevel goal pursuit theory that posits three universal psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness, all of which have to be satisfied for the sustenance of intrinsic motivationIn SDT, We are concerned with how the environment is able to nourish a person’s three basic needs. This reln between the self and environment is referred to as the organismic dialectic.
Now we would like to briefly explain copresenceSensation of being together with others in cognitively-constructed shared spacesMutual awarenessSocial connectednessMobile phones“Places” where people come together without actually being physically proximate
As we understood, RFT studies in the past are artificial in that they used hypothetical priming to test their hypotheses. Our study is significantly different because our participants are actually placed in an authentic social contexts within a 10-day field experiment.
Our study is a 2 x 2 between subjects full factorial design with competitive environment and message framing as the independent variables. 118 undergraduates from NTU were randomized into each of the four conditions, and further assigned into subgroups.
Participants in independent condition were instructed to compete against the rest of their subgroup members, and they are not aware of other subgroups; while in interdependent condition, they were instructed to work within the subgroup as a team to compete against other subgroups.
Participants were exposed to two health messages per day through Facebook. In eagerness condition, participants received messages that emphasized the presence of positive health benefits, while in vigilance condition, the messages emphasized on the presence of negative consequences as a result of not exercising.For example, eagerness message goes “Research has shown that EXERCISE IMPROVES your ability to concentrate”, while on vigilance, the message goes “Research has shown that LACK OF EXERCISE DECREASES your ability to concentrate”. These messages were pre-tested and found to be perceived significantly different.these are two paragraphs
This is the interface of Skimble. This mobile application is selected for our study due to some crucial components. Firstly, Skimble utilizes the GPS function to track the actual distance covered by our participants, which is important because this is an objective way to measure the extent to which our manipulation translates into actual behavior. Furthermore, the app has a leaderboard function as a way for our participants to monitor their progress relative to others. This accommodates for the creation of competitive environment between our participants.
This integrated experience between Facebook, Skimble, and personalized mobile device simulates the experience of a realistic campaign that public health practitioners and policymakers can tap into.
To simplify, the narrative of our hypotheses can be divided into 4 parts.
So A and D are the fit conditions
We want to see a main effect favouring interdependent competition
Bootstrapping analyses were used
For something to causally predict intrinsic motivation, it might also require some extrapolation of time. We got a longitudinal design and we did not see RF predicting intrinsic motivation.Statistically, needs do not directionally predict or covary with intrinsic motivation as antecedentsYou can have intrinsic motivation without these needs fulfilled but processually it will not be sustained Literature did not exclude the possiblity of needs acting in mediating or indirect rolesBehavior can indeed come before "fully" intrinsic motivation!
RF Cannot fulfill all three needs together in unison within a longitudinal processual design.First boundary condition of RFT’s explanatory power: RFT explains motivation sustenance to the extent SDT needs are met.In effect, we create a new IV called regulatory fit, which is simply collapsing the fit conditions into one and non-fit conditions into one.And in the mediation model, we actually did not find significant effects through behaviour on intrinsic motivation, which means formally our H5 was not supported.We answer RFT researchers’ calls to demarcate boundary conditions of RFT effects, that RFT sustains motivation to the extent SDT needs are met.Fit conditions are able to serve as nutriments to satisfy competence and relatedness needs, but not autonomy needs.Regulatory fit as a micro-level theory of goal pursuit is insufficient by itself in extending explanatory power over motivation sustenance. This is where SDT comes in to complete the picture.
Besides a psychological mechanism kind of boundary conditions, you have a time-based boundary condition.So overall you have RFT’s explanatory power over the short term, and SDT’s explanatory power over the longer term. So you have a overall sense of how intrinsic motivation is sustained over the long term.We have argued that regulatory focus differs as a function ofself-construal patterns that encourage different perspectives ongoal pursuit.
Copresence mediates the reln btw CE and intrinsic motivation and CE fulfills at least competence and relatedness needs.Adds to previous research that found that independent competition is better than no competition is causally predicting motivation.We add on to this by concluding that interdependent competition is better yet.
Bootstrapping analyses were used
The Tale of Two Dialectics
The Tale of Two DialecticsAndrew DarwitanHerbert Eng WeiwenThamonwan Rojawanichkit (PingPing)Jonathan Lee ChengChun
Introduction• Previous research on RFT • Used short-term hypothetical priming scenarios • Required knowledge of inherent traits of audiences • Explanations did not mark out boundary conditions• Longitudinal field experiment to better understand exercise motivation • Ecological emphasis • Bootstrapping statistical techniques to explain mediation links• Practical goal of designing creative campaigns with 3G mobile devices in mind • Capitalize on the sustainability and scalability potential of mobile-centric campaigns
Regulatory Fit Theory Promotion Prevention Presence of Absence ofSuccess Positives Negatives Absence of Presence of Failure Positives Negatives eager vigilant means means
Prevention Focus Interdependent Self-construal Message Framing Competitive Environment Value Derived from FitRegulatory Fit Theory
Prevention Focus Independent Self-construal Message Framing Competitive Environment Non-fit: Goal Pursuit DisruptedRegulatory Fit Theory
Environmental Nutriments Organismic Dialectical Relatedness Autonomy CompetenceSelf-Determination Theory
Copresence• Sensation of being together with others without actually being physically together • Mutual awareness • Social connectedness
H1: Behaviour = Value Derived from Fit?H5: H6:CE>Copresence>Reconcile Int. Motivation
H1. Behaviour as Value Derived from Fit• ANCOVA showed marginal support (p=.059) D (Fit)• Affirmed RFT A “cross”• Note that participants exercised the C most in the vigilance- interdependent B (Non-fit) fit condition (D)
H2. Vigilance Messages fulfill autonomy needs better• Marginally supported • H2a) Main effect on perceived choice (p=.09) • H2b) Main effect on perceived value (n.s.) Competitive Environment Independent Interdependent Message Framing Eagerness Frame (Promotion Focus) Vigilance Frame (Prevention Focus)
H3. Interdependent competition fulfills competence needs better• Marginally supported • H3a) Main effect on perceived competence (n.s.) • H3b) Main effect on perceived effort (p=.07) Competitive Environment Independent Interdependent Message Framing Eagerness Frame (Promotion Focus) Vigilance Frame (Prevention Focus)
H2. Mediation through Autonomy Intrinsic Motivation Exercise Intention .28Message .35Framing .38 BehaviourVigilance Perceived .94 over ChoiceEagerness MF creates anticipatory Autonomy need expectations of the satisfaction future through autonomy need
H5. Statistically reconciling RFT and SDTCollapsed 2×2 into Fit vs. Non-fit(Latimer et al., 2008; Jin & Lee, 2010) Intrinsic Motivation ? Choice (Autonomy) Regulatory Fit Value (Autonomy) FIT (A+D) Behaviour vs. Competence (Competence) Valuenon-FIT (B+C) Derived Effort (Competence) from Fit Relatedness Interpersonal Discussion
H5. Statistically reconciling RFT and SDT• Need all 3 needs to be fulfilled for optimal sustenance of intrinsic motivation• RFT needs SDT to complete the picture• But RFT does add to SDT too! • RFT’s increased motivational intensity, however short-lived, may provide the initial impetus for motivation change or acquisition
H5. Statistically reconciling RFT and SDT“[Recent research] has shown that enduring changes in motivation takes place throughsmall changes happening at the situational level and that are internalised on a numberof occasions at the contextual level [RFT] … When repeated several times, suchinstances of small positive impact of situational motivation on contextual motivationleads to gradual changes that become internalised [SDT].” (Vallerand et al., 2008) RFT: short term motivation Processual change or acquisition Cycles SDT: long term motivational sustenance
H6. Examining CE effects through Copresence Intrinsic Motivation Choice (Autonomy) Competitive Environment Value (Autonomy) Interdependent Copresence Competence (Competence)over Independent Effort (Competence) RelatednessAdds on to Song et al. (2010) Interpersonal Discussion Exercise Intention
Practical Implications• No need to know Regulatory Foci of audiences• Intergroup competition mobile games with vigilance messages work best • Embed such messages into story narratives to satisfy autonomy needs• Gamification and Augmented Reality to heighten feelings of copresence • Also satisfy competence and relatedness needs (one stone kill two birds)
Practical Implications• Capitalize on RFT fit principles to quickly gain critical mass to fuel copresence • Social connectedness + Mutual awareness• Presents insights for new generation Internet start-ups • E.g. Serious games for experiential learning (education)• More scalable and sustainable mobile- centric campaigns