Prioritizing Intentions on the Margins: Effects of Marginally Higher Prioritization Strategies on Physical Activity Participation

in Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology

Click name to view affiliation

Nikos L. D. ChatzisarantisCurtin University

Search for other papers by Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Vassilis BarkoukisAristotle University of Thessaloniki

Search for other papers by Vassilis Barkoukis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Panagiotis PetridisAristotle University of Thessaloniki

Search for other papers by Panagiotis Petridis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Cecilie Thøgersen-NtoumaniCurtin University

Search for other papers by Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Nikos NtoumanisCurtin University

Search for other papers by Nikos Ntoumanis in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Sandra GountasCurtin University

Search for other papers by Sandra Gountas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
John GountasMurdoch University

Search for other papers by John Gountas in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Dimitrios AdamCurtin University

Search for other papers by Dimitrios Adam in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Martin S. HaggerCurtin University

Search for other papers by Martin S. Hagger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Previous research documented that “extremely high prioritization” strategies that involved allocation of all resources for time or energy on pursuing goals related to leisure-time physical activity and none of available resources on competing behavioral goals were optimal in terms of yielding highest levels of participation in physical activities. This study examined whether a “marginally higher prioritization” strategy that involved an intention to invest large but slightly more resources on physical activity than competing behaviors was optimal. In addition, we examined whether linear and quadratic models supported different conclusions about optimal prioritizations strategies. Response surface analyses of a quadratic model revealed that marginally higher prioritization was the most effective strategy. In addition, a linear regression model led us to incorrectly reject a “simultaneous goal pursuit” strategy in favor of an extremely high prioritization strategy. Findings suggest that prioritization strategies that “garner” low opportunity costs are the most optimal.

Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis, Cecilie Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Nikos Ntoumanis, Dimitrios Adam, and Martin S. Hagger are with the Department of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. Vassilis Barkoukis is with the Department of Physical Education and Sport Science, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. Panagiotis Petridis is with the Department of Physics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. Sandra Gountas is with the Business School, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. John Gountas is with the Business School, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia. Address author correspondence to Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis at nikos.chatzisarantis@curtin.edu.au.
  • Collapse
  • Expand