Habit-behaviour relationships in organised and leisure-time physical activity
Comparing habit-behaviour relationships for organised versus leisure time physical activity
Recommendation: posted 24 August 2023, validated 24 August 2023
Giannouli, E. (2023) Habit-behaviour relationships in organised and leisure-time physical activity. Peer Community In Health and Movement Sciences, 100002. 10.24072/pci.healthmovsci.100002
Despite public health campaigns, achieving recommended physical activity levels remains challenging. Investigating the factors influencing physical activity is essential for effective promotion. Habit strength is known to correlate with physical activity (Hagger, 2019), making habit formation a key intervention target. Newman et al. (2023) expand current knowledge on physical activity and habit strength. They investigate if habit strength and its association with behavior differ between organized and leisure-time physical activities. Given the broad definition of physical activity and individual differences in preferences, studying habit's influence on varied activities is crucial. The cross-sectional survey, spanning the UK, USA, Australia, and Switzerland, involves 120 young adults (mean age = 25) engaged in organized sports. Although self-report measures are used, excluding commuting and occupational activity, the study yields intriguing results: Authors find significant habit strength differences between organized sports and leisure-time activities, indicating potential distinctions in habit formation drivers. Investigating factors establishing habits in organized sports could inform broader interventions. Remarkably, the impact of habits on behavior is consistent across both activity types, suggesting a universal role of habits. Further analysis reveals stronger habit strength in team sports versus individual ones, with no behavior association difference. Diverse habit strength in organized versus leisure-time activities underscores the need for focused research. Understanding unique aspects of team sports that promote habituation can reshape interventions, aligning leisure activities with organized sports' characteristics.
Hagger, M. S. (2019). Habit and physical activity: Theoretical advances, practical implications, and agenda for future research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 42, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.12.007
Newman, K., Forestier, C., Cheval, B., Zenko, Z., De Chanaleilles, M., Gardner, B., & Rebar, A. L. (2023). Comparing habit-behaviour relationships for organised versus leisure time physical activity. OSF Preprints, 1–11, version 4, peer-reviewed and recommended by Peer Community in Health & Movement Sciences. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x5e9d
The recommender in charge of the evaluation of the article and the reviewers declared that they have no conflict of interest (as defined in the code of conduct of PCI) with the authors or with the content of the article. The authors declared that they comply with the PCI rule of having no financial conflicts of interest in relation to the content of the article.
B.C. is supported by an Ambizione grant (PZ00P1_180040) from the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).
Evaluation round #1
DOI or URL of the preprint: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x5e9d
Version of the preprint: 2
Author's Reply, 05 Jul 2023
Decision by Eleftheria Giannouli, posted 21 Jun 2023, validated 22 Jun 2023
Dear Professor Rebar,
Thank you for submitting your preprint to PCI Health & Mov Sci.
I have received two reviews of your manuscript and, as you can see, both found the topic relevant and that your work is a good addition to the current literature. However, they both raise some issues regarding the use of/distinction between "sport” and “leisure” time physical activity in the context of your study.
Please revise the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments as well as those below:
· Consider mentioning the data analyses you applied in the abstract
· Page 1, line 1: “Diseases” instead of “disease”?
· Page 1, line 52: Using the word “strength” twice sounds odd; are you sure this makes sense? Otherwise please rephrase
· Page 4, lines 23-24: The names of the ethical committees are named later under Acknowledgements so no need to mask them here I guess
· Following up on the previous comment: Please check the first sentence “This is your acknowledgements”, I guess it was placed there by mistake. Please delete it. Also, I don’t think naming the names of the ethics committees should be placed in the Acknowledgements. Just in the Methods section would suffice.
· Page 4, lines 27-31: Please provide a more thorough explanation about the sample size calculation. For example, clarify which outcome you based it on and provide concrete data/examples of “the range of the variability of habit-physical activity associations found in previous research”.
· Page 4, lines 37-44: I found this part rather confusing. I think some numbers don’t add up. For example, the percentage of males and females. In addition, there is a discrepancy between the numbers presented here and in the abstract. The results are reported for participants that did not engage in sports although in line 35-36 it states that those participants were excluded from the analyses. Please clarify.
· In general, please refrain from presenting any results in the Methods section.
· Page 5, lines 30-31. Please clarify exactly what the “models” were and what the “evidence” was. I suggest to move this part to the Results section.
· Table 1: Please explain (e.g. in the “note” below the table) what the numbers “2. , 3., 4. and 5” in the column headings mean.
· Page 6, lines 20-21: There seems to be a discrepancy between the CI values here and the values in the table. Please clarify.
· Page 7, line 1: You use a different reference here for the same statement made in the Introduction (for which several other references were used). Could you please clarify the rationale/differences?
· Page 7, lines 20-21: It would be helpful if you could provide some examples.
I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.