Socioeconomic status, control beliefs and exercise intentions and behavior

1. Socioeconomic status, control beliefs and exercise intentions and behavior Terra Murray Centre for Nursing and Health Studies Athabasca University Wendy Rodgers Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation University of Alberta Funded by SSHRC to W. Rodgers SCAPPS 2007

2. Introduction • Perceptions of control key construct in health and behavioral research (Skinner, 1996; Steptoe & Appels, 1989; Steptoe & Wardle, 2001) • Health research - perceptions of mastery (control over important life events) often studied (Bailis et al., date Lachman & Weaver, Marmot et al.) • Behavioral research - control beliefs are reflected in many modern health behavior theories (Conner & Norman, 1996) • Self-efficacy and behavioral control beliefs

3. Introduction • Focus on behavioral specific beliefs (e.g., self-efficacy, perceived behavioral control) in exercise research • What about the role of more distal factors including: • generalized control beliefs (control over life) • socioeconomic status?

4. Introduction • Despite large amount of research examining social cognitive determinants, little attention has been given to relation among determinants, SES and exercise behavior • Positive association between SES and control beliefs • Typically distal control beliefs examined • show weak relation to exercise behavior

5. Purpose and Hypotheses • The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between SES, control beliefs (generalized and behavioral specific) and exercise intentions and behavior • Hypothesized that control beliefs would be positively related to SES, exercise intentions and behavior • More distal beliefs show stronger relation to SES • Proximal control beliefs show stronger association to intentions and behavior

6. Method • Mail out survey conducted in city of Edmonton • Used Forward Sortation Area (FSA) and Letter Carrier Walks (LCW) provided by Canada Post and matched these to standard neighborhood maps, allowing us to estimate mean neighborhood income • LCW selected if they were exclusive to a neighborhood and excluded if primarily made up of businesses.

7. Methods • Survey package • was mailed to 2000 households • addressed to Household Resident, contained an information letter, the questionnaire, and a postage paid business reply envelope. • Two weeks after survey package was mailed, post card reminder/thank you was mailed • N = 351 returned the survey ~17.5% response rate

8. Measures • Household Income (Humphries & van Doorslaer, 2000) • 13 response categories (0 income to $150 000 +) • Adjusted for household size • M = 51400.98, SD = 27708.75 • Education (Marmot et al., 1998; Ross & Wu, 1995) • Measured by credentials (> high school, high school, some college/university, university degree) • M = 3.16, SD = 1.04 • Occupation (ILO, 2006) • job category based on ISCO classification into 9 occupational groupings • M = 6.14, SD = 2.03

9. Measures • Subjective Social Status (Adler et al., 2000) • Measured with a diagram of a 10 rung ladder. • M = 6.26, SD = 1.60 • Moderate Effort Exercise Behavior • frequency and average duration assessed (frequency x duration = overall score in minutes) • M = 166.30, SD = 154.34 • Exercise Intentions • Moderate effort exercise (30 minutes, 4 days a week) • 3 item aggregate (M = 5.25; SD = 1.72; α = .89)

10. Measures • Mastery (Lachman & Weaver, 1998; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) • 12 items on a 7 point scale • Perceived Mastery ( M = 5.61, SD =.95; α = .73) “I can do just about anything I really set my mind to” • Personal Constraints (M = 2.71, SD = 1.09; α = .85) “There are many things that interfere with what I want to do” • Perceived Behavioral Control(Armitage, 2005; Ajzen & Driver, 1992; Motl et al., 2000) • 7 item aggregate; on a 7 point scale (M = 6.03, SD = 1.05; α = .89) • 4 items “typical” PBC items (confidence, control, up to me, capable) • 3 items reflect resources and opportunities

11. Analyses • Correlations and hierarchical linear regressions for each DV (behavior and intentions) • Variables entered into the model based on hypothesized influence on behavior • Most distal entered first, followed by behavioral specific variables (SES, Mastery, PBC) • For Intentions, we controlled for behavior on the second step

12. Participants • Participants (N = 212 women, N = 111 men) provided complete data • M age = 48.14, SD = 15.57 • M BMI = 25.57, SD = 5.24

13. Results - Correlations

14. Results – Predicting Behavior

15. Results – Predicting Intentions

16. Discussion • Similar to previous research, indicators of SES related to intentions for moderate effort exercise and to behavior(Cohen et al., 1999; Clark, 1995; Iribarren et al., 1997) • Both distal and proximal control beliefs related to SES in a similar magnitude • A distal control belief (constraints) related to behavior in a similar magnitude as a proximal control belief (r’s = -.28 and .31 respectively) • Behavior and Intentions seems to have different key predictors

17. Discussion – Behavior • Income appears to be key SES indicator • Lower constraints in life and higher behavior control beliefs key control variables • After addition of intentions • Income and PBC no longer significant • Constraints remained significant predictor of behavior • Perceiving few barriers and obstacles in life seems to be an important control belief for exercise behavior

18. Discussion – Intentions • Social status appears to be key SES variable • Perceiving control over ones life in general was important distal control belief • Although its effect was reduced once PBC was added to the model • Social status, past behavior and behavioral control beliefs were key variables in final model

19. Limitations and Future Directions • Cross sectional survey - at one time point • Not a random sample • Only examined moderate effort exercise • Assess behavior prospectively in a random sample • Conduct mediation analyses • do control beliefs mediate relation between SES and behavior/intentions • Which control beliefs are key mediators?