View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

To Move or Not to Move While on Campus: Examining the Influence Of Others

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: To Move or Not to Move While on Campus: Examining the Influence Of Others
Language: English
Authors: Karly J. Anderson, Kevin S. Spink, Sahya Bhargava
Source: Journal of American College Health. 2024 72(3):841-848.
Availability: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 8
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, College Students, Physical Activity Level, Behavior Standards, Sociocultural Patterns, Community Influence, Peer Influence, Educational Environment
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2022.2058880
ISSN: 0744-8481
1940-3208
Abstract: Objective: To examine the influence of dynamic and trending descriptive norms on increasing physical activity and decreasing the sedentary behaviors of university students while on campus. Participants: One-hundred fifty-six university students from a Canadian university completed this study. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four online messages containing normative information about the on-campus behavior of university students. On-campus physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured pre- and post-message. Results: The results revealed that students exposed to the trending norm reported a greater decrease in sedentary behavior than students in the control condition, p = 0.007. Conclusion: Results provide preliminary experimental evidence that trending norm messages may serve to decrease the sedentary behavior of students while on campus.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1421226
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG0-mjXOFUBolNgtPqV58yaAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHstmiFmqNkB0Ed4HwIBEICBm4Oe-s1nX6ahWYLsW5pG5LJJ-aSaTYOrhRa77Hiy0Ma5MkUhaQ3Sw8l4FcxXauLUwUpLa0t0Nl8PWmxy3G6RhGVgOXp0XGp9GV4GV3zs16-_wGRh5fDwkXn7aDDgO98UMkOEcTNItasVwPNdWbbAAOYqibIFrio8tFYyaiOWZMLU3nHJPRQ0psOvOC0ubFSKefrpPew1vN8PqILN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176635056;acl01apr.24;2024Apr18.06:34;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176635056-1">To move or not to move while on campus: Examining the influence of others </title> <p>To examine the influence of dynamic and trending descriptive norms on increasing physical activity and decreasing the sedentary behaviors of university students while on campus. One-hundred fifty-six university students from a Canadian university completed this study. Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four online messages containing normative information about the on-campus behavior of university students. On-campus physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured pre- and post-message. The results revealed that students exposed to the trending norm reported a greater decrease in sedentary behavior than students in the control condition, p =.007. Results provide preliminary experimental evidence that trending norm messages may serve to decrease the sedentary behavior of students while on campus.</p> <p>Keywords: Trending norm; dynamic norm; physical inactivity; sedentary behavior</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-2">Introduction</hd> <p>It is widely known that most adults are not active enough for health benefits, and university students are no exception. Among students at a Canadian university, less than 14% reported meeting the recommended physical activity (i.e., 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week) and strength training guidelines (i.e., two or more times per week) to accrue health benefits.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] Further, the results from a recent meta-analysis also revealed that undergraduate students reported around 11 hours of daily sedentary behavior.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]</p> <p>These low levels of physical activity and high levels of sedentary behavior may not be surprising given the school environment. University students spend a considerable amount of time in a physical environment that is typically not conducive to being active and one that likely encourages sedentary behavior. The negative impact of the physical environment on physical activity levels has been well established.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>] Of interest, university students recognize these barriers to being active. These include, but are not limited to, class schedules, lack of opportunity for movement during long lectures, the layout of classrooms and lecture halls,[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>] studying outside of class,[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref6">6</reflink>] and lack of cues for movement in available green spaces.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]</p> <p>A closer examination of these barriers suggests that some map on to physical inactivity (e.g., lack of cues for movement in available green space) and others more to sedentary behavior (e.g., lack of opportunity for movement during classes). Building on the idea that the term physical inactivity is not the same thing as being sedentary,[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref8">8</reflink>] Tremblay and colleagues[<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>] operationalized physical inactivity as failing to reach the 150-minute weekly physical activity guideline while sedentary behavior refers any waking behavior characterized by an energy expenditure < 1.5 metabolic equivalents (METs) while in a seated, reclining, or lying position. The perceived environmental barriers in the university setting noted above resonate with an environment consistent with both physical inactivity as well as increased sedentary behavior. In line with the suggestion that attention needs to be devoted to both increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior in university students,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>] both will be examined in the current study.</p> <p>While it is often assumed that choices about things that are important to us are informed by what we value, our decisions are often influenced by the way the options are laid out to us.[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>] Given how a university environment is structured, it is possible that decisions resulting in reduced physical activity and increased sedentary behavior on campus may be explained from a choice architecture perspective. Choice architecture refers to the environment, be it physical or symbolic, that individuals are confronted with when required to make a decision.[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>] In the case of university students and choices of physical activity, their default option decision is more likely to gravitate toward being less active or more sedentary when faced with environments filled with physical (e.g., chairs present in a typical class room) and symbolic barriers (e.g., need to study, which is typically done while seated) to being active.</p> <p>Given that the school environment may not be conducive to being physically active, the university setting becomes an important environment to target if one is interested in getting this population healthier by increasing physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior. In terms of health, being inactive has been observed to have negative effects on several psychological markers in this population including increased anxiety, depression, and stress.[<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>] Further, reducing sedentary behavior, even with light-intensity activities (i.e., between 1.5 and 3 METs), provides health benefits.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>] From a health perspective, determining what can be done to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behavior in this population becomes important for researchers and practitioners, alike.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>]</p> <p>One possible solution that readily comes to mind is educational programs. That is, educating students about the opportunities available to change their activity behavior and the health benefits of making such small changes. Evidence exists illustrating that something as simple as standing during long lectures or during periods of studying could be beneficial among this population as it has been shown that those who report higher levels of standing see a decrease in mortality rates.[<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref16">13</reflink>] Reducing sedentary behavior has been found to have positive effects on body composition and markers of cardiometabolic risk in adults.[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>] Opportunities also exist for increasing light-intensity activity on-campus by informing students to walk briskly between classes as research indicates that even 10–30 minutes of walking outdoors can decrease markers of stress in university students.[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]</p> <p>While this educational approach sounds promising, its implementation might be difficult for two reasons. Many university students report being aware of the accompanying health risks of engaging in sedentary behaviors, including its association with long-term negative effects on one's overall health (e.g., cardiovascular disease)[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>]. Despite recognition of these apparent health risks, students do not perceive that decreasing their sedentary behaviors with something as simple as standing would provide meaningful benefits to their health.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>] Second, university students also report that engaging in sedentary behaviors do not pose immediate health risks, therefore changing these sedentary behaviors is not a priority.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref21">5</reflink>] Observations such as these call into question the potential effectiveness of information campaigns in this context and begs the question of whether there are other ways to change behavior in this setting. As humans are social beings,[<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref22">16</reflink>] one possibility might be to use the influence of others in the form of social norms.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-3">Social norm interventions and physical activity</hd> <p>Social norms are rules understood and acted upon by group members without the force of law.[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref23">17</reflink>] Interventions using social norms have been found to increase health behaviors as diverse as vegetable purchases[<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref24">18</reflink>] and reducing drinking behaviors in the short term.[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref25">19</reflink>] Although several social norm theories exist, the focus theory of normative conduct (focus theory)[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>] has been widely accepted and applied to the health behavior of physical activity.</p> <p>Focus theory outlines two tenets necessary to cause a change in behavior.[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>] First, norms can take two forms – descriptive (what others do) and injunctive (what others think you ought to do). In the physical activity setting, descriptive norms have been the primary focus (e.g., physical activity of office workers;[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref28">20</reflink>] balance control[<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]). The second tenet suggests that the normative information must be salient to the recipient before the participant will act on it.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-4">Descriptive norms and physical activity</hd> <p>A consistent positive relationship has been established between physical activity and descriptive norms (i.e., knowing or observing others being active) including increasing one's overall steps in a day,[<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref30">22</reflink>] stair use,[<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>] and student's physical activity during an examination period.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref32">23</reflink>] In addition to increasing physical activity, descriptive norms (i.e., knowing that others are standing more than you) also have been used to decrease sedentary behavior in a work setting[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref33">24</reflink>].</p> <p>While these results are informative, there is a caveat. Descriptive norms only work when the prevailing norms support the desired behavior. In university settings where the norms are more consistent with being inactive and sedentary, a different approach is required. Recent research has revealed that when most people are not yet doing the desired behavior, descriptive norms can be formed around the message that the number of people performing the desired behavior is increasing. This, in turn, creates the perception that the behavior will be performed by the majority in the future. Two emerging normative approaches follow this framework – trending[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref34">25</reflink>] and dynamic norms.[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-5">Dynamic norms and trending norms</hd> <p>Dynamic norms and trending norms are descriptive norms that involve the perception that others are trying to change a behavior even though the prevailing norm suggests the behavior is currently being performed by a minority.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref36">25</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref37">26</reflink>] Dynamic norms provide information that behaviors of a group are changing over a specific period and were originally examined with outcomes targeting reduced red meat consumption and increased water conservation.[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref38">26</reflink>] Even though few were currently doing the behaviors (i.e., minority norm), those exposed to the dynamic norm changed in the intended direction. Based on this preliminary evidence, there appears to be emerging support for the idea that dynamic normative messages promote a positive change in behavior despite the targeted behavior currently not being done by the majority.</p> <p>Trending norms are like dynamic norms, but with one difference. In terms of similarity, they involve the perception that others are trying to change a behavior even if only a few are currently doing the behavior. However, they add information that engagement in a behavior has increased between two specified time points.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref39">25</reflink>] Trending norms were initially examined in the environmental setting focusing on water conservation and donations (of time) to environmental causes and a positive relationship was observed for both behaviors.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref40">25</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-6">Study purpose and hypothesis</hd> <p>Despite these encouraging findings, no research to date has compared the effects of dynamic and trending norms in the same setting, nor have dynamic and trending norms been examined in the physical activity setting. Based on the suggestion about the need to identify and examine the primary situations in which physical decision are made,[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref41">27</reflink>] and the omnipresent norms of physical inactivity and sedentarism present on campuses,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref43">2</reflink>] the main purpose of this experimental study was to first, replicate and extend the initial findings for dynamic[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref44">26</reflink>] and trending norms[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref45">25</reflink>] to physical activity decisions in the university setting. If significant results are found, this could provide a potential cost-efficient and effective means to increase physical activity and decrease sedentary behaviors of university students on campus. The second purpose of this study is to compare the effects of dynamic and trending norms on behavior change in the university setting.</p> <p>Using evidence examining dynamic norms[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>] and trending norms[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref47">25</reflink>] in other settings, we formulated the following hypotheses. It was hypothesized that those exposed to the dynamic and trending norm messages would report an overall greater increase in on-campus light-intensity physical activity and decrease in sedentary behavior compared to those receiving a minority descriptive norm or attention control message. With respect to possible differences between the dynamic and trending norm conditions, no differences are expected given that no evidence currently exists to suggest that these normative messages would impact behavior change differentially.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176635056-8">Participants</hd> <p>University students (N = 249) were recruited from a medium-sized Canadian university. A total of 93 participants did not complete survey 3 or had missing data, leaving 156 with complete data. For those with missing data points, a check revealed that data appeared to be missing at random so listwise deletion was used to delete data from participants with missing values. Further, those who were not included in the analysis did not differ demographically from those who were in the analysis. To be eligible, participants had to be 18 years of age or older, currently enrolled as a full or part-time student, and provide informed consent. A statistical power analysis was performed for sample size estimation.[<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref48">28</reflink>] Assuming a medium effect size based on past research examining social norms in the physical activity setting,[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref49">24</reflink>] a projected sample size of 144 was deemed adequate given <emph>a</emph> =.05 and power =.90.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-9">Procedures</hd> <p>Ethical approval was received from the University Ethics Review Committee. Participants were recruited using convenience sampling through a university research portal. Interested students were invited to complete three surveys delivered across ten days via the online platform SurveyMonkey. Participants were told that they were completing surveys examining on-campus physical activity and sitting behaviors and were asked to provide informed consent.</p> <p>Survey one took approximately 10 minutes to complete and included demographic information (age, gender, current physical activity) and current on-campus physical activity and sedentary behaviors during the previous five school days. Participants were asked to provide their email address to receive a link to survey 2. For the second survey, participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions - dynamic norm (n = 39), trending norm (n = 46), minority descriptive norm (n = 30), or attention control message (n = 41). Survey two also included message quality questions assessing whether the participants found the message to believable, persuasive, and easy to understand. These took approximately five minutes to complete. Seven days following the completion of survey two, participants completed survey three, which reassessed current on-campus physical activity and sedentary behaviors during the previous five school days. Following the completion of survey three, which took approximately five minutes to complete, participants were debriefed and invited to enter a draw to win a gift card.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-10">Condition specific messages</hd> <p>Condition specific messages were created for the purpose of this study based on previous social norm research.[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref50">25</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref51">26</reflink>],[<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref52">29</reflink>] In terms of the different messages delivered, the message in the trending norm condition stated, "Research conducted in (year) at the (University name) indicates that while the numbers are low, 30% of students at the (University name) are engaging in more physical activity while on campus. This figure is up from 20% according to a (University name) activity study conducted in (previous year)" The message in the dynamic norm condition stated, "Research conducted in (year) at the (University name) indicates that while the numbers are low, 30% of students have started to make the effort in the last year to engage in more physical activity on campus. This means that 3 in 10 students have changed their behavior to be more active while on campus." The message in the minority descriptive norm condition stated, "Research conducted in a (year) survey at the (University name) indicates that while numbers are low, 30% of students at the (University name) are physically active while on campus." The condition specific messages contained an arbitrary percentage of 30%, which was meant to capture the effects of normative messages when the behavior is of a weaker minority (i.e., further from the cusp of becoming a majority).[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref53">25</reflink>]</p> <p>Each of the norm messages (trending, dynamic, descriptive) concluded by providing participants four examples of activities being performed by other students to be more active and less sedentary while on campus. Specifically, the messages concluded by stating, "Here are some activities being performed by those being more active on campus: chose to use the stairs when an elevator is available, walked briskly between classes, stood up when they were sitting for too long, stood up to stretch while they were studying". The first two targeted increasing physical activity and the latter two targeted reducing sedentary behavior (rationale provided in the measures section for why these behaviors were selected). Finally, the attention control message outlined current academic services available to students on-campus and did not reference any physical activity or sedentary behaviors.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-11">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176635056-12">On-campus physical activity and sedentary behavior</hd> <p>Two types of health-promoting outcomes were examined – reducing inactivity by increasing light-intensity activity and reducing sedentary behaviors. "Walking briskly between classes"[<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>] and "using the stairs when an elevator was available"[<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref55">30</reflink>] were the light-intensity activities examined. While there are several ways to reduce sedentary behavior (e.g., reducing screen time), we focused on a suggestion provided in the recent Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines[<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref56">31</reflink>] to reduce sedentary behavior by breaking up long periods of sitting as often as possible. The two sedentary behaviors examined included "stood up when you were sitting too long"[<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref57">32</reflink>] and "stood up to stretch when you were studying".[<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref58">33</reflink>]</p> <p>Participants were asked to recall the behaviors noted above during the last five days spent on-campus in both survey 1 and survey 3. To reduce the possible influence of responses from survey 1 affecting responses on survey 3, participants were not informed when completing responses in survey 1 that they would be reassessed on the same measure in survey 3. These were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very often). Specifically, students were asked in separate questions, "How often did you...choose the stairs to be active when an elevator was available, walk briskly between classes, intentionally stand up when you were sitting too long (e.g., when studying) (do not include times where you had to stand up, e.g., bathroom break), and stand up to stretch".</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-13">Current physical activity behavior</hd> <p>Current physical activity behavior was assessed in survey 1 using the validated Modifiable Activity Questionnaire.[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>] The Modifiable Activity Questionnaire is a survey that assesses the frequency, duration, and intensity of self-reported physical activities. Reliability and validity of the measure has been provided among adult populations[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref60">34</reflink>] and it has been used with a university student population.[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref61">23</reflink>] Current physical activity behavior was assessed to provide context for the typical activity levels of the sample tested.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-14">Message quality check</hd> <p>Three message quality check questions were asked following the delivery of the condition-specific messages (e.g., "The information in the message was... believable, persuasive, easy to understand"). Responses were made on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-15">Data analysis</hd> <p>To test the main hypotheses, two one-way MANCOVAs were used to examine the effects of the normative conditions on reported post message on-campus (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) physical activity and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) sedentary behaviors, while controlling for current on-campus physical activity and sedentary levels, respectively. In the case of a significant omnibus test, step-down ANCOVAs were performed, controlling for the pre-message value for each specific dependent variable. Pairwise comparisons using a Bonferroni correction were used to test for condition differences for any significant dependent variables.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-16">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176635056-17">Demographics</hd> <p>Results from one-way ANOVAs examining differences between the four conditions on demographics variables (e.g., age, gender, current physical activity level) revealed no significant differences, <emph>p</emph>'s >.20. Most participants reported falling in the 18–24 years age range (73%) followed by 25–34 years (22%) and most identified as female (76%). In accordance with previous literature,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref64">1</reflink>] most of the participants (59.6%) reported not achieving the recommended physical activity guideline levels of 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week.[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref65">12</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-18">Message quality check</hd> <p>A one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to test for differences between the normative messages on the message quality variables. The MANOVA was not significant, F(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref66">6</reflink>, 220) = 1.29, <emph>p</emph> =.26. Overall, participants found the normative messages to be believable (M = 5.2, SD = 1.3), persuasive (M = 4.6, SD = 1.2), and easy to understand (M = 5.8, SD = 1.0).</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-19">Main analyses</hd> <p>Prior to the main analysis, data were screened for outliers and variables were checked for normality and no issues were identified.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-20">On-campus physical activity</hd> <p>The results from the MANCOVA examining the two on-campus physical activity behaviors of taking the stairs and walking briskly between classes revealed no significant differences between the four message conditions, Wilk's lambda <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>, 310) = 0.68, <emph>p</emph> =.668 (see Table 1). Hence, no follow-up tests were conducted.</p> <p>Table 1. Estimated marginal means of on-campus physical activity and sedentary behavior post-message.a [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>]</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Trending Norm</td><td>Dynamic Norm</td><td>Descriptive Norm</td><td>Attention control</td></tr><tr><td /><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Stairs</td><td char=".">5.13</td><td char=".">1.49</td><td char=".">5.32</td><td char=".">1.5</td><td char=".">5.2</td><td char=".">1.49</td><td char=".">5.54</td><td char=".">1.5</td></tr><tr><td>Brisk walk</td><td char=".">5.53</td><td char=".">1.21</td><td char=".">5.83</td><td char=".">1.21</td><td char=".">5.7</td><td char=".">1.23</td><td char=".">5.69</td><td char=".">1.22</td></tr><tr><td>Stand when seated too long</td><td char=".">4.02<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">1.42</td><td char=".">3.5</td><td char=".">1.46</td><td char=".">3.62</td><td char=".">1.45</td><td char=".">3.05<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td><td char=".">1.44</td></tr><tr><td>Stand to stretch</td><td char=".">3.46</td><td char=".">1.35</td><td char=".">3.51</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">3.65</td><td char=".">1.37</td><td char=".">3.04</td><td char=".">1.38</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 All variables assessed on a 1 to 7 scale.</p> <p>2 Significantly different, <emph>p</emph> =.007.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-21">On-campus sedentary behavior</hd> <p>Results from the second MANCOVA, controlling for behaviors intended to disrupt current sedentary behavior (i.e., standing to stretch and standing when seated for long periods), revealed a significant effect of social normative message on reported on-campus sedentary behavior, Wilk's lambda <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>, 298) = 2.26, <emph>p</emph> =.038. Follow-up ANCOVAs, controlling for pre-message sedentary behavior, revealed standing up when seated for long periods was the only significant on-campus behavior to emerge, <emph>F</emph> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref70">3</reflink>, 150) = 3.67, <emph>p</emph> =.01, η<subs>p</subs>[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>] = 0.07. Pairwise comparisons using a Bonferroni correction indicated that the trending minority norm group was significantly different than the attention control condition (<emph>p</emph> =.007). Those individuals receiving a trending norm message reported a greater decrease in sedentary behavior than those receiving the control message (see Table 1). No other significant relationships emerged.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-22">Discussion</hd> <p>The main purpose of this study was to examine the effects of dynamic and trending norm messages on increasing light-intensity physical activity and reducing sedentary behavior in the university setting. Partial support for the main hypothesis was found as those exposed to the trending norm message reported a decrease in one type of sedentary behavior compared to those receiving the attention control message. Specifically, those exposed to the trending norm message reported intentionally standing up more when they were sitting too long than did those who received a message with no normative information (i.e., attention control).</p> <p>This finding is consistent with research reporting that trending norms could be used to change environmental behaviors (i.e., both water conservation and environmental stewardship) [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref72">25</reflink>]. These results from the environmental setting can now be extended to health behaviors in the form of reducing sedentary behavior in the university setting. While this extension is promising given the current reports of high levels of sedentary behaviors among university students,[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>] the results that did not materialize in this study prompt two important questions. First, in terms of the normative messages, why was behavior only influenced when individuals were exposed to a trending norm and not a dynamic norm message? Second, why did trending norms only impact reducing sedentary behavior but not increasing physical activity while on campus?</p> <p>Dynamic and trending norms have been examined previously in different settings and with different behaviors (e.g., the use of reusable cups,[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref74">35</reflink>] and environmental behaviors[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref75">25</reflink>], respectively) and both positively impacted current minority behaviors. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine both dynamic and trending norms using the same behaviors within the same setting. One of the unexpected findings of this study was that differences in sedentary behavior emerged between trending norm messages and the control condition but not between dynamic norm message condition and the control. While the reason for this difference is not obvious, one possibility could lie in how the two types of norms are presented.</p> <p>Trending norms are constructed to deliver the message that a minority behavior is changing, and this is highlighted by presenting the change through a comparison of behavior at two distinct time points (e.g., behavior in one year compared to behavior in a more recent year as done in this study).[<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref76">25</reflink>] Dynamic norms, on the other hand, deliver the message that a minority behavior is changing, but there are no reference anchors that would allow an assessment of the magnitude of the change.[<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref77">26</reflink>] Given this presentation difference, a message that provides the opportunity to judge the magnitude of how norms are changing (i.e., trending norms) may serve to increase the salience of the message for the receiver versus one that does not provide that information/opportunity and simply indicates that change is occurring (i.e., dynamic norms). Consistent with the theoretical underpinning of focus theory,[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref78">17</reflink>] only descriptive norm information that is salient will be acted upon by individuals. Based on the reasoning outlined above, individuals may have been more motivated to act on the trending norm information because its presentation drew the individual's attention more to the normative information (i.e., more salient) than did the dynamic norm message.</p> <p>However, this reasoning is speculative as salience of the different messages was not assessed in the current study, so future research is warranted to examine this supposition. Also, the current findings cannot be interpreted to suggest that dynamic norms would not be effective in enhancing behavior change in other situations where most people are not engaging in the behavior. Evidence currently exists reporting changes in other behaviors following exposure to dynamic norms such as the increasing use of reusable mugs among customers at a café.[<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref79">35</reflink>] As this is the first study to examine both dynamic and trending norms in the same setting, future research should replicate and extend the current findings by examining the influence of both these norm type messages on behaviors in different settings.</p> <p>Another important question raised by what was 'not' found in this study concerns the finding that trending norms only affected reducing sedentary behaviors and not increasing light-intensity physical activity. One possible explanation may be captured by the putative ease with which these behaviors can be changed. Supporting this ease of change suggestion, it has been found that university students report that reducing sedentary behaviors would be easier to do than increasing overall exercise.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]</p> <p>This explanation also resonates with the recent suggestion in the World Health Organization's[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref81">12</reflink>] global physical activity and sedentary behavior guidelines about the need to integrate a reduction in sedentary behaviors throughout the day. The point that is relevant to the ease of change speculation is that the rationale for the inclusion of sedentary behavior guidelines in the WHO messaging is the need to promote different strategies to those populations where increasing physical activity to meet the guidelines may be a challenge.[<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref82">36</reflink>] Thus, it is possible that the relative ease of decreasing one's sedentary behaviors versus the difficulty (real or imagined) of increasing physical activity may have resulted in the observed differences between sedentary and light-intensity reported in the current study. As perceived ease of change for the behaviors examined in this study was not assessed, this remains an untested assumption that may wish to be considered by researchers in future studies.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-23">Strengths and limitations</hd> <p>Results of the current study provide preliminary evidence that trending norms may counter the influence of choice architecture[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref83">10</reflink>] on physical activity decisions within the university environment. Given that students report studying[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>] and lectures[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref85">5</reflink>] as barriers to being active within the university environment, the decision to be sedentary while on campus appears to be the norm. However, providing this population with a trending norm message depicting more people on- campus deciding to be less sedentary presents students with normative information that could counter decisions about activity behavior in an environment fraught with perceived symbolic and physical barriers about physical activity choices.</p> <p>Another strength of the current study includes its experimental design. This allows us to observe cause-and-effect relationships and test our hypotheses that specific normative messages affect on-campus behaviors in university students. As an aside, it also is possible that the effects found were understated. In this study, the messages did not explicitly direct participants to increase their physical activity or decrease their sedentary behaviors, as observed in most physical activity promotion research (e.g., prompting stair use[<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref86">37</reflink>]). Rather, the normative messages simply informed participants as to what behavior other students were performing to change their activity. Thus, merely describing what others were doing on-campus caused a behavior change without promoting the behavior directly. Like other norm/physical activity studies (e.g., increasing physical activity in office workers[<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref87">12</reflink>]), it is plausible that adding a line to the message asking the individuals to "join those others who are changing their behavior" might increase the magnitude of the behavior change.</p> <p>Although the results of this study are instructive, there are limitations worth noting. First, the use of self-reported measures could lead to false reporting or exaggeration of physical activity or sedentary behaviors.[<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref88">38</reflink>] However, as there is not a single "gold-standard" to measure physical activity in the field, self report offers a practical and cost-effective method[<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref89">39</reflink>] to examine changes in physical activity. Second, the four dependent variables were measured using one item. While multi-items items enable the assessment of internal scale reliability,[<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref90">40</reflink>] others have agued that single-item measures may be preferable if the constructs are homogeneous,[<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref91">41</reflink>] as was the case in the current study.</p> <p>Another possible limitation concerns the fact that we did not assess message receipt or content recall. That is, were the messages received as delivered? This is a relevant concern as one study in the norms/PA/sedentary behavior area revealed that messages are not always received as delivered as not all participants correctly identified the message they received.[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref92">24</reflink>] However, the results of that study also revealed that while the effect sizes for those recalling the messages correctly were stronger, the results for those recalling the message correctly and for the total sample were consistent. Based on this result, we decided to not ask additional questions about message recall to reduce subject burden. For reasons of research fidelity, however, we would suggest asking questions about message recall and content in future studies examining experimental delivery of normative messages.</p> <p>Our results also only apply to university students, so boundary conditions exist. In line with the suggestion about the need to examine the primary situations in which physical activity decision are made,[<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref93">27</reflink>] future research should replicate and extend the current findings to other situations where choice architecture may pose barriers to engagement in physical activity. These could include examining children in school (e.g., the symbolic barrier of physical activity being considered a lower priority than other class subjects[<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref94">42</reflink>]) as well as older adults in long-term care institutions (e.g., the symbolic barrier of staff imposing restrictions on activity choices[<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref95">43</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-24">Conclusion</hd> <p>Given the possibility of university students being nudged toward decisions resulting in being less active and sedentary while on campus,[<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref96">44</reflink>] understanding ways to change and disrupt these decisions with a view to promoting a healthier lifestyle is necessary. This study adds a new approach to other experimental interventions directed at reducing the sedentary behavior of university students while on campus. Extant studies have used different approaches involving interventions such as introducing sit-stand desks into university classrooms,[<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref97">45</reflink>] using posters to encourage sit-stand desk use in campus study rooms,[<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref98">46</reflink>] and using text messages to increase the non-sedentary behaviors of university students.[<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref99">47</reflink>] Further, unlike a number of the previous interventions, the current study was theory based (i.e., focus theory[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref100">17</reflink>]) making it easier to target the appropriate mechanisms in interventions.[<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref101">48</reflink>]</p> <p>If the current results can be replicated, the promotion of trending norms through university messaging may present a potential low-cost, and effective way to encourage a reduction in sedentary behavior for students while on campus. This may be particularly important for full-time students. Full time students take more classes and one study[<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref102">49</reflink>] with university students revealed that each hour of scheduled class was associated with 9 more minutes of sedentary behavior. In the university where this study was conducted, full-time students average about 15 hours of class time whereas part-time students average 6 hours, adding about 81 minutes of additional sedentary behavior. As full-time students accumulate greater sedentary hours, they should benefit more from this intervention in terms of reducing sedentary behavior (i.e., less opportunity for a floor effect). However, as full versus part time status was not assessed in this study, this awaits future research.</p> <hd id="AN0176635056-25">Conflict of interest disclosure</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors confirm that the research presented in this article met the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of Canada and received approval from the University of Saskatchewan Research Ethics Board.</p> <ref id="AN0176635056-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Scarapicchia TM, Sabiston CM, Faulkner G. Exploring the -prevalence and correlates of meeting health behaviour guidelines among university students. Can J Public Health. 2015; 106 (3):e109–e114. doi: 10.17269/cjph.106.4784.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Moulin MS, Truelove S, Burke SM, Irwin JD. Sedentary time among undergraduate students: A systematic review. J Am Coll Health. 2021; 69 (3): 237 – 244. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1661422.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Laddu D, Paluch AE, LaMonte MJ. The role of the built environment in promoting movement and physical activity across the lifespan: Implications for public health. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021; 64 : 33 – 40. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2020.12.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> McCormack GR, Shiell A. In search of causality: A systematic review of the relationship between the built environment and physical activity among adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011; 8 (1): 125. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-8-125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Pachu N, Strachan S, McMillan D, Ripat J, Webber S. University students' knowledge, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and barriers related to reducing sedentary behavior: A qualitative study. J Am Coll Health. 2020. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2020.1786098.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Moulin MS, Irwin JD. An assessment of sedentary time among undergraduate students at a Canadian university. Inter J Exerc Sci. 2017; 10 (8): 1116 – 1129.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> von Sommoggy J, Rueter J, Curbach J, Helten J, Tittlbach S, Loss J. How does the campus environment influence everyday physical activity? A photovoice study among students of two German universities. Front Public Health. 2020; 8 : 561175. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.561175.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Biddle SJH, Gorely T, Marshall SJ, Murdey I, Cameron N. Physical activity and sedentary behaviours in youth: issues and controversies. J R Soc Promot Health. 2004; 124 (1): 29 – 33. doi: 10.1177/146642400312400110.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Tremblay MS, Aubert S, Barnes JD, et al. Sedentary behavior research network (SBRN) – terminology consensus project process and outcome. Inter J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2017; 14 (1): 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0525-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sunstein CR, Thaler RH. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York, NY: Penguin; 2009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee E, Kim Y. Effect of university students' sedentary behavior on stress, anxiety, and depression. Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2019; 55 (2): 164 – 169. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> World Health Organization (WHO). WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: at a glance. November 25, 2020. https://<ulink href="http://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014886">www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014886</ulink>. Accessed May 26, 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katzmarzyk PT. Standing and mortality in a prospective cohort of Canadian adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014; 46 (5): 940 – 946. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000198.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saunders TJ, McIsaac T, Douillette K, et al. Sedentary behaviour and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020; 45 (10 (Suppl. 2)):S197–S217. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meredith GR, Rakow DA, Eldermire ER, Madsen CG, Shelley SP, Sachs NA. Minimum time dose in nature to positively impact the mental health of college-aged students, and how to measure it: A scoping review. Front Psychol. 2020; 10 :1–16. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02942.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995; 117 (3): 497 – 529. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990; 58 (6): 1015 – 1026. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.6.1015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huitink M, Poelman MP, van den Eynde E, Seidell JC, Dijkstra SC. Social norm nudges in shopping trolleys to promote vegetable purchases: A quasi-experimental study in a supermarket in a deprived urban area in the Netherlands. Appetite 2020; 151 : 104655. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2020.104655.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carey KB, Merrill JE, Boyle HK, Barnett NP. Correcting exaggerated drinking norms with a mobile message delivery system: Selective prevention with heavy-drinking first-year college students. Psychol Addict Behav. 2020; 34 (3): 454 – 464. doi: 10.1037/adb0000566.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Priebe CS, Spink KS. Using messages promoting descriptive norms to increase physical activity. Health Commun. 2012; 27 (3): 284 – 291. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2011.585448.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spink KS, Federow CW, Lanovaz JL, Oates AR. Haptic input and balance control: An exploratory study examining normative messaging. J Health Psychol. 2019;26(9):1433–1442. doi: 10.1177/1359105319877446.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wally CM, Cameron LD. A randomized-controlled trial of social norm interventions to increase physical activity. Ann Behav Med. 2017; 51 (5): 642 – 651. doi: 10.1007/s12160-017-9887-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crozier AJ, Spink KS. Effect of manipulating descriptive norms and positive outcome expectations on physical activity of university students during exams. Health Commun. 2017; 32 (6): 784 – 790. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2016.1172295.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Priebe CS, Spink KS. Less sitting and more moving in the office: Using descriptive norm messages to decrease sedentary behavior and increase light physical activity at work. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2015; 19 : 76 – 84. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2015.02.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mortensen CR, Neel R, Cialdini RB, Jaeger CM, Jacobson RP, Ringel MM. Trending norms: A lever for encouraging behaviors performed by the minority. Social Psychol Personal Sci. 2019; 10 (2): 201 – 210. doi: 10.1177/1948550617734615.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparkman G, Walton WC. Dynamic norms promote sustainable Behavior, even if it is counternormative. Psychol Sci. 2017; 28 (11): 1663 – 1674. doi: 10.1177/0956797617719950.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baranowski T, Anderson C, Carmack C. Mediating variable framework in physical activity interventions. Am J Prevent Med. 1998; 15 (4): 266 – 297. doi: 10.1016/s0749-3797(98)00080-4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A. GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 1996; 28 (1): 1 – 11. doi: 10.3758/bf03203630.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Priebe CS, Spink KS. When in Rome: Descriptive norms and physical activity. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2011; 12 : 93 – 98. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.09.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boreham CAG, Wallace WFM, Nevill A. Training effects of accumulated daily stair-climbing exercise in previously sedentary young women. Prevent Med. 2000; 30 (4): 277 – 281. doi: 10.1006/pmed.2000.0634.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross R, Chaput J-P, Giangregorio LM, et al. Canadian 24-Hour movement guidelines for adults aged 18–64 years and adults aged 65 years or older: An integration of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep. App Physiol Nutr Metab. 2020; 45 (10 (Suppl. 2):S57–S102. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0467.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerome M, Janz KF, Baquero B, Carr LJ. Introducing sit-stand desks increases classroom standing time among university -students. Prevent Med Rep. 2017; 8 : 232 – 237. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rhoads MC, Kirkland RA, Baker CA, Yeats JT, Grevstad N. Benefits of movement-integrated learning activities in statistics and research methods courses. Teach Psychol. 2020;48(3):197–203. doi: 10.1177/0098628320977265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kriska AM, Knowler WC, LaPorte RE, et al. Development of questionnaire to examine relationship of physical activity and diabetes in Pima Indians. Diabetes Care. 1990; 13 (4): 401 – 411. doi: 10.2337/diacare.13.4.401.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loschelder DD, Siepelmeyer H, Fischer D, Rubel JA. Dynamic norms drive sustainable consumption: Norm-based nudging helps café customers to avoid disposable to-go-cups. J Econ Psychol. 2019; 75 : 102146. doi: 10.1016/j.joep.2019.02.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dempsey PC, Biddle SJ, Buman MP, et al. New global guidelines on sedentary behaviour and health for adults: Broadening the behavioural targets. Inter J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020; 17 (1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12966-020-01044-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crozier AJ. Step up: Exploring the impact of social prompts on stair use in a university setting. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2019; 41 : 99 – 106. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.11.015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prince SA, Adamo KB, Hamel M, Hardt J, Connor Gorber S, Tremblay M. A comparison of direct versus self-report measures for assessing physical activity in adults: A systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2008; 5 (1): 56. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-5-56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dishman RK, Washburn RA, Schoeller DA. Measurement of physical activity. Quest 2001; 53 (3): 295 – 309. doi: 10.1080/00336297.2001.10491746.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson MA. Using multi-item psychometric scales for research and practice in human resource management. Hum Resour Manag. 2018; 57 (3): 739 – 750. doi: 10.1002/hrm.21852.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Postmes T, Haslam SA, Jans L. A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. Br J Soc Psychol. 2013; 52 (4): 597 – 617. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nathan N, Elton B, Babic M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of physical activity policies in schools: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2018; 107 : 45 – 53. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.11.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen Y-M. Perceived barriers to physical activity among older adults residing in long-term care institutions. J Clin Nurs. 2010; 19 (3–4): 432 – 439. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02990.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Castro O, Bennie J, Vergeer I, Bosselut G, Biddle SJH. Correlates of sedentary behaviour in university students: A systematic review. Prev Med. 2018; 116 : 194 – 202. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.09.016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jerome M, Janz KF, Baquero B, Carr LJ. Introducing sit-stand desks increases classroom standing time among university students. Prev Med Rep. 2017; 8 : 232 – 237. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mnich C, Bachert P, Kunkel J, W€asche H, Neumann R, Nigg CR. Stand up, students! Decisional cues reduce sedentary behavior in university students. Front Public Heal. 2019; 7 : 230. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2019.00230.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cotten E, Prapavessis H. Increasing nonsedentary behaviors in university students using text messages: randomized controlled trial. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016; 4 (3): e99. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.5411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl. Psychol. 2008; 57 : 660 – 680. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00341.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chim HQ, Oude Egbrink MG, Van Gerven PW, de Groot RH, Winkens B, Savelberg HH. Academic schedule and day-to-day variations in sedentary behavior and physical activity of university students. Inter J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17 (8): 2810. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082810.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Karly J. Anderson; Kevin S. Spink and Sahya Bhargava</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref102"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1421226
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: To Move or Not to Move While on Campus: Examining the Influence Of Others
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karly+J%2E+Anderson%22">Karly J. Anderson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kevin+S%2E+Spink%22">Kevin S. Spink</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sahya+Bhargava%22">Sahya Bhargava</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+American+College+Health%22"><i>Journal of American College Health</i></searchLink>. 2024 72(3):841-848.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Taylor & Francis. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 8
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Physical+Activity+Level%22">Physical Activity Level</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior+Standards%22">Behavior Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sociocultural+Patterns%22">Sociocultural Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Influence%22">Community Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Influence%22">Peer Influence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/07448481.2022.2058880
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0744-8481<br />1940-3208
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective: To examine the influence of dynamic and trending descriptive norms on increasing physical activity and decreasing the sedentary behaviors of university students while on campus. Participants: One-hundred fifty-six university students from a Canadian university completed this study. Methods: Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of four online messages containing normative information about the on-campus behavior of university students. On-campus physical activity and sedentary behavior were measured pre- and post-message. Results: The results revealed that students exposed to the trending norm reported a greater decrease in sedentary behavior than students in the control condition, p = 0.007. Conclusion: Results provide preliminary experimental evidence that trending norm messages may serve to decrease the sedentary behavior of students while on campus.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1421226
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1421226
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/07448481.2022.2058880
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 8
        StartPage: 841
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Physical Activity Level
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sociocultural Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Influence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Influence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: To Move or Not to Move While on Campus: Examining the Influence Of Others
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karly J. Anderson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kevin S. Spink
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sahya Bhargava
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0744-8481
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-3208
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 72
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of American College Health
              Type: main
ResultId 1