Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 25, 2026

Visualization of Intensity Levels to Reduce the Gap Between Self-Reported and Directly Measured Physical Activity
Published on: March 7, 2019
Which characteristics of planning matter? Individual and dyadic physical activity plans and their effects on plan
Jan Keller1, Lena Fleig1, Diana Hilda Hohl1
1Department of Education and Psychology, Division Health Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.
Objective:
Past research supports individual planning as an effective intervention strategy to increase physical activity in individuals. A similar strategy, dyadic planning, adds a planning partner who supports an individual's planning processes. Whether the two planning formats differ in terms of participants' entered plan content and whether and how different content characteristics are linked to plan enactment remains unknown. By investigating the content of generated plans, this study aimed at distinguishing plan characteristics of the two planning formats and examining their role as predictors of later plan enactment.
Methods:
Secondary analyses of a three-arm RCT with German couples (data collection between 2013 and 2015). Couples were assigned to an individual (IPC, n = 114) or dyadic planning condition (DPC, n = 111) and formulated up to 5 physical activity plans for a target person. Couples assigned to a control condition were not included as they did not generate plans. The following characteristics were distinguished and coded for each plan: number of planned opportunities, presence of a planned routine, planned cue- or activity-related specificity, activity-related intensity, and chronological plan rank. One week before (T0) and two weeks following (T2) the intervention (T1), increase vs. no increase of the planned activity was coded as a dichotomous plan enactment variable. Multilevel logistic regressions were fit.
Results:
Plan enactment was higher in dyadic than in individual planners. Findings indicated that routines (e.g., after work) were positively related to plan enactment, whereas a high specificity of when-cues (e.g., Friday at 6.30 p.m.) showed a negative relationship. None of the examined plan characteristics could explain differences in enactment between IPC and DPC.
Conclusions:
Linking health behaviours to other behavioural routines seems beneficial for subsequent plan enactment. Dyadic planning was linked with higher enactment rates than individual planning. However, as mechanisms underlying this effect remain unclear, they should be investigated further.
Related Concept Videos
Planning Nursing Care II
Social Scripts
Social Psychology and Individual Behavior
Exercise and Muscle Performance
Endurance exercises
Endurance exercises involve running, swimming, or cycling, which require repetitive movements with low force output. When a person engages in endurance exercise, a few noticeable changes occur in their skeletal muscles. For instance, the number of capillaries...
Factors Influencing Attraction II: Physical Attraction
Self-Discrepancy Theory

