Resuming a healthy lifestyle after the COVID-19 pandemic: A couple-based study
Creators: name: Gouin, Jean-Philippe
name: Hollett, Kayla
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: Health Psychology
subject: Social Psychology

description: Rationale: Physical activity and eating behaviour are modifiable risk factors for chronic disease and poor quality of life, yet many individuals struggle initiating and maintaining these health behaviours (Kwanisca et al., 2016). Social-ecological perspectives emphasize that health behaviour change is influenced by the social context in which it occurs (Lewis et al., 2006). Interdependence theory highlights that cohabiting spouses influence each other’s behaviours, both intentionally and non-intentionally (Kelley &amp; Thibault, 1978). Empirical studies have shown that caloric intake and exercise frequency significantly covary within couples (Jackson et al., 2015). This is not surprising given that diet and physical activity decisions are often made in the home and that spouses share daily routines (Meyler, Stimpson, &amp; Peek, 2007). Furthermore, 95% of cohabiting spouses report trying to influence their partner’s health-related behaviours, with diet and physical activity being the most common targets of these social control attempts (Tucker &amp; Anders, 2001, Lewis &amp; Butterfield, 2007). Health-related spousal social control is defined as an individuals’ attempt to influence, regulate, or constrain their spouse’s health-related behaviours (Hughes &amp; Gove, 1981). The dyadic power–social influence model highlights that spousal control strategies are best conceptualized along two dimensions, valence and directedness (Simpson et al., 2015). Social control strategies may thus be direct (e.g., making requests to one’s partner) or indirect (e.g., bringing certain foods into the home), and may also differ in valence (e.g., positive, negative) (Rook et al., 1990; Butterfield &amp; Lewis, 2002). Even though health-related spousal social control attempts are mostly well-intentioned and done with the intention of promoting behaviour change, there is significant variability in their effects on the partner. Some spousal social control attempts facilitate health behaviour change, while other strategies can backfire and elicits psychological reactance, including ignoring the partner’s influence attempt, hiding “unhealthy” behaviours from the spouse, and even doing the opposite of what was suggested (Lewis et al., 2004). A recent meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies indicated that positive social control strategies were associated with improved health behaviours, while there was a negative, but none significant association between negative spousal control strategies and health behaviour change (Craddock et al., 2015). The directness dimension of social control strategies was not examined. Furthermore, there were significant heterogeneity in effect sizes, indicating that other factors influence the associations between spousal social control strategies and health behaviour change. The contextual model of social control highlights that the relational context is a key factor that moderates the impact of these spousal social control attempts (Okun et al., 2007; Dailey, 2018). A number of empirical studies support this model. Positive spousal control strategies were associated with greater health behaviour change among individuals with good relationship quality, but the same strategies were unrelated or associated with less behaviour change among participants with poorer relationship quality (Knoll et al., 2012; Fekete et al., 2006). However, as Scholz et al., (2013) pointed out, spousal relationship quality is a multidimensional construct and the different dimensions of this construct may differently impact the effects of spousal social control attempts. Helgeson’s communal coping theory proposes that spouses’ appraisal of shared responsibility for a healthy lifestyle is a key dimension of the broader concept of relationship quality that will moderate responses to social control attempts (Helgeson et al., 2018). The appraisal or belief that maintenance of a healthy lifestyle is a joint endeavor for both spouses is the cornerstone aspect of this communal coping approach. This appraisal of shared responsibility will also influence the construal of the partner’s social control attempts. Spousal social control attempts that are interpreted as over-involved or intrusive may be perceived to imply that the person is unable to perform the behaviour change on their own and diminish self-efficacy (Bolger et al., 2000), the individual’s belief in his capacity to execute a given behaviour, a key predictor of behavioural change maintenance (McAuley et al., 1993; Strychar et al., 2012). Furthermore, spousal control attempts construed as controlling behaviours are more likely to elicit behavioural reactance (Tucker &amp; Mueller, 2000). The communal coping theory proposes that in a context of high communal coping, spousal social control attempts are more likely to be construed as collaborative or supportive rather than being intrusive or controlling. Although health behaviour change is a complex process, only a few studies have investigated spousal influences on specific components of the behaviour change process (e.g. Berli et al., 2018). The Health Action Process Approch (HAPA) proposes a theoretical framework to understand the different components of the processes in the initiation and maintenance of health change (Schwarzer et al. 2008). More studies are needed to understand the nonintentional and intentential influences of cohabiting partners on the processes underlying changes in eating and physical activity behaviours. The COVID-19 pandemic led to important changes in lifestyle behaviour. Many individuals will want to change their lifestyle during the post-pandemic period. Aims: The overall goal of this research project is to examine the nonintentional and intentional influences that cohabiting romantic partners have on one another when trying to increase physical activity and adopt healthier eating behaviours using an Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM). Actor effects occur when an individual’s health behaviour changes are influenced by their own actions, and partner effects occur when an individual’s health behaviour changes are influenced by their partner’s actions, over and above their own actions. Specific aim includes: 1) Examining partner effects on the health behaviour change processes underlying change in physical activity and eating behaviours; 2) Examining the association of partner’s social control strategies on the health behaviour change process; 3) Examining the moderating effect of communal coping on the health behaviour change process; 4) Examining the moderating effect of communal coping on the construals of social control attempts, relationship closesness and self-regulatory processes. Hypotheses: (H1) Replicating Berli et al., (2018)’s findings for physical activity, and extending these findings to eating behaviours, there will be significant partner effect for intention and action control on eating and physical behaviour, over and above the actor effects; (H2) Positive direct social control strategies and indirect social control will be associated with greater physical activity and healthier eating habits, but not negative social control; (H3) Communal coping will moderate the partner effects of intention and action control on health behaviours as well as the impact of social control on health behaviours, over and above general relationship quality; (H4) Communal coping will moderate the impact of daily social control and support on daily construal of control attempts, relationship closeness, the within-person association between stress and eating and physical activity behaviours. Study Design: A 3-month dyadic longitudinal study combined with a 2-week intensive longitudinal daily diary study. This study uses both daily diary and longitudinal designs and takes place during the deconfinement period following the third wave of COVID-19 pandemic. Variables will be measured at three time points (baseline, 1-month follow-up, and 3-months follow-up). As well, 14 daily diaries will be completed by both partners between baseline and 1-month follow-up assessments.