@misc{SchinkoethAntoniewicz2017,
  author    = {Schinkoeth, Michaela and Antoniewicz, Franziska},
  title     = {Automatic Evaluations and Exercising},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-405410},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The general purpose of this systematic review was to summarize, structure and evaluate the findings on automatic evaluations of exercising. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported measuring automatic evaluations of exercising with an implicit measure and assessed some kind of exercise variable. Fourteen nonexperimental and six experimental studies (out of a total N = 1,928) were identified and rated by two independent reviewers. The main study characteristics were extracted and the grade of evidence for each study evaluated. First, results revealed a large heterogeneity in the applied measures to assess automatic evaluations of exercising and the exercise variables. Generally, small to large-sized significant relations between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise variables were identified in the vast majority of studies. The review offers a systematization of the various examined exercise variables and prompts to differentiate more carefully between actually observed exercise behavior (proximal exercise indicator) and associated physiological or psychological variables (distal exercise indicator). Second, a lack of transparent reported reflections on the differing theoretical basis leading to the use of specific implicit measures was observed. Implicit measures should be applied purposefully, taking into consideration the individual advantages or disadvantages of the measures. Third, 12 studies were rated as providing first-grade evidence (lowest grade of evidence), five represent second-grade and three were rated as third-grade evidence. There is a dramatic lack of experimental studies, which are essential for illustrating the cause-effect relation between automatic evaluations of exercising and exercise and investigating under which conditions automatic evaluations of exercising influence behavior. Conclusions about the necessity of exercise interventions targeted at the alteration of automatic evaluations of exercising should therefore not be drawn too hastily.},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Antoniewicz2016,
  author    = {Antoniewicz, Franziska},
  title     = {Automatic evaluations of exercising},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-92280},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t Potsdam},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Changing the perspective sometimes offers completely new insights to an already well-known phenomenon. Exercising behavior, defined as planned, structured and repeated bodily movements with the intention to maintain or increase the physical fitness (Caspersen, Powell, \& Christenson, 1985), can be thought of as such a well-known phenomenon that has been in the scientific focus for many decades (Dishman \& O'Connor, 2005). Within these decades a perspective that assumes rational and controlled evaluations as the basis for decision making, was predominantly used to understand why some people engage in physical activity and others do not (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015). Dual-process theories (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015; Payne \& Gawronski, 2010) provide another perspective, that is not exclusively influenced by rational reasoning. These theories differentiate two different processes that guide behavior "depending on whether they operate automatically or in a controlled fashion" (Gawronski \& Creighton, 2012, p. 282). Following this line of thought, exercise behavior is not solely influenced by thoughtful deliberations (e.g. concluding that exercising is healthy) but also by spontaneous affective reactions (e.g. disliking being sweaty while exercising). The theoretical frameworks of dual-process models are not new in psychology (Chaiken \& Trope, 1999) and have already been used for the explanation of numerous behaviors (e.g. Hofmann, Friese, \& Wiers, 2008; Huijding, de Jong, Wiers, \& Verkooijen, 2005). However, they have only rarely been used for the explanation of exercise behavior (e.g. Bluemke, Brand, Schweizer, \& Kahlert, 2010; Conroy, Hyde, Doerksen, \& Ribeiro, 2010; Hyde, Doerksen, Ribeiro, \& Conroy, 2010). The assumption of two dissimilar behavior influencing processes, differs fundamentally from previous theories and thus from the research that has been conducted in the last decades in exercise psychology. Research mainly concentrated on predictors of the controlled processes and addressed the identified predictors in exercise interventions (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, \& Biddle, 2002). Predictors arising from the described automatic processes, for example automatic evaluations for exercising (AEE), have been neglected in exercise psychology for many years. Until now, only a few researchers investigated the influence of these AEE for exercising behavior (Bluemke et al., 2010; Brand \& Schweizer, 2015; Markland, Hall, Duncan, \& Simatovic, 2015). Marginally more researchers focused on the impact of AEE for physical activity behavior (Calitri, Lowe, Eves, \& Bennett, 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2010; Hyde, Elavsky, Doerksen, \& Conroy, 2012). The extant studies mainly focused on the quality of AEE and the associated quantity of exercise (exercise much or little; Bluemke et al., 2010; Calitri et al., 2009; Conroy et al., 2010; Hyde et al., 2012). In sum, there is still a dramatic lack of empirical knowledge, when applying dual-process theories to exercising behavior, even though these theories have proven to be successful in explaining behavior in many other health-relevant domains like eating, drinking or smoking behavior (e.g. Hofmann et al., 2008). The main goal of the present dissertation was to collect empirical evidence for the influence of AEE on exercise behavior and to expand the so far exclusively correlational studies by experimentally controlled studies. By doing so, the ongoing debate on a paradigm shift from controlled and deliberative influences of exercise behavior towards approaches that consider automatic and affective influences (Ekkekakis \& Zenko, 2015) should be encouraged. All three conducted publications are embedded in dual-process theorizing (Gawronski \& Bodenhausen, 2006, 2014; Strack \& Deutsch, 2004). These theories offer a theoretical framework that could integrate the established controlled variables of exercise behavior explanation and additionally consider automatic factors for exercise behavior like AEE. Taken together, the empirical findings collected suggest that AEE play an important and diverse role for exercise behavior. They represent exercise setting preferences, are a cause for short-term exercise decisions and are decisive for long-term exercise adherence. Adding to the few already present studies in this field, the influence of (positive) AEE for exercise behavior was confirmed in all three presented publications. Even though the available set of studies needs to be extended in prospectively studies, first steps towards a more complete picture have been taken. Closing with the beginning of the synopsis: I think that time is right for a change of perspectives! This means a careful extension of the present theories with controlled evaluations explaining exercise behavior. Dual-process theories including controlled and automatic evaluations could provide such a basis for future research endeavors in exercise psychology.},
  language  = {en}
}