Understanding Physical Activity through Interactions Between the Built Environment and Social Cognition: A Systematic Review
Few people in most developed nations engage in regular physical activity (PA), despite its well-established health benefits. Socioecological models highlight the potential interaction of multiple factors from policy and the built environment to individual social cognition in explaining PA.
The purpose of this review was to appraise this interaction tenet of the socioecological model between the built environment and social cognition to predict PA.
Eligible studies had to have been published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language, and included any tests of interaction between social cognition and the built environment with PA. Literature searches, concluded in October 2017, used five common databases. Findings were grouped by type of PA outcomes (leisure, transportation, total PA and total moderate–vigorous PA [MVPA]), then grouped by the type of interactions between social cognitive and built environment constructs.
The initial search yielded 308 hits, which was reduced to 22 independent studies of primarily high- to medium-quality after screening for eligibility criteria. The interaction tenet of the socioecological model was not supported for overall MVPA and total PA. By contrast, while there was heterogeneity of findings for leisure-time PA, environmental accessibility/convenience interacted with intention, and environmental aesthetics interacted with affective judgments, to predict leisure-time PA. Interactions between the built environment and social cognition in PA for transport are limited, with current results failing to support an effect.
The results provide some support for interactive aspects of the built environment and social cognition in leisure-time PA, and thus highlight potential areas for integrated intervention of individual and environmental change.
Ryan Rhodes is supported by funds from the Canadian Cancer Society, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article.
Conflict of interest
Ryan Rhodes, Brian Saelens and Claire Sauvage-Mar declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.
- 9.2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.Google Scholar
- 10.Michie S, West R, Campbell R, Brown J, Gainforth H. ABC of theories of behaviour change. Great Britain: Silverback Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
- 13.McLeroy KR. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav. 1988;15:351–77.Google Scholar
- 24.Emmons K. Health behaviors in a social context. In: Berkman L, Kawachi I, editors. Social epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 242–66.Google Scholar
- 36.Fishbein M, Triandis HC, Kanfer FH, Becker M, Middlestadt SE, Eichler A. Factors influencing behavior and behavior change. In: Baum A, Revenson TA, editors. Handbook of health psychology. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2001. p. 3–17.Google Scholar
- 42.Haerens L, Craeynest M, Deforche B, Maes L, Cardon G, De Bourdeaudhuij I. The contribution of home, neighbourhood and school environmental factors in explaining physical activity among adolescents. J Env Public Health. 2009;1:2009.Google Scholar
- 62.Kuhl J. Motivational aspects of achievement motivation and learned helplessness: towards a comprehensive theory of action control. In: Maher BA, Maher WB, editors. Progress in experimental personality research, vol. 13. New York: Academic; 1984. p. 99–171.Google Scholar
- 65.Rhodes RE. The evolving understanding of physical activity behavior: a multi-process action control approach. In: Elliot AJ, editor. Advances in motivation science. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2017. p. 171–205.Google Scholar
- 71.Ferguson CJ, Heene M. A vast graveyard of undead theories: publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Psychol Sci. 2012;7:555–61.Google Scholar