Advertisement

Sports Medicine

, Volume 48, Issue 8, pp 1893–1912 | Cite as

Understanding Physical Activity through Interactions Between the Built Environment and Social Cognition: A Systematic Review

  • Ryan E. Rhodes
  • Brian E. Saelens
  • Claire Sauvage-Mar
Systematic Review

Abstract

Background

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.

Objective

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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

Funding

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.

Supplementary material

40279_2018_934_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)
40279_2018_934_MOESM2_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 19 kb)
40279_2018_934_MOESM3_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 21 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Rebar A, Stanton R, Geard D, Short CE, Duncan M, Vandelanotte C. A meta-meta-analysis of the effect of physical activity on depression and anxiety in non-clinical adult populations. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9:366–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rhodes RE, Bredin SSD, Janssen I, Warburton DER, Bauman A. Physical activity: health impact, prevalence, correlates and interventions. Psychol Health. 2017;32:942–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Janssen I, LeBlanc AG. Systematic review of the health benefits of physical activity and fitness in school-aged children. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7:40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bize R, Johnson JA, Plotnikoff RC. Physical activity level and health-related quality of life in the general adult population: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2007;45:401–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, et al. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380:247–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colley RC, Garriguet D, Janssen I, Craig CL, Clarke J, Tremblay MS. Physical activity of Canadian adults: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian health measures survey. Health Rep. 2011;22:7–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:181–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warburton DER, Bredin SSD. Reflections on physical activity and health: what should we recommend? Can J Cardiol. 2016;32:495–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 10.
    Michie S, West R, Campbell R, Brown J, Gainforth H. ABC of theories of behaviour change. Great Britain: Silverback Publishing; 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sallis JF, Bull F, Guthold R, Heath GW, Inoue S, Kelly P, et al. Progress in physical activity over the Olympic quadrennium. Lancet. 2016;388:1325–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stokols D. Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for community health promotion. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10:282–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McLeroy KR. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Behav. 1988;15:351–77.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sallis JF, Cervero RB, Ascher W, Henderson K, Kraft MK, Kerr J. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:297–322.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duncan M, Spence JC, Mummery WK. Perceived environment and physical activity: a meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005;2:11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;8:125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saelens BE, Handy SL. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40:S550–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Holle V, Deforche B, Van Cauwenberg J. Relationship between the physical environment and different domains of physical activity in European adults: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:807.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ferdinand A, Biasakha S, Rahurkar S, Engier S, Menachemi N. The relationship between built environments and physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:7–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bauman A, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJF, Martin BW, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young MD, Plotnikoff RC, Collins C, Callister R, Morgan PJ. Social cognitive theory and physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2014;12:983–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McEachan R, Conner M, Taylor NJ, Lawton RJ. Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2011;5:97–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 25.
    Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1991;50:179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health. 1998;13:623–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fleig L, Ashe MC, Voss C, Therrien S, Sims-Gould J, McKay HA. Environmental and psychosocial correlates of objectively measured physical activity among older adults. Health Psychol. 2016;35:1364–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rebar AL, Dimmock JA, Jackson B, Rhodes RE, Kates A, Starling J, et al. A systematic review of the effects of non-conscious regulatory processes in physical activity. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10:395–407.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Blanchard CM, Plotnikoff RC. Prediction of leisure-time walking: An integration of social cognitive, perceived environmental, and personality factors. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2007;4:51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carlson JA, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Saelens BE, Frank L, Kerr J, et al. Interactions between psychosocial and built environment factors in explaining older adults’ physical activity. Prev Med. 2012;54:68–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cerin E, Vandelanotte C, Leslie E, Merom D. Recreational facilities and leisure-time physical activity: an analysis of moderators and self-efficacy as a mediator. Health Psychol. 2008;27(2 Suppl):S126–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370:1453–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kirk M, Rhodes RE. Occupation correlates of adults’ participation in leisure-time physical activity: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:476–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rhodes RE, Temmel C, Mark R. Correlates of adult sedentary behaviour: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42:e3–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kanga B, Moudon AV, Hurvitz PM, Saelens BE. Differences in behavior, time, location, and built environment between objectively measured utilitarian and recreational walking. Transp Res D Transp Environ. 2017;57:185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 37.
    Alfonzo MA. To walk or not to walk? The hierarchy of walking needs. Environ Behav. 2005;37:808–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:963–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Field AP. Dread returns to mega-silly one. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(1):15–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    De Meester F, Van Dyck D, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Cardon G. Do psychosocial factors moderate the association between neighborhood walkability and adolescents’ physical activity? Soc Sci Med. 2013;81:1–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    D’Haese S, Gheysen F, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Deforche B, Van Dyck D, Cardon G. The moderating effect of psychosocial factors in the relation between neighborhood walkability and children’s physical activity. J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2016;13:128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 43.
    Ding D, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Saelens BE, Frank LD, Cain KL, et al. Interactive effects of built environment and psychosocial attributes on physical activity: a test of ecological models. Ann Behav Med. 2012;44:365–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Van Holle V, Van Cauwenberg J, Deforche B, Van de Weghe N, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Dyck D. Do psychosocial factors moderate the association between objective neighborhood walkability and older adults’ physical activity? Health Place. 2015;34:118–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Giles-Corti B, Donovan RJ. The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1793–812.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zenk SN, Horoi I, Jones KK, Finnegan L, Corte C, Riley B, et al. Environmental and personal correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior in African American women: an ecological momentary assessment study. Women Health. 2017;57:446–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kepper M, Broyles S, Scribner R, Tseng TS, Zabaleta J, Griffiths L, et al. Parental perceptions of the social environment are inversely related to constraint of adolescents’ neighborhood physical activity. Int J Env Res Public Health. 2016;13:1266–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rhodes RE, Brown SG, McIntyre CA. Integrating the perceived neighbourhood environment and the theory of planned behaviour when predicting walking in Canadian adult sample. Am J Health Prom. 2006;21:110–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prins RG, van Empelen P, te Velde SJ, Timperio A, van Lenthe FJ, Tak NI, et al. Availability of sports facilities as moderator of the intention–sports participation relationship among adolescents. Health Educ Res. 2010;25:489–97.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beenackers MA, Kamphuis CBM, Prins RG, Mackenbach JP, Burdorf A, Van Lenthe FJ. Urban form and psychosocial factors: do they interact for leisure-time walking? Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2014;46:293–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Deforche B, Van Dyck D, Verloigne M, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Perceived social and physical environmental correlates of physical activity in older adolescents and the moderating effect of self-efficacy. Prev Med. 2010;50:S24–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gay JL, Saunders RP, Dowda M. The relationship of physical activity and the built environment within the context of self-determination theory. Ann Behav Med. 2011;42:188–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Van Dyck D, Cerin E, Conway TL, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Owen N, Kerr J, et al. Interacting psychosocial and environmental correlates of leisure-time physical activity: a three-country study. Health Psychol. 2014;33:699–709.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Van Dyck D, Cardon G, Deforche B, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Urban–rural differences in physical activity in Belgian adults and the importance of psychosocial factors. J Urban Health. 2010;88:154–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yang Y, Diez-Roux AV. Adults’ daily walking for travel and leisure: interaction between attitude toward walking and the neighborhood environment. Am J Health Prom. 2017;31:435–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Beenackers MA, Kamphuis CBM, Mackenbach JP, Burdorf A, Van Lenthe FJ. Why some walk and others don’t: exploring interactions of perceived safety and social neighborhood factors with psychosocial cognitions. Health Educ Res. 2013;28:220–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wang X, Conway TL, Cain KL, Frank LD, Saelens BE, Geremia C, et al. Interactions of psychosocial factors with built environments in explaining adolescents’ active transportation. Prev Med. 2017;100:76–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kaczynski AT, Robertson-Wilson J, Decloe M. Interaction of perceived neighborhood walkability and self-efficacy on physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9:208–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Humpel N, Owen N, Leslie E. Environmental factors associated with adult’s participation in physical activity: a review. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:88–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ding D, Sallis JF, Kerr J, Rosenberg DE. Neighborhood environment and physical activity among youth. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:442–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bellows-Riecken KH, Rhodes RE, Hoffert KM. Motives for lifestyle and exercise activities: a comparison using the theory of planned behaviour. Eur J Sport Sci. 2008;8(5):305–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. 63.
    Sniehotta FF, Presseau J, Araújo-Soares V. Time to retire the theory of planned behavior. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rhodes RE, Dickau L. Moderators of the intention-behavior relationship in physical activity: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2013;47(4):215–25.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 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
  66. 66.
    Rhodes RE, Fiala B, Conner M. Affective judgments and physical activity: a review and meta-analysis. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38:180–204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    McEachan R, Taylor N, Harrison R, Lawton R, Gardner P, Conner M. Meta-analysis of the reasoned action approach (RAA) to understanding health behaviors. Ann Behav Med. 2016;50:592–612.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rhodes RE, Kates A. Can the affective response to exercise predict future motives and physical activity behavior? A systematic review of published evidence. Ann Behav Med. 2015;49:715–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Orstad SL, McDonough MH, Stapleton S, Altincekic C, Troped PJ. A systematic review of agreement between perceived and objective neighborhood environment measures and associations with physical activity outcomes. Environ Behav. 2017;49:904–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Evans JSBT, Stanovich KE. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2013;8:223–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 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
  72. 72.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan E. Rhodes
    • 1
  • Brian E. Saelens
    • 2
    • 3
  • Claire Sauvage-Mar
    • 1
  1. 1.Behavioral Medicine Laboratory, School of Exercise Science, Physical and Health EducationUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada
  2. 2.Seattle Children’s Research Institute, Center for Child Health Behavior and DevelopmentSeattleUSA
  3. 3.School of MedicineUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations