HLTH 2500 Week 10 Program Rationale Example

The Lunch Loop: A Short Program Rationale in Which Every Component Names the Construct It Is Meant to Move and the Evidence for the Link

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 2500: Theories of Health Behavior

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

The Lunch Loop: A Short Program Rationale in Which Every Component Names the Construct It Is Meant to Move and the Evidence for the Link

The Behavior and the Problem

The Lunch Loop is a proposed eight-week program at a composite county office of roughly 400 staff. Its target is the Week 4 behavior: ten brisk minutes of walking or more, leaving from the office at lunch, on three or more of the five workdays. Applying the theory of planned behavior to this behavior showed that it accounts for the choice to walk better than for the walk itself on any given day: workers' perceived control varies from day to day, intentions lack a plan for when and where, and lunch at the desk is often a habit (Ajzen, 1991; Wood & Neal, 2007). The program's components are chosen to address those specific points. None is included because it is popular or because other workplaces use it.

Components and the Constructs They Target

Table 1

Components, Targets and Rationale

Each row ties a component to one construct; components that could not be tied to a construct were left out.

Why Each Component Is There

The Protected Lunch Window

Meetings over lunch are the obstacle most likely to defeat the behavior, and they are set by others, not by the worker. In the theory of planned behavior, perceived behavioral control predicts behavior directly, and the model trusts that prediction only where perception matches the real conditions (Ajzen, 1991). Telling workers they can walk while meetings continue to be scheduled at noon would raise perceived control without changing actual control. The protected window changes the actual condition on three days a week, which are the days the behavior requires.

The Supervisor Message

The subjective norm depends on what specific people are believed to expect and on the worker's motivation to comply with them. For this workplace, the supervisor is the referent whose expectations matter most. A monthly message from supervisors saying that a walk at lunch is welcome addresses that belief directly. A general wellness poster from human resources would not, because human resources is not the person whose expectation the worker weighs.

The Marked Loop and the Shoe Shelf

Both components change actual control. Workers who do not know a safe, pleasant route, or who wear shoes unsuited to walking, face real barriers, and the program removes them. The map also addresses a control belief, "I don't know where to go," at the moment of decision, posted where workers leave the building.

The Planning Card

The theory of planned behavior has no construct for planning, and intention alone translates into behavior less reliably than the model implies (Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Implementation intentions, plans that tie an action to a named moment, improved goal attainment across many studies (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). The planning card asks each worker to write such a plan for each walking day. It targets the gap between intention and behavior, which the theory leaves open.

The Graded Weekly Goal

Bandura (2004) identifies mastery experience as the strongest source of self-efficacy. A worker asked to walk three times in the first week, and who manages once, may conclude that the behavior is beyond them. A worker asked to walk once, who succeeds, gains evidence that they can do it. The goal rises to two walks in week 2 and three from week 3, so each step builds on a success.

Same Time, Same Exit, Same Loop

Habits form when a behavior is repeated in a consistent context, and automaticity grows with repetition. In a study of people adopting a new daily behavior, the time needed to approach maximum automaticity ranged widely, from 18 to 254 days, and missing a single day did not materially disrupt habit formation (Lally et al., 2010). The program encourages workers to walk at the same time, from the same exit, along the same loop, so the context becomes a cue. An eight-week program will not complete habit formation for most workers, but it can begin it, and the evidence that a missed day does not undo progress supports telling workers so.

What Was Left Out and Why

Three common components were considered and left out because they could not be tied to a construct identified as a problem for this behavior. A lecture on the health benefits of walking was omitted because workers' attitudes toward walking in general are already favorable; it targets a belief that is not the barrier. A step-count leaderboard was omitted because its target construct is unclear, and it may discourage workers who start with low activity, which would work against self-efficacy. Prize drawings were omitted because they offer an outcome unrelated to the walk itself and do not address control, norms, planning or habit.

How the Rationale Will Be Tested

Each component makes a prediction that can be checked. If the protected window works, walks should be more frequent on Monday, Wednesday and Friday than on other days. If the supervisor message works, measured subjective norm should rise between baseline and week 4. If graded goals build self-efficacy, the self-efficacy score developed in Week 9 should rise from baseline to week 4. If the planning card helps, workers who complete it should walk more often than those who do not. These checks tie the results back to the constructs, so the program can learn which parts did their job.

Conclusion

Every component of the Lunch Loop points at a construct and states what it is meant to move: actual and perceived control, the supervisor norm, the intention-behavior gap, self-efficacy and habit. Components that could not be tied to a construct identified for this behavior were left out. The rationale is meant to be wrong in specific, checkable ways if it is wrong at all.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 998-1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674

Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249

Wood, W., & Neal, D. T. (2007). A new look at habits and the habit-goal interface. Psychological Review, 114(4), 843-863. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.843