Objectives
The objective of this study was to compare standard elicitation techniques for barriers and enablers for physical activity and sleep behaviours, to an alternative approach whereby participants were told to only consider the literal meanings of the words prevent/enable.
Design
Randomized controlled design.
Methods
College students were randomized to either a standard methods group (n = 177) (what prevents you from doing behaviour X) or a vignette group (n = 176) to encourage them to think of the literal meaning of the words prevent/enable. Responses were then codified by two blinded researchers.
Results
Students reported significantly different types of control beliefs between groups. Those in the standard group reported significantly more overall beliefs (p’s < .05, except sleep/enable), suggesting poorer discrimination in interpreting what was meant by ‘prevent’ and ‘enable’.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates when self‐efficacy‐related control beliefs are elicited, natural language words such as ‘prevent’ and ‘enable’ have the potential to confuse people about the intent of the question.