Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Dec 1.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2014 Sep 7;69:87–89. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.08.029

Point-of-decision prompts for increasing park-based physical activity: a crowdsource analysis

Andrew T Kaczynski 1,✉, Sonja A Wilhelm Stanis 2, J Aaron Hipp 3
PMCID: PMC4312231  NIHMSID: NIHMS644376  PMID: 25204987

Abstract

Objective

To examine the potential efficacy of using point-of-decision prompts to influence intentions to be active in a park setting.

Methods

In June 2013, participants from across the U.S. (n=250) completed an online experiment using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and Survey Monkey. Participants were randomly exposed to a park photo containing a persuasive, theoretically-based message in the form of a sign (treatment) or an identical photo with no sign (control). Differences in intentions to engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity within the park were examined between the two conditions for multiple gender, age, and race groups.

Results

Participants who were exposed to the park photo with the sign reported significantly greater intentions to be active than those who viewed the photo without a sign. This effect was especially strong for women compared to men, but no differences were observed across age or race groups.

Conclusion

Point-of-decision prompts are a relatively inexpensive, simple, sustainable, and scalable strategy for evoking behavior change in parks and further testing of diverse messages in actual park settings is warranted.

Introduction

Parks are important resources for promoting physical activity (PA) given their low cost, accessibility throughout communities, and wide appeal (Bedimo-Rung et al., 2005; Kaczynski & Henderson, 2007). However, a substantial percentage of park users are observed as sedentary (Cohen et al., 2007; Floyd et al., 2008; Kaczynski et al., 2011), suggesting that potential exists to increase the contribution of parks to population-level energy expenditure and the mitigation of obesity and chronic diseases (Besenyi et al., 2013).

Point-of-decision-prompts (PODPs), such as signs promoting stair use, employ persuasive education and information messages to influence health-related or other behaviors (Boen et al., 2010; Coleman & Gonzalez, 2001; Dolan et al., 2006). Strong evidence exists to support the effectiveness of such strategies (Soler et al., 2010; Task Force on Community Preventive Services, 2002) and PODPs were found to be the most cost-effective type of PA intervention (Wu et al., 2011). In park settings, signage and other forms of communication (e.g., brochures) have been effective in encouraging or discouraging a variety of behaviors (e.g., littering, off-trail hiking, picking up pet waste; Cialdini et al., 2006; Marion et al., 2008; Martin, 1992; Winter, 2006). However, no studies have explored the utility of PODPs for increasing PA in parks. Therefore, the purpose of this exploratory study was to examine the potential efficacy of PODPs for influencing intentions to be active in a park setting. Such data are critical in testing the success of this inexpensive, easily scalable intervention for increasing PA participation amongst the large segment of the population who use community parks.

Methods

Study Design and Data Collection

This study, which occurred in June 2013 and was approved by the University of Missouri Institutional Review Board, employed an online experiment using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (www.mturk.com) and Survey Monkey (www.surveymonkey.com). Mechanical Turk (MTurk) is a crowdsourcing marketplace allowing people to be paid to complete small, computer-based Human Intelligence Tasks (HITs) which are posted to the MTurk website that provides an interface for requesters and workers (Buhrmester et al., 2011; Hipp et al., 2013). Workers were randomly assigned to one of two experimental scenarios and directed to Survey Monkey where they completed the remainder of the protocol.

Two park photos comprised the control (Figure 1a) and treatment (Figure 1b) conditions. The photos showed a bench, two intersecting paths, and several trees, and were identical except that the treatment photo contained a green sign. White text on the sign read, “Take a walk around the park! Doctors recommend that being active just 30 minutes per day can help you maintain a healthy weight and ward off many diseases.” This theoretically-based message was developed using the Integrated Model of Behavioral Prediction, which posits that three primary constructs – attitudes, perceived norms, and self-efficacy – determine one’s behavioral intentions (Fishbein & Capella, 2006). The specific components of the message were based on feedback from focus groups with 41 residents of a midwestern U.S. city that explored key attitudinal outcomes (e.g., maintaining a healthy weight), perceived norm referents (e.g., doctors), and self-efficacy facilitators and barriers (e.g., knowledge, time) that influence park-based PA (Groshong et al., 2014).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Park photo in control condition (a) and treatment condition (b)

Participants

Participants were restricted within MTurk to US citizens over the age of 18 years and to Mechanical Turk Masters, an “elite group of workers who have demonstrated accuracy on specific types of HITs on the Mechanical Turk marketplace” (www.mturk.com). Participating workers were compensated $0.25 to their Amazon.com account.

Measures

After being exposed to the treatment or control photo, participants answered a comprehension check question to confirm that they had viewed the photo. Participants were then asked to rate the likelihood of engaging in moderate-to-vigorous PA in the park using a scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 9 (very likely). It was explained that “Moderate and vigorous physical activities refer to activities that cause small or large increases in your breathing or heart rate (e.g., brisk walking, jogging, biking).” A brief demographics section asked about gender, age, race, ethnicity, and state of residence.

Analyses

Descriptive statistics explored characteristics of the sample and key variables. An independent samples t-test was used to examine differences between the treatment and control conditions with respect to intentions to engage in moderate-to-vigorous PA in the park, with these analyses also disaggregated by gender, age group (18–34; 35+), and racial group (White only; all other races).

Results

250 participants provided data for the key outcome variable about intentions to engage in park-based PA. Of these, 132 were part of the treatment condition (photo with sign) and 118 viewed the control photo (no sign). Just over half (50.4%) of participants were female, 65.8% were between 18–34 years old, they originated from 46 different U.S. states, and 8.8% were of Hispanic or Latino origin. The most reported racial groups included White (78.2%), Asian (7.1%), and Black (6.7%).

As shown in Table 1, those who were exposed to the park photo with the sign containing the PODP message reported significantly greater intentions to be active than those who viewed the photo without a sign. Further, when disaggregated by gender, the effects of exposure to the PODP message were much greater for females than males. However, there were no differences in PA intentions between the treatment and control groups for any specific age or race groups.

Table 1.

Differences between Control and Treatment Conditions in Intentions to be Active in Park1

Condition N Mean2 (s.d.) t p
Full Sample
 Control (no sign) 118 6.03 (2.15) 2.14 0.03
 Treatment (sign) 132 6.55 (1.63)
Females
 Control (no sign) 55 5.85 (2.28) 2.60 0.01
 Treatment (sign) 64 6.77 (1.49)
Males
 Control (no sign) 55 6.33 (1.97) 0.17 0.86
 Treatment (sign) 62 6.39 (1.66)
18–34 years
 Control (no sign) 64 6.11 (2.11) 1.59 0.11
 Treatment (sign) 94 6.57 (1.56)
35 years or older
 Control (no sign) 49 6.08 (2.14) 1.04 0.30
 Treatment (sign) 33 6.55 (1.68)
White
 Control (no sign) 93 6.00 (2.13) 1.45 0.15
 Treatment (sign) 93 6.40 (1.57)
All other races
 Control (no sign) 25 6.12 (1.97) 1.55 0.12
 Treatment (sign) 39 6.90 (1.66)
Open in a new tab

Notes:

1

Data collected June 2013 online from U.S. participants using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk

2

Outcome variable was intentions to be active in the park shown in the photo rated on a 9-point scale (1=very unlikely, 9=very likely).

Discussion

Our findings provide preliminary evidence of the efficacy of theoretically-based messages for improving intentions to be active in park settings. Given the large numbers of residents who use parks and the significant amount of sedentary behavior that occurs therein, this relatively simple strategy has the potential to significantly improve energy expenditure and health at the population level.

Moreover, the effect of viewing a sign was especially poignant among women compared to men, which is important given that women traditionally have lower levels of PA overall and within park settings (Cohen et al., 2007; Floyd et al., 2008; Kaczynski et al., 2011; Trost et al., 2002). Future research is needed to better explain this finding, but some studies suggest that women may be particularly sensitive and responsive to other environmental PA aids (e.g., bike lanes; Garrard et al., 2008) and at least one study found that stair prompt signs were more effective for women as well (Dolan et al., 2006). It is plausible that the particular message we tested may have been more relevant to females than males, whereas other combinations of outcomes, referents, facilitators, and barriers may produce greater influences on other demographic groups, thus necessitating the need for broader message development and testing.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the efficacy of PODPs for influencing intentions to be active in parks. However, our experiment was limited in that it involved a single message and exposure in a laboratory-like context and it remains to be seen whether increased exposures would have even more positive or perhaps diluted effects. Moreover, our outcome variable focused on intentions to be active rather than actual behavior and respondents were limited to those over the age of 18. Although the present findings are promising, more research is needed to generate and test diverse theoretically-based messages and evaluate their effectiveness for increasing PA in actual park contexts among diverse user groups. PODPs are a relatively inexpensive, simple, sustainable, and scalable strategy for evoking behavior change and warrant greater consideration as a population-level approach to enhancing PA in parks and other community settings.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Lisa Groshong and Gina Besenyi for their insights throughout this study. J. Aaron Hipp was funded by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number 1R21CA186481. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Contributor Information

Andrew T. Kaczynski, Department of Health Promotion, Education and Behavior, Prevention Research Center, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, 915 Greene Street, Room 529, Columbia, SC 29208, atkaczyn@mailbox.sc.edu, (803) 777-7063.

Sonja A. Wilhelm Stanis, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, 105 ABNR Building, Columbia, MO 65211, sonjaws@missouri.edu, (573) 882-9524.

J. Aaron Hipp, Brown School, Prevention Research Center, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, CB 1196, St. Louis, MO 63130, ahipp@wustl.edu, (314) 935-3868.

References

  1. Bedimo-Rung AL, Mowen AJ, Cohen DA. The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28:159–168. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.10.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Besenyi GM, Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Vaughan KB. Demographic variations in observed energy expenditure across park activity areas. Prev Med. 2013;56:79–81. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.10.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boen F, Maurissen K, Opdenacker J. A simple health sign increases stair use in a shopping mall and two train stations in Flanders, Belgium. Health Promot Int. 2010;25:183–191. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daq001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011;6:3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cialdini RB, Demaine LJ, Sagarin BJ, Barrett DW, Rhoads K, Winter PL. Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence. 2006;1:3–15. [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen DA, McKenzie TL, Sehgal A, Williamson S, Golinelli D, Lurie N. Contribution of public parks to physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2007;97:509–514. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.072447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Coleman KJ, Gonzalez EC. Promoting stair use in a US-Mexico border community. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:2007–2009. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.12.2007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dolan MS, Weiss LA, Lewis RA, Pietrobelli A, Heo M, Faith MS. 'Take the stairs instead of the escalator': Effect of environmental prompts on community stair use and implications for a national 'small steps' campaign. Obesity Reviews. 2006;7:25–32. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00219.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fishbein M, Capella JN. The role of theory in developing effective health communications. J Commun. 2006;56:S1–S17. [Google Scholar]
  10. Floyd MF, Spengler JO, Maddock JE, Gobster PH, Suau LJ. Park-based physical activity in diverse communities of two United States cities. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:299–305. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Garrard J, Rose G, Lo SK. Promoting transportation cycling for women: The role of bicycle infrastructure. Prev Med. 2008;46:55–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2007.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Groshong L, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Kaczynski AT, Hipp JA. Developing theory-based communications to encourage physically active behavior in parks. Presentation at the Active Living Research Conference; San Diego, CA.. 2014. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hipp JA, Adlakha D, Eyler AA, Chang B, Pless R. Emerging Technologies: Webcams and crowd-sourcing to identify active transportation. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44:96–97. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaczynski AT, Henderson KA. Environmental correlates of physical activity: A review of evidence about parks and recreation. Leisure Sciences. 2007;29:315–354. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaczynski AT, Wilhelm Stanis SA, Hastmann T, Besenyi GM. Variations in observed park physical activity intensity level by gender, race, and age: Individual and joint effects. J Phys Act Health. 2011;8:150–161. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Marion JL, Dvorak RG, Manning RE. Wildlife feeding in parks: Methods for monitoring the effectiveness of educational interventions and wildlife food attraction behaviors. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 2008;13:429–442. [Google Scholar]
  17. Martin DC. General Technical Report PNW-293. Seattle, WA: Department of Agriculture, National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Regional Office; 1992. The effect of three signs and a brochure on visitor’s removal of pumice at Mount St. Helens. [Google Scholar]
  18. Soler RE, Leeks KD, Buchanan LR, Brownson RC, Heath GW, Hopkins DH The Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Point-of-decision prompts to increase stair use: A systematic review update. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:S292–S300. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.10.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Task Force on Community Preventive Services. Recommendations to increase physical activity in communities. Am J Prev Med. 2002;22:67–72. [Google Scholar]
  20. Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W. Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity: review and update. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2002;34:1996–2001. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200212000-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Winter PL. The impact of normative message types on off-trail hiking. J Interpretation Res. 2006;11:35–52. [Google Scholar]
  22. Wu S, Cohen D, Shi Y, Pearson M, Sturm R. Economic analysis of physical activity interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:149–158. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.10.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES