Relationship Between Psychological Needs and Regulatory Focus Among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
Background
Diabetes is a chronic disease. A sustained change in lifestyle is generally necessary for terms of diet and physical activity. According to Self-Determination Theory, the nature of the motivation to regulate one’s behavior is linked to the satisfaction of three psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. According to Regulatory Focus Theory, there is a promotion focus and a prevention focus. The prevention focus has been shown to have a different relationship with the satisfaction of the needs of the Self-Determination Theory between a general population and a population with health problems.
Objective
This study investigates the relationship between psychological needs and regulatory focus for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
Methods
295 adults with T2D completed an online questionnaire measuring autonomy and perceived competence and regulatory focus.
Results
The promotion focus predicts the satisfaction of needs for autonomy and competence (β = 1.50, p < .01). The prevention focuses positively predicts the satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs (β = 2.06, p < .001).
Conclusion
These factors display different relationships between them among people with type 2 diabetes compared to the general population. Prevention focus seems to be more beneficial in the specific context of T2D than in the general population.
1. Duclos M, Oppert JM, Verges B, et al. Physical activity and type 2 diabetes. Recommendations of the sfd (francophone diabetes society) diabetes and physical activity working group. Diabetes Metab. 2013;39(3):205-216.
2. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol Inq. 2000;11(4):227-268. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01
3. Gillison FB, Rouse P, Standage M, Sebire SJ, Ryan RM. A meta-analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a self-determination theory perspective. Health Psychol Rev. 2019;13(1):110-130. doi:10.1080/17437199.2018.1534071
4. Williams GC, McGregor HA, Zeldman A, Freedman ZR, Deci EL. Testing a self-determination theory process model for promoting glycemic control through diabetes self-management. Health Psychol. 2004;23(1):58-66. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.1.58
5. Ryan RM, Patrick H, Deci EL, Williams GC. Facilitating health behavior change and its maintenance: interventions based on self-determination theory. Eur Health Psychol. 2008;10(1):2-5.
6. Teixeira PJ, Carraca 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(1):78. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-9-78
7. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality. JRes Pers. 1985;19(2):109-134. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
8. Higgins ET. Beyond pleasure and pain. Am Psychol. 1997;52(12):1280-1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280
9. Lalot F, Quiamzade A, Zerhouni O. Regulatory focus and self-determination motives interact to predict students' nutrition-habit intentions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019;25(3):477.
10. Laroche M, Roussel P, Mascret N, Cury F. Health regulatory focus, selection optimization and compensation strategy and sports practice: a mediational analysis. Span J Psychol. 2019;22. doi:10.1017/sjp.2019.22
11. Vaughn LA. Foundational tests of the need-support model: a framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2017;43(3):313-328. doi:10.1177/0146167216684132
12. Avraham R, Van Dijk D, Simon-Tuval T. Regulatory focus and adherence to self-care behaviors among adults with type 2 diabetes. Psychol Health Med. 2016;21(6):696-706. doi:10.1080/13548506.2015.1112413
13. Laroche M, Roussel P, Cury F, Boiché J. Understanding the dynamics of physical activity practice in the health context through regulatory focus and self-determination theories. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0216760. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216760
14. Ledford CJW. Exploring the interaction of patient activation and message design variables: Message frame and presentation mode influence on the walking behavior of patients with type 2 diabetes. J Health Psychol. 2012;17(7):989-1000. doi:10.1177/1359105311429204
15. Li KK, Ng L, Cheng ST, Fung HH. Reverse message-framing effects on accelerometer-assessed physical activity among older outpatients with type 2 diabetes. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2017;39(3):222-227. doi:10.1123/jsep.2016-0249
16. Schokker MC, Keers JC, Bouma J, et al. The impact of social comparison information on motivation in patients with diabetes as a function of regulatory focus and self-efficacy. Health Psychol. 2010;29(4):438-445. doi:10.1037/a0019878
17. Ludolph R, Schulz PJ. Does regulatory fit lead to more effective health communication? A systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2015;128:142-150. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.021
18. Zhao G, Pechmann C. The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents' response to antismoking advertising campaigns. J Mark Res. 2007;44(4):671-687. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.4.671
19. Higgins ET. What distinguishes promotion and prevention? Attaining “+1” from “0” as non-gain versus maintaining “0” as non-loss. Pol Psychol Bull. Published online 2018.
20. Anderson RM, Funnell MM, Fitzgerald JT, Marrero DG. The Diabetes Empowerment Scale: a measure of psychosocial self-efficacy. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(6):739-743. doi:10.2337/diacare.23.6.739
21. Ouschan L, Boldero JM, Kashima Y, Wakimoto R, Kashima ES. Regulatory focus strategies scale: a measure of individual differences in the endorsement of regulatory strategies. Asian J Soc Psychol. 2007;10(4):243-257. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839x.2007.00233.x
22. Li R, Liu H, Yao M, Chen Y. Regulatory Focus and Subjective Well-Being: the Mediating Role of Coping Styles and the Moderating Role of Gender. J Psychol. 2019;153(7):714-731. doi:10.1080/00223980.2019.1601066
23. Loucks EB, Gilman SE, Britton WB, Gutman R, Eaton CB, Buka SL. Associations of mindfulness with glucose regulation and diabetes. Am J Health Behav. 2016;40(2):258-267. doi:10.5993/ajhb.40.2.11
24. NgJYY, Ntoumanis N, Thogersen-Ntoumani C, et al. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: a meta-analysis. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(4):325-340. doi:10.1177/1745691612447309
25. Barello S, Palamenghi L, Graffigna G. The mediating role of the patient health engagement model on the relationship between patient-perceived autonomy-supportive healthcare climate and health literacy skills. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(5):1741. doi:10.3390/ijerph17051741
26. Zuercher E, Burnand B, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Burnand I. Cohorte codiab-vd rapport du suivi annuel 2014.
27. Gomez P, Borges A, Pechmann C. Avoiding poor health or approaching good health: Does it matter? The conceptualization, measurement, and consequences of health regulatory focus. J Consum Psychol. 2013;23(4):451-463. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.02.001
28. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen M. Evaluating model fit: a synthesis of the structural equation modeling literature. In: 7th European Conference on Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies.;2008:195-200.
29. Lockwood P, Jordan CH, Kunda Z. Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(4):854-864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854
30. Shah J, Higgins ET. Regulatory concerns and appraisal efficiency: the general impact of promotion and prevention. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;80(5):693-705. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.693
31. Berezowskia A, Fischer ARH, van Trijp HCM. The interplay between regulatory focus and temporal distance in the health context. Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23(1):22-37. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12272
32. Laiteerapong N, Ham SA, Gao Y, et al. The legacy effect in type 2 diabetes: impact of early glycemic control on future complications (the diabetes & aging study). Diabetes Care. 2019;42(3):416-426. doi:10.2337/dc17-1144
33. Esmaeilinasab M, Ebrahimi M, Mokarrar MH, Rahmati L, Mahjouri MY, Arzaghi SM. Type II diabetes and personality: a study to explore other psychosomatic aspects of diabetes. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2016;15(1):54. doi:10.1186/s40200-016-028 1-3
34. Lane JD, McCaskill CC, Williams PG, Parekh PI, Feinglos MN, Surwit RS. Personality correlates of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2000;23(9):1321-1325. doi:10.2337/diacare.23.9.1321