Examining the impact of perceived behavioral control and planning on closing the exercise intention-behavior gap: Insights from a meta-analytic structural equation modeling study.

Objective: This study aims to investigate the roles of perceived behavioral control (PBC), action planning, and coping planning in bridging the gap between exercise intention and behavior. By using a Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Model (MASEM), we quantify the specific effects of these variables and explore their mediating roles in the relationships between intention, PBC, and behavior. The study provides insights into how these constructs contribute to informing effective behavioral intervention strategies.

Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the correlation effect sizes between variables in the model, and MASEM was employed to examine the interrelationships among multiple variables. Data from 57 samples across 49 studies, with a total sample size of 19,883, were analyzed. We constructed an aggregated correlation matrix and performed path analysis using structural equation modeling. AMOS 26.0 software was used to estimate model parameters, including path coefficients, standard errors, and various model fit indices.

Results: The results indicate that behavioral intention serves as a key predictor of behavior, showing a significant positive direct effect (β = 0.416, p < 0.001). Intention also significantly predicts both action planning (β = 0.439, p < 0.001) and coping planning (β = 0.360, p < 0.001), though its impact on behavior is mediated differently by these two forms of planning. Mediation analysis further revealed that intention indirectly predicts behavior through coping planning (β = 0.067, p < 0.001), while the mediation effect through action planning was not significant (β = -0.001, p > 0.05). PBC played multiple roles: it directly predicts behavior (β = 0.106, p < 0.001), indirectly predicts behavior through intention (β = 0.282, p < 0.001), and further mediates behavior through intention and coping planning (β = 0.046, p < 0.001), as well as through coping planning alone (β = 0.032, p < 0.001). Additionally, the mediation effect of PBC on behavior through action planning was statistically significant but negligible (β = 0.000, p = 0.003), reinforcing the stronger role of coping planning in driving behavior change.

Conclusion: This study highlights the important roles of behavioral intention and perceived behavioral control in promoting physical activity while challenging the effectiveness of focusing solely on action planning. The findings suggest that although action planning does not significantly impact behavior, coping planning plays a critical role in behavior implementation. By integrating action planning and coping planning, comprehensive behavioral intervention strategies can more effectively bridge the intention-behavior gap and promote sustained physical activity.