Executive functioning as a moderator of flossing behaviour among young adults: a temporal self-regulation theory perspective

Figures & data

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, ranges, and zero-order correlations between key variables.

Variable	Range	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5
1. Intention	3 - 15	10.20 (4.66)
2. BP	−0.92 - 1.70	0.00 (0.99)	0.71***
3. BRIEF-A: BRI	30 - 74	44.93 (9.68)	−0.07ns	−0.14***
4. BRIEF-A: MI	40 - 115	63.59 (13.72)	−0.12*	−0.21***	0.77***
5. BRIEF-A: GEC	72 - 173	108.50 (22.06)	−0.10*	−0.19***	0.92***	0.96***
6. Monthly flossing	1 - 5	3.16 (1.51)	0.76***	0.81***	−0.09ns	−0.13***	−0.12*

BP = Behavioural Prepotency, BRIEF-A: BRI = Behavioural Regulation Index, BRIEF-A: MI = Metacognition Index, BRIEF-A: GEC = Global Executive Composite, * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, ns = non-significant.

Table 2. Hierarchical linear regression modelling self-reported monthly flossing frequency and using the global executive composite as a measure of general executive functioning.

	Variable	β	SE	p-value	R2	R^2t:,	F
Step 1	Intention	0.76	0.01	<0.001***	0.58	0.58	494.0
Step 2	Intention	0.37	0.01	<0.001***	0.73	0.15	318.7
	BP	0.56	0.06	<0.001***
	GEC	0.02	0.00	0.42ns
Step 3	Intention	0.25	0.02	<0.001***	0.74	0.01	202.0
	BP	0.68	0.08	<0.001***
	GEC	0.01	0.00	0.73ns
	Intention x BP	−0.14	0.02	<0.001***
	Intention x GEC	−0.06	0.00	0.04*

BP = Behavioural Prepotency, GEC = Global Executive Composite, * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, ns = non-significant.

Table 3. Comparison of hierarchical linear regressions modelling self-reported monthly flossing frequency using either the BRIEF-a behavioural regulation index or metacognition index to measure executive functioning.

Variable		β	SE	p-value	R^2	R^2Δ	F
Behavioural Regulation Index (BRI)
Step 2	Intention	0.37	0.01	<0.001***	0.73	0.15	318.2
	BP	0.55	0.06	<0.001***
	BRI	0.01	0.00	0.62ns
Step 3	Intention	0.25	0.02	<0.001***	0.74	0.01	203.2
	BP	0.69	0.08	<0.001***
	BRI	0.00	0.00	0.93ns
	Intention x BP	−0.14	0.02	<0.001***
	Intention x BRI	−0.07	0.00	0.01*
Metacognition Index (MI)
Step 2	Intention	0.37	0.01	<0.001***	0.73	0.15	319.0
	BP	0.56	0.06	<0.001***
	MI	0.03	0.00	0.34ns
Step 3	Intention	0.25	0.02	<0.001***	0.74	0.01	200.8
	BP	0.68	0.08	<0.001***
	MI	0.01	0.00	0.64ns
	Intention x BP	−0.14	0.02	<0.001***
	Intention x MI	−0.04	0.00	0.11ns

BP = Behavioural Prepotency, BRI = Behavioural Regulation Index, MI = Metacognition Index, * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, ns = non-significant.

Table 4. Direct (β_D) and interaction (β_I) coefficients of behavioural regulation index subscales from the behaviour rating inventory of executive function – adult version.

Variable	βD	βI	R^2model
Inhibit	−0.01ns	−0.04ns	0.7375
Shift	0.01ns	−0.07*	0.7406
Emotional Control	0.01ns	−0.07**	0.7412
Self-Monitor	0.00ns	−0.04ns	0.7375

* = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001, ns = non-significant.

Figure 1. Effect of shifting (High Shift vs Low Shift) as a moderator of the relationship between intention and monthly flossing, with data split by behavioural prepotency (High BP vs Low BP).

Plotted linear slopes comparing how task-shifting influences the relationship between intention and behaviour, given different levels of behavioural prepotency. There is a clear interaction among the low behavioural prepotency group only, indicating that fewer task-shifting difficulties is associated with a stronger relationship between flossing intentions and flossing behaviour for this group.

Figure 2. Effect of emotional control (High EC vs Low EC) as a moderator of the relationship between intention and monthly flossing, with data split by behavioural prepotency (High BP vs Low BP).

Plotted linear slopes comparing how emotional control influences the relationship between intention and behaviour, given different levels of behavioural prepotency. There is a clear interaction again among the low behavioural prepotency group only, indicating that fewer emotional control difficulties is associated with a stronger relationship between flossing intentions and flossing behaviour for this group.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.