Intention-behavior relations


Published on

Health communication lecture about the (weak) relationship between people\'s good intentions and actual behavior

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Intention-behavior relations

    1. 1. Intention-Behavior Relations
    2. 2. ‘ Geen woorden maar daden’ <ul><li>Actions speak louder than words. </li></ul><ul><li>Talk is cheap. </li></ul><ul><li>Practice what you preach. </li></ul><ul><li>It’s easier said than done. </li></ul><ul><li>Put your money where your mouth is. </li></ul><ul><li>The road to hell is paved with good intentions. </li></ul>‘ It’s a long step from saying to doing.’ (C ervantes)
    3. 3. Sub-assignment : Assessment (1) <ul><li>Is there a thorough introduction and description of the campaign? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of introduction? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequate description of the issue at stake? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequate description of the main aim of the campaign? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adequate description of the intended outcome? </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Sub-assignment : Assessment (2) <ul><li>How well (and creative) is the existing campaign placed within the theories/models discussed in the syllabus? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the type of health message properly identified and discussed? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the affective appeal used properly identified and discussed? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the group introducing alternatives and different points of view (i.e., are they really discussing different options, or just presenting one)? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In short: How well does the group critically and scientifically reflect on the campaign it selected? </li></ul></ul>
    5. 5. Sub-assignment : Assessment (3) <ul><li>How well is this assignment organized? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Can we trace the logic of the assignment consistently from the opening paragraphs to the conclusion? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the writing scientific, clear, concise, and correct? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do the authors communicate their ideas using direct, straightforward, and unambiguous words and phrases? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are too many words or paragraphs or sections used to present what could be communicated more simply? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is the whole sub-assignment well structured (i.e., from ‘Introduction of the campaign’ to ‘Conclusions with respect to the literature’) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Are the quotes and references used properly? </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. Behavioral intentions <ul><li>Encompass both the direction (e.g. to study vs. not to study) and the intensity (e.g. how much time and effort the person is prepared to expend in order to study) of a decision (see Sheeran, 2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Most of the models of health-related behavior assume that intention are the most important predictor of behavior </li></ul>
    7. 7. Perceived Susceptibility Perceived Threat of Disease Perceived Benefits minus Perceived Barriers Likelihood of Taking Health Action Cues to Action Demographic Variables Perceived Seriousness Health belief model
    8. 8. HBM: Basic assumptions <ul><li>People will not seek health action behaviours unless : </li></ul><ul><ul><li>they possess minimal levels of health motivation and knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>view themselves as potentially vulnerable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>view the condition as threatening </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>are convinced of the efficacy of the 'treatment' </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>see few difficulties in undertaking the action. </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Attitude toward Behaviour BEHAVIOUR Subjective Norm Intention Beliefs Regarding Behaviour Evaluation of outcomes Beliefs that Important Others have Motivation to Comply with Important Others Perceived Behavioral Control Control Variables Power over Control Factors TRA TPB
    10. 10. Perceived Severity Perceived Probability Efficacy of Preventive Behaviour Perceived Self-Efficacy Protective Behaviour Threat appraisal Coping appraisal Intention to protect Protection motivation theory
    11. 11. Intention-behavior relationship? <ul><li>According to Sheeran (2002) intentions account for 28% of the variance in behavior. </li></ul><ul><li>Is this bad (after all 72%, of the variance has not been explained)? </li></ul>Sheeran, 2002
    12. 12. Intention – behavior gap <ul><li>6 Studies in Health Domain (C ondom Use, Cancer Screening, Exercise (Sheeran, 2002) </li></ul>Responsible for the gap
    13. 13. (Dis)inclined actors and abstainers <ul><li>So, there are people with positive intentions who fail to act (inclined abstainers) and people who perform the behavior despite negative intentions to do so (disinclined actors) </li></ul><ul><li>Are both predominantly responsible for the “gap”? </li></ul>Sheeran, 2002
    14. 14. Who is responsible for the “Gap”? <ul><li>Thus, it is those people who fail to act upon their positive intentions who are mainly responsible for the “gap” </li></ul><ul><li>Almost one-half of participants who intended to use a condom, attend for cancer screening or exercise at a particular level failed to do so … ! </li></ul>Sheeran, 2002
    15. 15. TPB and the (Dis)inclined actors and abstainers Sheeran, 2002
    16. 16. Reasons for failure to carry out intention <ul><li>Forgetting – Failure of “prospective memory.” Motivation can be high. </li></ul><ul><li>Procrastination </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low or moderate motivation . Fails to exceed threshold needed to overcome inertia or distaste for activity. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ambivalent motivation. Approach-avoidance conflict. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Change of mind – due to new information or re-evaluation of existing information; person no longer motivated to perform the behavior. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Behavior on single occasion. New information prior to behavior. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Repeated behavior. New information due to feedback. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypothetical vs. Real – Different types of information accessible. Motivation high in hypothetical, low in real. </li></ul>
    17. 17. What can help? <ul><li>Implementation intentions: </li></ul><ul><li>When situation Y comes along, I will respond with behavior X with the goal to accomplish Z ! </li></ul><ul><li>So not only “I have the intention to lose weight” </li></ul><ul><li>But also: “Every morning before breakfast, I put on my running shoes and run 30 minutes” </li></ul>Martijn et al, 2008
    18. 18. Effect of Implementation Intention <ul><li>Compliance with Intention to Attend a Cervical Cancer Screening </li></ul>Sheeran & Orbell, 2000 No implementation intention Implementation intention
    19. 19. How Do Implementation Intentions Work? <ul><li>Cognitive explanation: Control over initiation of behavior is turned over to stimulus cues (Gollwitzer). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Instant habit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Less energy and effort </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Motivational explanation: Forming an implementation intention enhances motivation to perform the behavior (and thus helps to overcome procrastination). </li></ul>
    20. 20. Exp. (Martijn et al, 2007) ‘Website down’ <ul><li>N = 131 1 st year students </li></ul><ul><li>Do you want to visit our website? </li></ul><ul><li>And participate in 10 min. research? </li></ul><ul><li>Could win 1 of 3 50 Euro coupons? </li></ul><ul><li>2 conditions: goal intention (goal) </li></ul><ul><li>implementation-intention (imp) </li></ul>
    21. 21. Goal + Imp condition <ul><li>Strength of intention </li></ul><ul><li>Do you have the intention to visit our website and fill in the questionnaire? </li></ul><ul><li>5 point scale: 1 = certainly not </li></ul><ul><li>... </li></ul><ul><li>5 = certainly yes </li></ul>
    22. 22. Only Imp <ul><li>“ The chance of you visiting the website and filling in the questionnaire will increase if you decide where and when you wil do that. Write this down” Where? At my computer at home When? After I have read my mail tonight </li></ul>
    23. 23. Website First name: Sjoerd Last name: de Vries
    24. 24. Website Sorry due to problems website is out of order. We are working on this problem. The questionnaire will be available at another time. Please try again later.
    25. 25. Results <ul><li>Intention </li></ul><ul><ul><li>goall = 4.32; imp = 4.44, ns </li></ul></ul><ul><li>At least 1 webvisit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>40.8 % of goal; 65.5 % of imp </li></ul></ul>
    26. 26. Type of intention and webvisits 25 (45.5 %) 9 (11.8 %) 2 or more 19 (34.5 %) 45 (59.2 %) 0 55 (100 %) 76 (100 %) Total 11 (20.0 %) 22 (28.9 %) 1 Imp goal # webvisits
    27. 27. Amount of Webvisits for each Condition in %
    28. 28. Type of behavior <ul><li>Intentions to perform a single action (e.g. exercise) better predict behavior than intentions to reach a goal (e.g. to lose weight). </li></ul><ul><li>A goal = an outcome that can be achieved by performing a variety of single actions. </li></ul><ul><li>The extent to which the performance of particular behaviors actually controls whether or not a goal will be achieved is the critical factor </li></ul>
    29. 29. Control factors that moderate the relation <ul><li>Knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>Ability </li></ul><ul><li>Resources </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity </li></ul><ul><li>Availability </li></ul><ul><li>Cooperation </li></ul><ul><li>Unexpected situations </li></ul>
    30. 30. Properties of behavioral intentions <ul><li>Temporal stability of intentions </li></ul><ul><li>Degree of intention formation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Poorly formed intentions (not thought through) will be more likely to encounter unforeseen disadvantages or difficulties with performing the behavior. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Attitudinally versus Normatively controlled intentions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intentions based on own beliefs (autonomous) are associated with greater likelihood of performing than intentions based on external pressures (controlled). </li></ul></ul>
    31. 31. Stability of the intention to study <ul><li>Behavior: Self-reported studying during winter vacation. </li></ul><ul><li>Intention: Measured twice, 5 weeks apart prior to winter vacation. </li></ul><ul><li>Overall intention-behavior correlation: .38** </li></ul><ul><li>Results of moderated regression analysis: </li></ul>Sheeran, Orbell, & Trafimow, 1999 Stable intention (r = .58) Unstable intention (r = .08)
    32. 32. Stability of the intention to exercise <ul><li>Intention: Measured twice, two weeks apart. </li></ul><ul><li>Behavior: Self-reported exercise two weeks later. </li></ul><ul><li>Overall intention-behavior correlation: .67** </li></ul><ul><li>Results of simple slope analysis: </li></ul>Sheeran & Abraham, 2003 Highly stable intention Moderately stable intention Unstable intention
    33. 33. Stability of the intention to screen health <ul><li>Intention: Measured twice, 1 year apart. </li></ul><ul><li>Behavior: Attendance at health screening in subsequent month. </li></ul><ul><li>Overall intention-behavior correlation: .34** </li></ul><ul><li>Results of simple slope analysis: </li></ul>Conner, et al, 2000 Highly stable intention Moderately stable intention Unstable intention
    34. 34. Stability of voting intention?
    35. 35. Conflicting or competing intentions?
    36. 36. The scope of the intention construct <ul><li>These mediation analyses show that although intentions change significantly attenuated the impact of interventions on behavior, the effect of the intervention remained significant even after controlling for intention. </li></ul><ul><li>Thus, it is possible that interventions directly affected behavior because goal activation occurred outside of participants awareness – in a manner that bypassed participants self-reported intentions. </li></ul>Webb & Sheeran, 2006
    37. 37. Moderators intention change – behavior change Webb & Sheeran, 2006
    38. 38. Willing to engage in healthy activity? <ul><li>The social reaction route versus reasoned action route </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Risky behaviors (e.g. condom nonuse, or smoking) that are generally performed in social contexts may be determined more by social reaction than by intention. </li></ul></ul>
    39. 39. Intervention characteristics I Webb & Sheeran, 2006
    40. 40. Intervention characteristics II Webb & Sheeran, 2006
    41. 41. Group assignment <ul><li>Decide about and shortly describe the type of behavior (‘single action(s)’ and/or ‘goal(s)’) the campaign focuses on (see pp. 49-50 of the syllabus). </li></ul><ul><li>In the context of the type of behavior identified discuss the possible role of control factors (e.g. knowledge, ability, etc; see pp. 50 of the sylabus), with respect to the chance that the target group actually will perform the behavior? </li></ul>Sub-a ssignment 2 : Analysis of selected campaign in relation to the issue of the intention – behavior gap
    42. 42. Group assignment (cont.) <ul><li>Furthermore discuss the possible influence of habitual control and social reaction route on the chance that the target group actually will perform the behavior (see pp. 81 & pp. 86 of the sylabus) . </li></ul><ul><li>Based on your knowledge of the campaign try to identify and discuss – as good as possible - the most prevalent theoretical basis of the campaign and the most prevalent behavior change method used (see Table 4, pp. 88) </li></ul>
    43. 43. Group assignment (cont.) <ul><li>Finally, write down your conclusions about the possible effectiveness of the campaign based on the issues identified and discussed in this sub-assignment (i.e. type of behavior, control factors, habitual control, social reaction route, theoretical basis, and behavior change method). </li></ul>Hand in ‘hard-copy’ Mond ay 10 - 11