Predicting adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines: a comparison of Protection Motivation Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychology & Health Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-04-05 DOI:10.1080/08870446.2023.2196994
Gabriel Nudelman
{"title":"Predicting adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines: a comparison of Protection Motivation Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour.","authors":"Gabriel Nudelman","doi":"10.1080/08870446.2023.2196994","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the utility of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) for understanding diversity in adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods and measures: </strong>A representative sample (<i>N</i> = 600) completed two online questionnaires: One that included measurements of PMT and TPB components that predict behaviour, and another (after one week) consisting of adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines. TPB was represented by a single model, while PMT was represented by three models: Model 1, which did not include a measure of <i>protection motivation</i>; Model 2, which included protection motivation - represented by behavioural intentions; and Model 3, which was similar to Model 2 and included a direct link from self-efficacy to behaviour.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The TPB model displayed the best fit-to-complexity ratio (i.e. information criterion), and its capacity to explain adherence was similar to PMT Models 1 and 2, but lower than Model 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The findings highlight the need to reach a consensus regarding the definition and measurement of protection motivation. While the TPB model exhibited superior fit-to-complexity ratio, variance was better explained when self-efficacy was included, and interventions may benefit from targeting different constructs depending on the context.</p>","PeriodicalId":20718,"journal":{"name":"Psychology & Health","volume":" ","pages":"1689-1705"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2023.2196994","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/4/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the utility of Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) for understanding diversity in adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines.

Methods and measures: A representative sample (N = 600) completed two online questionnaires: One that included measurements of PMT and TPB components that predict behaviour, and another (after one week) consisting of adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines. TPB was represented by a single model, while PMT was represented by three models: Model 1, which did not include a measure of protection motivation; Model 2, which included protection motivation - represented by behavioural intentions; and Model 3, which was similar to Model 2 and included a direct link from self-efficacy to behaviour.

Results: The TPB model displayed the best fit-to-complexity ratio (i.e. information criterion), and its capacity to explain adherence was similar to PMT Models 1 and 2, but lower than Model 3.

Conclusion: The findings highlight the need to reach a consensus regarding the definition and measurement of protection motivation. While the TPB model exhibited superior fit-to-complexity ratio, variance was better explained when self-efficacy was included, and interventions may benefit from targeting different constructs depending on the context.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测 COVID-19 行为指南的遵守情况:保护动机理论与计划行为理论的比较。
目的比较保护动机理论(PMT)和计划行为理论(TPB)对理解 COVID-19 行为指南遵守情况多样性的实用性:具有代表性的样本(N = 600)完成了两份在线问卷:其中一份问卷包括对预测行为的 PMT 和 TPB 成分的测量,另一份问卷(一周后)包括 COVID-19 行为指南的遵守情况。TPB由一个模型表示,而PMT由三个模型表示:模型 1 不包括保护动机的测量;模型 2 包括保护动机--以行为意向为代表;模型 3 与模型 2 相似,包括从自我效能到行为的直接联系:结果:TPB 模型显示出最佳的拟合-复杂比(即信息标准),其解释坚持治疗的能力与 PMT 模型 1 和 2 相似,但低于模型 3:研究结果突出表明,有必要就保护动机的定义和测量达成共识。虽然 TPB 模型显示出更高的拟合度-复杂度比率,但如果将自我效能感包括在内,则能更好地解释方差,而且根据具体情况,针对不同的结构进行干预可能会更有益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
3.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Psychology & Health promotes the study and application of psychological approaches to health and illness. The contents include work on psychological aspects of physical illness, treatment processes and recovery; psychosocial factors in the aetiology of physical illnesses; health attitudes and behaviour, including prevention; the individual-health care system interface particularly communication and psychologically-based interventions. The journal publishes original research, and accepts not only papers describing rigorous empirical work, including meta-analyses, but also those outlining new psychological approaches and interventions in health-related fields.
期刊最新文献
Predicting adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines: a comparison of Protection Motivation Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. 'Welcome to my world': a thematic analysis of the lived experiences of people with Myalgic Encephalomyelitis during the UK COVID-19 lockdown. 'It has been the hardest decision of my life': a mixed-methods study of pregnant women's COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Psychosocial and health stressors during the COVID-19 pandemic and their association with sleep quality. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people with asthma: a co-produced mixed-methods study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1