{"title":"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。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Predicting adherence to COVID-19 behavioural guidelines: a comparison of Protection Motivation Theory and the Theory of Planned Behaviour.
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.
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
