Article

The role of context and timeframe in moderating relationships within the theory of planned behaviour.

Psychology , School of Life & Health Sciences, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, UK.
Psychology & Health (Impact Factor: 1.95). 09/2011; 26(9):1225-40. DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2011.572260
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study examined the moderating effect of context and timeframe on the predictive ability of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) constructs. Three hundred and eighty-three students completed TPB measures either in a campus bar or a library and were randomly allocated to one of three timeframe conditions: tonight, tomorrow or next week. There was a three-way interaction such that the subjective norms of participants in a bar were more predictive of their intentions to binge drink that night, whereas the subjective norms of participants in a library were less predictive of intentions to binge drink that night. This research provides empirical evidence that ignoring context may result in underestimation of the importance of normative factors in binge drinking. It also suggests that other research utilising the TPB needs to take greater account of the impact of context of data collection, which has been neglected to date.

0 Followers
 · 
84 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The "question-behaviour effect" (QBE) has attracted much recent attention within health psychology, where it has also been referred to as the "mere measurement" effect. There are other conceptualisations of similar phenomena in related disciplines. This paper explores the implications of the QBE for the safety of inferences about intervention effectiveness within the context of randomised controlled trials evaluating health behaviour change interventions. It draws attention to poorly understood mechanisms by which bias is introduced with conventional thinking about trial design and analysis. The threat to valid inference on intervention effectiveness posed by the QBE applies even when its effects are small and regardless of the specific content of the QBE. The nature of the resulting bias does not fit well within existing bias classification schemes, such as that proposed by the Cochrane Collaboration. The QBE is one possible consequence of research participation and it is suggested that the social psychology of research participation is very much under-developed. Possible future directions for health psychology research in this area are considered.
    Psychology and Health 08/2014; 30(1):1-20. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2014.953527 · 2.13 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Informed consent is the foundation of the ethical conduct of health research. Obtaining informed consent may unwittingly interfere with the data collected in research studies, particularly if they concern sensitive behaviours that participants are requested to report on. To address gaps in evidence on such research participation effects, we conducted a methodological experiment evaluating the impact of the informed consent procedure on participants' reporting behaviour, specifically on their self-report of drinking behaviour as measured by Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT). A two arm double blinded randomised controlled trial was used. University students present in London student unions at the time of recruitment were contacted in two phases (an initial run-in phase followed by the main phase). Those providing positive responses to verbal questions: 1) "are you a student?"; 2) "do you drink alcohol?"; 3) "would you like to take part in a brief health survey, which will take around 5 minutes?" were recruited. Participants received one of the two envelopes by chance, with the sequence generated by an online random sequence generator. One contained the participant information sheet, informed consent form and the AUDIT questionnaire (the intervention group), while the other contained only the AUDIT questionnaire (the comparator group). The primary outcome was the mean AUDIT score, which ranges from 0 to 40. The secondary outcome was the proportion of participants in each group scoring 8 or more on the AUDIT, the threshold score for hazardous and harmful drinking warranting intervention. A total of 380 participants were successfully recruited, resulting in 190 participants in each group, of which 378 were included in the final analysis. There is no evidence of any statistically significant difference between groups in the primary outcome. A statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome was found in the run-in phase only, and not in the main phase, or overall. Moreover, between-group outcome differences between the two phases suggest an important influence of setting on reporting behaviour. There is no strong evidence that completion of informed consent itself alters self-reporting behaviour with regards to alcohol, though the effect of settings needs to be further studied.
    BMC Medical Research Methodology 04/2015; 15(1):41. DOI:10.1186/s12874-015-0032-z · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To proffer a theoretically driven assessment of the validity of research which examines alcohol-related normative beliefs. Methods: A systematic review of 68 articles matching the inclusion criteria, published between 1970 and 2013. Results: Potential causes of deviations in research findings are identified and compelling gaps in our knowledge with regards to the influence of participant gender, age and contextual factors are highlighted and discussed in relation to the broader literature. Conclusions: It is proposed that a standardization of research approaches and alcohol intake measures are required in order to increase the validity of present research and enable useful comparisons between studies. Further attention to key, potentially mediatory variables is also highlighted as important for increasing research validity with a view to facilitating the improvement of interventions.
    Drugs Education Prevention & Policy 03/2014; 21(4). DOI:10.3109/09687637.2014.899990 · 0.53 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
7 Downloads
Available from
Dec 10, 2014