![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
congeriesCan we explain why some people do and some people do not act on their intentions?
By Fishbein M, Hennessy M, Yzer M, Douglas J
Psychology, Health & Medicine , Volume 8, Number 1/February 2003 , pp. 3 - 18
Abstract:
Behavioural theorists have identified attitudes, perceived norms and self-efficacy as the important determinants of people's intentions to engage in a given behaviour. Because intentions predict behaviour, these same variables also account for a considerable amount of the variation in behaviour.
Nevertheless, there is often a substantial proportion of the population who do not act on their intentions. While a recently proposed integrative theory of behaviour suggests that these 'failures' are due either to a lack of skills and/or to the presence of environmental constraints, it has also been argued that the determinants of intention may have a direct, as well as in indirect, effect on behaviour.
This paper uses data from a longitudinal study (Project RESPECT) to explore the extent to which attitudes, perceived norms and self-efficacy explain why some people do and others do not act on their intentions to engage in a health protective behaviour.
Although the data provide further evidence that these three variables account for a significant proportion of the variance in intentions (and behaviour), they perform poorly when predicting behaviour for persons with pre-existing high intentions. It may be reasonable to ask whether a 'new' theory is needed to explain why some people do, and some people do not, act on their intentions.
я считаю, что статьи с такими заголовками печатать безответственно и безнравственно. потому что так хочется узнать эту главную загадку жизни - почему одним всё, а другим ничего? а что нам предлагают эти авторы?
чуть позже я обнаружил, что проект "риспект" был, грубо говоря, опять про презервативы... что, понятно, переводит весь философский пафос заголовка в совершенно другую плоскость...
By Fishbein M, Hennessy M, Yzer M, Douglas J
Psychology, Health & Medicine , Volume 8, Number 1/February 2003 , pp. 3 - 18
Abstract:
Behavioural theorists have identified attitudes, perceived norms and self-efficacy as the important determinants of people's intentions to engage in a given behaviour. Because intentions predict behaviour, these same variables also account for a considerable amount of the variation in behaviour.
Nevertheless, there is often a substantial proportion of the population who do not act on their intentions. While a recently proposed integrative theory of behaviour suggests that these 'failures' are due either to a lack of skills and/or to the presence of environmental constraints, it has also been argued that the determinants of intention may have a direct, as well as in indirect, effect on behaviour.
This paper uses data from a longitudinal study (Project RESPECT) to explore the extent to which attitudes, perceived norms and self-efficacy explain why some people do and others do not act on their intentions to engage in a health protective behaviour.
Although the data provide further evidence that these three variables account for a significant proportion of the variance in intentions (and behaviour), they perform poorly when predicting behaviour for persons with pre-existing high intentions. It may be reasonable to ask whether a 'new' theory is needed to explain why some people do, and some people do not, act on their intentions.
я считаю, что статьи с такими заголовками печатать безответственно и безнравственно. потому что так хочется узнать эту главную загадку жизни - почему одним всё, а другим ничего? а что нам предлагают эти авторы?
чуть позже я обнаружил, что проект "риспект" был, грубо говоря, опять про презервативы... что, понятно, переводит весь философский пафос заголовка в совершенно другую плоскость...
