Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Psychology of behavioural change - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Lack of perceived threat, absence of protective motivation, inadequate knowledge, perceived lack of control, negative attitudes towards condom and misperception were the major personal barriers, while unsupportive environments and cultural norms were the common socio-environmental barriers to condom use among these at risk women Lotfi et al 2012
      - Among men, noncondomuse was independently associated with feeling shy to buy condoms, condoms reducing sexualpleasure, and HIV is a serious and deadly disease.
        Amongwomen, experiencing forced sex, condoms reduce sexual pleasure, and inability to convince a partner to use condoms were predictors of noncondom use.
        These are psychosocial barriers to condom use in youths - 15-24 Katikiro & Njau, 2012
      - Thato et al 2004
      - Application of the Health Belief Model (HBM) in HIVPrevention: A Literature Review
- - - - Barriers to doing a behaviour
    - - Money or other benefits to do a behaviour
  - - - Belief that you can overcome barriers (may or may not reflect reality)
  - - - Self-efficacy was related directly to condom use behaviors and indirectly through its effect on outcome expectancies. As predicted, self-efficacy was related to anxiety, but anxiety was not related to condom use. Substance use during sexual encounters was related to outcome expectancies but not to condom use as predicted
- - - - Normative beliefs
        
        Whether important individuals to you approve/dissaprove of doing a behaviour
      - Motivation to comply
        
        How much you are motivated to follow others approval/dissaproval - do you care about the normative belief
    - - Behavioural beliefs
        
        beliefs about which outcomes will result from performing a behaviour
      - evaluation of behavioural outcomes
        
        beliefs about whether outcomes are good or bad
    - - Percieved behavioural control
        
        Percieved power
        
        Beliefs about how a factor/barrier will affect ability to perform a behaviour
        
        Control belief
        
        Beliefs about liklihood of encountering a barrier
        
        Beliefs about factors that effect your ability to perform a behaviour # #
      - Self efficacy
        
        Beliefs about own ability to overcome barriers
        
        Indirect measure: I can restrain from smoking after work - barrier = stress -> Can be used to explain the answer to the direct measure
        
        direct measure: I am certain I can quit smoking
      - Beliefs about factors that effect your ability to perform a particular behaviour
  - - - Davies et al., 2002
        
        Critiques of TPB on page 10
      - Tonglet, Phillips and Read, 2004
        
        TBP was used as the basis for a study of 191 participants in a local kerbside recycling scheme
        
        Data collected in 3 stages
        
        1) Observation of recycling behaviour in 248 houses - measuring participation in kerbside recycling scheme. Was not self-report - for 16 weeks
        
        2) 20 randomly selected residents did elicitation interviews (like a pilot study) - these where from the target population - to get a sense of attitudes, consequences, costs and benefits and factors that would discourage recycling
        
        3) 191 completed self-report questionairre sent in the mail to return. Aim: The measurement of recycling behaviour, the factors which underpin this behaviour and the demographic characteristics of respondents
        
        Findings - Look at discussion section
        
        Behaviour - All the respondents (apart from one) indicated that they had recycled their household waste in the past, and 80% stated that they recycled on a weekly basis. When asked about the likelihood of recycling over the coming 4 weeks period, 88% agreed that it was extremely likely. Biasing effect on results
        
        The TPB (attitudes, subjective norm and perceived control) only explained 26.1% of the variance in recycling intentions. The variance explained increased to 33.3% when the additional measures of moral norm, situational factors, recycling outcomes, recycling consequences, concern for the environment and previous recycling behaviour were included. This is consistent with the conclusions of Boldero (1995) and Davies et al. (2002), who argue for the inclusion of additional variables when applying the model to recycling behaviour. Ajzen (1991) accepts that additional variables may be required but argues that they should contribute significantly to the explanation provided by the model. On this basis future applications of the TPB to recycling should include the additional measures of past recycling behaviour, consequences of recycling and concern for the community.
        
        Percieved behavioural control did not contribute much - poor measure? biased sample? or just did not matter w this behaviour?
        
        Measures
        
        subjective norm
        was operationalised by two questions ‘most people who are important to me think that I should recycle my household waste’ and ‘most people who are important to me would approve of me recycling my household waste’
        
        Here they only measure normative beliefs and not the motivation to comply with them explicitly
        
        attitudes Seven-point semantic differential scales were used to measure attitudes to recycling. The attitudes identified in the literature were: recycling is good/bad; useful/a waste of time; rewarding/not rewarding; responsible/not responsible; sensible/not sensible; hygienic/not hygienic. not asking about the behavioural beliefs behind this - just using a direct measure. Cons to this: Does not measure individual belied that may be driving it - cant inform interventions
        
        Go on later about consequences of behaviour- behavioural beliefs, does not measure the evaluations of these behavioural outcomes
        
        Recycling behaviour - The respondents were asked how frequently they recycled their household waste, how much of their household waste they had recycled in the past (previous recycling behaviour) and how likely it was that they would recycle their household waste over the next 4 weeks (intentions). Also good how they observed actual behaviour to - can check intention-behaviour gap
        
        percieved behavioural control - direct measure qs: Recycling is easy/a hassle.Also indirect ones related to barriers of information
      - Recycling is important since it conserves valuable resources and reduces the amount of solid waste that must be deposited in landfills (Hopper & Nielsen, 1991).
      - Could also include other countries mentioning generalisiblility
        
        OR specify using TPB model of behaviour - ACTION, TARGET, CONTEXT TIME FRAME
    - - Just because participants say they would donate X amount in a hypothetical scenario, does not mean that they would in real life.
        
        Supported by the concept of the intention-behaviour gap, whereby an individual's intentions to do a behaviour does not completely correlate with them actually doing the behaviour.
        
        Kashif, M., Sarifuddin, S., & Hassan, A. (2015) found that intention to donate positively contributed towards actual donation behaviours, however this is a correlational finding not causation → The two did not match
- - - - Capraro and colleagues (2019)
        
        Descriptive norms and moral nudges
        
        Investigated the impact of social norm exposure on prosocial behaviour in 1 real life scenario and 4 economic games.
        
        “What do you think your society considers to be the morally right thing to do in this situation?”
        
        Good: real life secario extends their findings from economic games. Does not necessarily represent what they would do though
        
        Found - social norm exposure group → increase in prosocial behaviours
        
        Cons:
        1) Participation fee- They gave them 50 cent at the start of the survey and then asked if they were willing to donate this at the end. Participants may feel that they earned this, decreasing their attitude to donate. This may have influenced the interaction between norms and prosocial behaviour of donating.
        2)They made the social norm quite salient in their study, which may have increased the effect of demand characteristics on the participants subsequent behaviour. [i.e., the amount of donation may therefore be impacted by the demand characteristics]
        
        Moral nudges
      - Wider implications of these studies
        
        If social norm exposure has an effect of increased donation to a hypothetical charity, real world charities can use this information to increase donations
        
        E.g. increase social visibility of people who are donating to their charity so that their peers may be more encouraged to donate themselves too.
        
        Some successful real world examples, for example: Wearing poppies, Facebook donations (where you see what friends have donated to a fundraiser)
      - Descriptive norms
        
        Agerström and colleagues, 2016
        
        Field experiment.
        Examined whether conveying descriptive social norms (e.g., ‘‘thisis what most people do”) increases charitable giving. Additionally, we examined whetherpeople are more likely to conform to the local norms of one’s immediate environment thanto more global norms extending beyond one’s local environment.
        University studentsreceived a charity organization’s information brochure and were asked for a monetary con-tribution.
        An experimental descriptive norm manipulation was embedded in the brochure.
        We found that providing people with descriptive norms increased charitable giving sub-stantially compared with industry standard altruistic appeals (control condition).
        Moreover, conveying local norms were more effective in increasing charitable giving thanconveying global norms. Practical implications for charity organizations and marketing areproposed
        
        Nook et al., 2016
        
        In Studies 1 to 3, participants decided how much to donate to charities before learning that others donated generously or stingily. Participants who observed generous donations donated more than those who observed stingy donations (Studies 1 and 2). Crucially, this generalized across behaviors: Participants who observed generous donations later wrote more supportive notes to another participant (Study 3). In Studies 4 and 5, participants observed empathic or non-empathic group responses to vignettes. Group empathy ratings not only shifted participants’ own empathic feelings (Study 4), but they also influenced participants’ donations to a homeless shelter (Study 5). These findings reveal the remarkable breadth of prosocial conformity.
        
        Moderating factors: group identification and moral self-concept
        
        Empirical expectations motivate prosocial behavior, with people being more likely to give to charity themselves when they learn that most other people give to charity. Capraro (2019, Bailey said in Bartke and colleagues, 2017
      - Trust game and dictator game - Lecture
        
        In one DG study with adults, descriptive norms motivated giving more than did injunctive norms [31], while in another study the opposite was true [32]. Bailey House, 2018
        
        In one TG, adult participants initially underestimated how many recipients would return money to them [35•]. However, after receiving feedback about what recipients would actually do (i.e. information about a descriptive norm) participants increased their expectations of how many recipients would return money, and increased their rates of giving, as well.
        
        n a TG, whether or not participants gave was better predicted by whether they thought that they should give, and not as well predicted by whether they wanted to give Lecture and paper
- - - - Volitional self-efficacy interacted with intention in the prediction ofbehaviour, indicating that volitional self-efficacy is only beneficial for individu-als with high levels of intentions.
      - In the context of nutrition behaviour, self-efficacy has proved to be animportant factor and is examined in most studies (e.g. Contento, Randell, &Basch, 2002). Research has demonstrated that individuals with higher nutri-tion self-efficacy are more likely to act on their intentions and translate plansinto action (Guiterrez-Dona, Lippke, Renner, Kwon, & Schwarzer, 2009;Richert et al., 2010). Self-efficacy seems to be a core factor for the initiationand maintenance of dietary behaviour (Richert et al., 2010) and people withhigher nutrition-specific self-efficacy are more successful in changing theirnutrition in comparison to people with a lower nutrition-specific self-efficacy(Schwarzer, 2008).
    - - Bernier and Avard (1986) examined the relation betweenself-efficacy and weight change at baseline and during treatmentfor 62 women enrolled in a 10-week weight loss program. Theyfound that higher self-efficacy at baseline was associated withgreater weight loss during treatment and that higher self-efficacy atthe end of the program was associated with greater weight loss ata 6-week follow-up assessment.
      - Jeffery and colleagues examinedself-efficacy, weight loss, and weight maintenance in 89 partici-pants enrolled in a 15-week weight loss program (Jeffery et al.,1984). They found that higher pretreatment emotional and situa-tional self-efficacy and higher posttreatment situational self-efficacy were associated with greater weight loss at the end oftreatment and at 1-year follow-up.
      - Scales used: Items were modified from the Weight EfficacyLife-Style Questionnaire (Clark et al., 1991). Because the Weight EfficacyLife-Style Questionnaire items assessed eating self-efficacy only, modifieditems were added to assess confidence in ability to follow exercise as wellas eating plans in difficult situations. They weighted ppts and also monitored self weight loss behaviours like weighing themselves and calorie counting (self-reported) - may have been reminded by this to do as they are apart of the study, NOT because of overcoming barriers??
      - large sample of men and women (N349)enrolled in a weight loss trial
      - FOUND: Consistent with prior findings (Chao et al., 2000; Schwarzer &Renner, 2000; Shannon et al., 1990; Stotland & Zuroff, 1991), ourcross-sectional analyses revealed that self-efficacy for both eatingbehaviors (confidence in following eating plan under varyingconditions) and exercise behaviors (confidence in following exer-cise plan under varying conditions) were significantly associatedwith weight loss program monitoring behaviors, such as days oftracking adherence to diet or physical activity plans constructed inthe weight control intervention described above. Associations,though not as strong, were also observed for specific diet andexercise behaviors (e.g., fat intake or recent exercise).