Comments
Description
Transcript
Adding extra variables
Page 144 Black blue 144 HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY not particularly good predictors of behaviour per se which has generated work exploring the intention behaviour gap (Sutton 1998a; Gollwitzer 1993). Therefore, studies have also used the TRA and the TPB to explore the cognitive predictors of actual behaviour. For example, Shepherd and Stockley (1985) used the TRA to predict fat intake and reported that attitude was a better predictor than subjective norms. Similarly, attitudes have also been found to be the best predictor of table salt use (Shepherd and Fairleigh 1986), eating in fast food restaurants (Axelson et al. 1983), the frequency of consuming low fat milk (Shepherd 1988) and healthy eating conceptualized as high levels of fibre and fruit and vegetables and low levels of fat (Povey et al. 2000). Research has also pointed to the role of perceived behavioural control in predicting behaviour particularly in relation to weight loss (Schifter and Ajzen 1985) and healthy eating (Povey et al. 2000). The social norms component of these models has consistently failed to predict eating behaviour. Adding extra variables Some studies have explored the impact of adding extra variables to the standard framework described within the social cognition models. For example, Shepherd and Stockley (1987) examined the predictors of fat intake and included a measure of nutritional knowledge but found that this was not associated with either their measure of attitudes or their participants’ behaviour. Povey et al. (2000) included additional measures of descriptive norms (e.g. ‘To what extent do you think the following groups eat a healthy diet’), and perceived social support (e.g. ‘to what extent do you think the following groups would be supportive if you tried to eat a healthy diet’) but found that these variables did not add anything to the core cognitions of the TPB. Research has also examined the impact of accessing the individual’s hedonic responses to food with a focus on beliefs about the sensory properties of the food concerned. The results, however, in this area have been contradictory. For example, Tuorila-Ollikainen et al. (1986) asked participants to rate their beliefs about low salt bread both before and after tasting some bread and reported that the post-tasting hedonic ratings predicted eating behaviour above their measure of attitudes. In contrast, Tuorila (1987) asked participants to rate milk which varied in its fat content for its hedonic properties and reported that these ratings of the sensory aspects of the food did not add anything to the basic cognitive model. Shepherd (1989) provided a review of these studies and suggested that the hedonic responses to food may be more important if the food is novel than if it is familiar. The attitudinal research described so far conceptualizes individuals as holding either positive or negative views towards a given object. In terms of eating behaviour it is assumed that people either like or dislike certain foods and that this value-laden attitude predicts food intake. Recent studies, however, have also explored the role of ambivalence in predicting behaviour (Thompson et al. 1995) and this has been applied to eating behaviour (Sparks et al. 2001). Ambivalence has been defined in a variety of different ways. For example, Breckler (1994) defined it as ‘a conflict aroused by competing evaluative predispositions’ and Emmons (1996) defined it as ‘an approach – avoidance conflict – wanting but at the same time not wanting the same goal object’. Central to all definitions of ambivalence is the simultaneous presence of both positive and negative values which seems particularly pertinent to eating behaviour as individuals may hold Page 144 Black blue