Health Behaviour and Behaviour change 3

Overview of Cognition/Social Cognition Models

  • Assumptions:

    • Behavior results from a rational, linear process.

    • Individuals evaluate potential costs and benefits of their actions.

    • Successful behavior change interventions target and modify cognitions directly.

  • Examples: Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), Health Belief Model (HBM), and Protection Motivation Theory (PMT).

Health Belief Model (HBM)

  • Developed by: Rosenstock (1966); expanded by Becker (1970s).

  • Core Idea: The likelihood of engaging in a health behavior depends on health beliefs, including:

    • Perception of the health threat: Understanding how susceptible and severe a potential illness is.

    • Evaluation of the recommended action: Weighing the benefits and costs of taking action.

  • Key Components:

    1. Perceived Susceptibility: How likely an individual believes they are to contract an illness (e.g., concern about catching COVID-19).

    2. Perceived Severity: How severe the consequences of the illness would be (e.g., death from lung cancer).

    3. Perceived Benefits: The positive outcomes of engaging in preventive behavior (e.g., avoiding a smoking smell).

    4. Perceived Costs: Barriers such as time, pain, or expense (e.g., missing social interactions due to quitting smoking).

    5. Cues to Action: Triggers that prompt behavior change, including internal cues (e.g., illness symptoms) and external cues (e.g., health campaigns).

    6. Health Motivation: The willingness to comply and intention to act.

    7. Perceived Control: An individual’s belief in their ability to influence their behavior (e.g., ability to go to the gym).

Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)

  • Developed by: Rogers & Prentice-Dunn (1997).

  • Core Idea: Focuses on how people are motivated to protect themselves based on:

    • Threat appraisal: Evaluating the severity and personal susceptibility to the threat.

    • Coping appraisal: Evaluating the response efficacy (how effective the action is) and self-efficacy (belief in one’s ability to perform the behavior).

  • Intention-Behavior Gap: The difference between forming an intention and executing the behavior.

Implementation Intentions (IMPs)

  • Developed by: Sheeran, Milne, Webb & Gollwitzer (2005).

  • Definitions:

    • Goal Intentions: What one aims to achieve (e.g., "I want to floss daily").

    • Implementation Intentions: Plans that specify when, where, and how to achieve the goal (e.g., "I will floss every day when I brush my teeth at night").

  • Mechanism:

    • Link a critical situation to a goal-directed behavior, improving recall and execution.

  • Experimental Evidence:

    • Aarts et al. (1999): Participants with IMPs reacted faster to cues related to their intentions.

    • Webb & Sheeran (2004): IMPs increased the accessibility of critical cues.

    • Gollwitzer & Sheeran (2006): A meta-analysis showed a medium to strong positive effect of IMPs on behavior change in areas such as:

      • Breast and testicular self-examinations.

      • Reducing snack food consumption.

      • Increasing exercise.

Key Points

  • IMPs enhance behavior by making individuals more aware of the critical situations and their goal-directed responses.

  • Application: IMPs can improve the likelihood of following through on intentions and achieving goals by specifying the context in which they will act.

  • Evidence: Demonstrated positive effects on behavior change, showcasing that planning specific implementation strategies can bridge the intention-behavior gap effectively.