Predicting Health Behaviors From Attitudes and Subjective Norms: Between‐Subjects and Within‐Subjects Analyses

Abstract

Much previous research (Trafimow & Fishbein, 1994a, 1994b) indicates that some behaviors are mostly under attitudinal control and some are mostly under normative control. Further, other research (Trafimow & Finlay, 1996) demonstrates that people, as well as behaviors, can be generally under attitudinal or normative control. The present research applies these ideas to the domain of health behaviors. Analyses conducted between‐subjects for each behavior, and within‐subjects across all of the behaviors, demonstrate that both behaviors and people can be under attitudinal or normative control when responding to items pertaining to health.

The Role of Affect in Determining the Attributional Weight of Immoral Behaviors

“…This difference in negative affect, in turn, has a direct impact on corresponding trait attributions. We tested this theorizing by performing withinparticipants mediation analyses, which resulted in a mediation analysis for each participant (see Finlay, Trafimow, & Jones, 1997;Finlay, Trafimow, & Moroi, 1999;Mischela, 1990;Sheeran, Trafimow, Finlay, & Norman, 2002;Trafimow et al, in press;Trafimow & Finlay, 1996, 2001Trafimow, Kiekel, & Clason, Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999, for other examples of within-participants regression approaches).…”

Enhancing the effectiveness of tobacco package warning labels: a social psychological perspective

“…[28][29][30][31][32] For example, Finlay and colleagues 30 found that subjective norms predicted behavioural intentions across a wide range of health behaviours, such as avoiding risky sexual behaviour, paying attention to health related advice, and taking medication as prescribed. Most importantly, subjective norms have been found to predict smoking intentions and behaviour.…”

The simultaneous consideration of between‐participants and within‐participants analyses in research on predictors of behaviours: The issue of dependence

“…Given (a) the repeated calls for this kind of research over the past century (e.g. Allport, 1937;Epstein, 1983;Farrington, 1988;Jaccard & Dittus, 1990;Jaccard & Wood, 1986;Lamiell, 1981;Mischela, 1990;Runyan, 1983;Trafimow & Finlay, 1996;Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999;West, 1983), (b) the fact that such research has been demonstrated recently to result in conclusions that differ dramatically from those that had been obtained from only the traditional between-participants analyses (Finlay et al, 1997(Finlay et al, , 1999Sheeran et al, 2002;Trafimow et al, in press;Trafimow & Finlay, 1996, 2001a, 2001b, and (c) the present demonstration that concerns about independence can be easily circumvented, we hope and expect that researchers in personality and social psychology will finally exploit the full potential of considering both of these kinds of analyses in conjunction with each other.…”

“…Finlay, Trafimow, & Jones, 1997;Finlay, Trafimow, & Moroi, 1999;Sheeran, Trafimow, Finlay, & Norman, 2002;Trafimow & Finlay, 1996, 2001a, 2001bTrafimow et al, in press). In much of this research, the results of within-participants analyses are compared to those stemming from between-participants analyses.…”