Beyond single behaviour theory: Adding cross‐behaviour cognitions to the health action process approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Commonly, health behaviour theories have been applied to single behaviours, giving insights into specific behaviours but providing little knowledge on how individuals pursue an overall healthy lifestyle. In the context of diet and physical activity, we investigated the extent to which cross-behaviour cognitions, namely transfer cognitions and compensatory health beliefs, contribute to single behaviour theory. DESIGN: A total of 767 participants from two European regions (i.e., Germany n = 351, southern Europe n = 416) completed online questionnaires on physical activity and healthy dietary behaviour, behaviour-specific cognitions (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome expectancies, risk perception, intention, action planning, action control), as well as cross-behaviour cognitions, namely transfer cognitions and compensatory health beliefs. METHODS: Nested path models were specified to investigate the importance of cross-behaviour cognitions over and above behaviour-specific predictors of physical activity and healthy nutrition. RESULTS: Across both health behaviours, transfer cognitions were positively associated with intention and self-regulatory strategies. Compensatory health beliefs were negatively associated with intention. Action planning and action control mediated the effect of intentions on behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: Cross-behaviour cognitions contribute to single behaviour theory and may explain how individuals regulate more than one health behaviour. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Cross-behaviour cognitions are related to a healthy lifestyle. Compensatory health beliefs hinder the adoption of a healthy lifestyle. Transfer cognitions encourage the engagement in a healthy lifestyle. What does this study add? Transfer cognitions were positively associated with intentions, action planning, and action control over and above behaviour-specific cognitions. Compensatory health beliefs were related to intentions only. Both facilitating and debilitating cross-behaviour cognitions need to be studied within a unified multiple behaviour research framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".