The protection motivation theory within the stages of the transtheoretical model – Stage‐specific interplay of variables and prediction of exercise stage transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Two different theories of health behaviour have been chosen with the aim of theory integration: a continuous theory (protection motivation theory, PMT) and a stage model (transtheoretical model, TTM). This is the first study to test whether the stages of the TTM moderate the interrelation of PMT-variables and the mediation of motivation, as well as PMT-variables' interactions in predicting stage transitions. DESIGN: Hypotheses were tested regarding (1) mean patterns, stage pair-comparisons and nonlinear trends using ANOVAs; (2) prediction-patterns for the different stage groups employing multi-group structural equation modelling (MSEM) and nested model analyses; and (3) stage transitions using binary logistic regression analyses. METHOD: Adults (N=1,602) were assessed over a 6 month period on their physical activity stages, PMT-variables and subsequent behaviour. RESULTS: (1) Particular mean differences and nonlinear trends in all test variables were found. (2) The PMT adequately fitted the five stage groups. The MSEM revealed that covariances within threat appraisal and coping appraisal were invariant and all other constrains were stage-specific, i.e. stage was a moderator. Except for self-efficacy, motivation fully mediated the relationship between the social-cognitive variables and behaviour. (3) Predicting stage transitions with the PMT-variables underscored the importance of self-efficacy. Only when threat appraisal and coping appraisal were high, stage movement was more likely in the preparation stage. CONCLUSIONS: Results emphasize stage-specific differences of the PMT mechanisms, and hence, support the stage construct. The findings may guide further theory building and research integrating different theoretical approaches.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".