This article was downloaded by: [University of Sheffield]On: 02 March 2012, At: 00:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Psychology & HealthPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpsh20

Intention versus identification asdeterminants of adolescents’ healthbehaviours: evidence and correlatesAmanda Rivis a , Paschal Sheeran b & Christopher J. Armitage ba Institute of Work Health & Organisations, University ofNottingham, Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UKb Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

Available online: 30 Nov 2009

To cite this article: Amanda Rivis, Paschal Sheeran & Christopher J. Armitage (2011): Intentionversus identification as determinants of adolescents’ health behaviours: evidence and correlates,Psychology & Health, 26:9, 1128-1142

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440903427365

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Psychology and HealthVol. 26, No. 9, September 2011, 1128–1142

Intention versus identification as determinants of adolescents’

health behaviours: evidence and correlates

Amanda Rivisa*, Paschal Sheeranb and Christopher J. Armitageb

aInstitute of Work Health & Organisations, University of Nottingham,Jubilee Campus, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK; bDepartment of Psychology,

University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

(Received 31 July 2009; final version received 16 October 2009)

The present study used a within-participants design to (a) assess thepredictive validity of prototype identification versus intention for adoles-cents’ health behaviours and (b) examine whether control of healthbehaviour by intention relative to identification is associated with keyindividual difference variables. Participants were school children (N¼ 136)who completed measures of intention, perceived behavioural control andprototype identification for 14 health-related behaviours at Time 1, andreported their behaviour 2 weeks later (Time 2). A hierarchical regressionshowed that prototype identification and intention exhibited similarpredictive validity in the prediction of adolescents’ health behaviour.Importantly, identification contributed an additional 6% to the variancein behaviour, after controlling for intention and perceived behaviouralcontrol from the theory of planned behaviour [TPB: Ajzen, I. (1991). Thetheory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 50, 179–211.]. Additional analyses showed that greater socialcomparison tendencies, lower agreeableness, greater intellect and lessemotional stability were all related to greater control of behaviour byprototype identification. The theoretical and practical implications of thesefindings are discussed.

Keywords: action control; identification; intention; individual differences;adolescent health behaviour; within-participants

Introduction

Accumulated evidence demonstrates that late adolescence is associated withdecreases in health-promoting behaviours such as exercise (e.g. Stephens, Jacobs,& White, 1985) and with the initiation of health-risk behaviours such as smoking andexcessive alcohol consumption (e.g. Blaxter, 1990). Moreover, establishing healthyhabits earlier rather than later is likely to have substantial benefits in terms ofreducing morbidity and mortality. For this reason, it is important for healthprofessionals to understand the factors that determine adolescents’ healthbehaviours. The present study examines the predictive validity of intention relativeto prototype identification for adolescents’ health behaviours, and investigates

*Corresponding author. Email: amanda.rivis@nottingham.ac.uk

ISSN 0887–0446 print/ISSN 1476–8321 online

� 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08870440903427365

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

whether the extent to which adolescents’ health behaviour is guided by intentionsrelative to prototype identification is associated with key individual differencevariables.

Intention–behaviour relations

Numerous theorists hold the view that social and health behaviour is guided by one’sconscious intentions. Intentions are self-instructions to perform particular actionsor achieve certain goals (Triandis, 1980) and indicate how committed people areto acting, and how much effort they are prepared to exert in order to perform thebehaviour (Ajzen, 1991; Webb & Sheeran, 2005). Intentions are considered the mostimmediate and important predictor of behaviour in models of attitude–behaviourrelations such as the theories of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) andplanned behaviour (TPB; Ajzen, 1991), accounts of health-related behaviour[e.g. protection motivation theory (PMT); Rogers, 1983]; and goal theories such ascontrol theory (Carver & Scheier, 1981, 1998), social cognitive theory (Bandura,1986, 1997) and goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Meta-analyses of studies that took measures of intention at one time-pointand measures of behaviour at a later time-point support the predictive validity ofintention (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Ouellette & Wood, 1998; Sheeran & Orbell,1998). For example, in a meta-analysis of 10 meta-analyses, Sheeran (2002) foundthat intentions explained on average 28% of the variance in behaviour (rþ¼ 0.53)based upon 422 studies and a sample size of 82,107. Thus, the intention–behaviourrelationship is ‘large’ (cf. Cohen, 1992).

Prototypes and health behaviour

In spite of the large body of evidence showing that intentions generally guidebehaviour, further meta-analytic evidence suggests that intentions are less importantin guiding behaviours that are typically enacted in a social context and behavioursthat involve vivid ‘images’ of the type of person who engages in those behaviours(Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Such images (e.g. binge drinkers are ‘fun-loving’, smokersare ‘cool’) are known as ‘prototypes’ (Gibbons & Gerrard, 1997). The more similaryoung people think that they are to prototypes, the stronger is their inclination toengage in the behaviours associated with the prototype (Gibbons, Gerrard, &Boney-McCoy, 1995; Rivis, Sheeran, & Armitage, 2006).

For example, the closer the match between students’ self-images and theirperceptions of the type of person who lives in a specific type of housing, the greatertheir desire to live in that type of housing (Niedenthal, Cantor, & Kihlstrom, 1985,cited in Gerrard et al., 2002). Similarly, young people are less likely to report thatthey smoke when they identify with the group ‘athletes’ than when they do notidentify with this group (Mosbach & Leventhal, 1988). Importantly, prototypesimilarity has been shown to enhance the variance explained in intentions afterwell-validated predictors from the TPB have been taken into account (Rivis &Sheeran, 2003; Rivis et al., 2006). For example, Rivis et al. (2006) showed thatperceived similarity to healthy and risky images was the most consistent additionalpredictor of a variety of adolescents’ health-related intentions, and explainedadditional variance in intentions, above and beyond that afforded by social influence

Psychology and Health 1129

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

variables from the TPB. This evidence supporting the importance of prototypesimilarity is in accord with the broader literature highlighting the importantrole played by social identification in young people’s social and health behaviours(e.g., Mosbach & Leventhal, 1988; Rivis, 2002; Schofield, Pattison, Hill, & Borland,2003; Sussman et al., 1990; Verkooijen, de Vries, & Nielsen, 2007).

To date, however, the majority of the research on prototype identification hasexamined its role in the decision-making process, as opposed to actual behaviour.For instance, Rivis et al.’s (2006) study investigated the impact of prototypesimilarity upon young people’s intentions to engage in risky and healthy behaviours,but did not examine whether prototype similarity was directly related to subsequentbehaviour. Two studies have, however, demonstrated a direct relationship betweenprototype similarity and health behaviour. In the first of these, Rivis and Sheeran(2003) found that the more similar undergraduate students believed that they wereto the ‘type of person who exercises at least three times a week’, the more likely theywere to subsequently engage in physical exercise. Similarly, Norman, Armitage andQuigley (2007) found that perceived similarity to the ‘type of person who engagesin binge drinking at least once a week’ accounted for a significant proportion of thevariance in binge drinking behaviour at 1-week follow-up. Importantly, in both ofthese studies this direct relationship between prototype similarity and prospectivemeasures of behaviour were evident even after intentions and perceived behaviouralcontrol had been taken into account. Although these findings are promising, it is anopen question whether prototypes have a direct influence on a wide range of healthbehaviours (or only influence the two behaviours investigated to date). The presentstudy tackles this question by assessing the predictive validity of prototypeidentification versus behavioural intention in relation to 14 health behaviours.

Assessment of 14 health behaviours will allow us to use a within-participantsdesign to assess intentional versus identified influences on behaviour (Mischela,1990), i.e., correlations can be computed between predictor and criterion variablesfor each participant across behaviours. Such analyses enable examination of theextent to which people as well as behaviours are controlled by attitudinal, normativeand other processes (e.g. Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2006; Norman, Sheeran &Rivis, 2009; Sheeran, Trafimow, Finlay & Norman, 2002; Trafimow & Finlay, 1996).For example, Trafimow and Finlay (1996) demonstrated that whereas most peoplebase their intentions to engage in a wide range of behaviours upon attitudinalfactors, there is a small minority for whom normative factors receive more ‘weight’in the decision-making process (as indicated by comparison of the � weights forattitudes and subjective norms for each participant). We will use a similar paradigmhere in order to examine – for the first time – the extent to which within-personbehaviours are influenced by identification with prototypes relative to intentions.

The role of individual differences in prototype–behaviour relations

A further aim of the present study is to examine whether individual differencevariables predict the extent to which adolescents’ health behaviour is guided byprototype identification versus intention. Because prototypes are socially shared,it has been hypothesised that prototypes influence behaviour through a processof interpersonal social comparison (Festinger, 1954) whereby the adolescentcompares the self with other people or images (Gibbons & Gerrard, 1997).

1130 A. Rivis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

In support of this theorising, several studies have found that prototypes are moreinfluential among people who report frequently engaging in social comparison(Gibbons & Gerrard, 1995) or who are high in dispositional social comparisontendencies (Gerrard et al., 2002; Gibbons et al., 2002; Ouellette, Hessling, Gibbons,Reis-Bergan, & Gerrard, 2005). For example, Gibbons and Gerrard (1995) foundthat the more positive were young people’s prototype perceptions of drinkers,reckless drivers, the ‘teen’ parent and smokers, the more likely they were to engagein risk behaviours, but only among those who reported frequently engaging in socialcomparison. We anticipate, therefore, that greater control of health behaviourby prototype identification will be associated with a greater tendency to comparethe self with others.

It would also be desirable to examine whether the strength of the relationshipbetween prototype identification (vs. intention) and health behaviour is associatedwith other individual difference variables. The role of personality traits, in particular,is receiving increasing attention in the literature on attitude–(health) behaviourrelations (Conner & Abraham, 2001, Norman, Sheeran & Orbell, 2003; Rhodes,Courneya, & Hayduk, 2002; Rhodes, Courneya, & Jones, 2003; see Norman &Conner, 2005, for a review) and there have been calls for further research on the waysin which personality traits may impact upon health behaviour (Norman & Conner,2005; Rhodes et al., 2002). Most relevant here is the evidence for a moderating roleof the ‘big five’ personality traits (i.e. neuroticism, extraversion, conscientiousness,openness/intellect and agreeableness: cf. Costa & Macrae, 1992) on cognition–intention and intention–behaviour relations (e.g. Rhodes et al., 2002, 2003).For example, Rhodes et al. (2002) found five significant moderating effects ofextraversion, neuroticism and conscientiousness in relation to an application of theTPB to exercise behaviour. Both neuroticism and extraversion influenced the impactof subjective norms on intentions such that the subjective norm–intention relation-ship was stronger among people scoring high on neuroticism and low onextraversion. Conscientiousness moderated both attitude–intention and intention–behaviour relations such that affective attitudes had a significantly larger effect onexercise intentions among low (compared to high-) conscientiousness individuals,and intentions had a larger effect upon behaviour among high (compared to low-)conscientiousness individuals. Therefore, a further aim of the present study is toexamine whether the extent to which adolescents’ health behaviour is controlled byintention versus identification is related to each of the ‘big five’ personality traits.Such analysis has the potential to illuminate further the processes by whichpersonality factors influence adolescents’ health behaviour.

Aims of the present study

The present study examines the predictive utility of prototype identification foradolescents’ health behaviour after intention and perceived behavioural controlfrom the TPB have been taken into account utilising a within-participants design.In addition, we test whether individual differences in social comparison tendenciesand each of the ‘big five’ personality factors influences the extent to which healthbehaviour is controlled by prototype identification versus intention. Based uponprevious research findings, we anticipate that greater social comparison tendencieswill be related to greater control of behaviour by prototype identification

Psychology and Health 1131

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

(vs. intention), and that higher scores on conscientiousness will be related to greatercontrol of behaviour by intention.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were school pupils at a secondary school in Sheffield, UK (N¼ 136,65% female; M-age¼ 16.64, SD¼ 0.86). Participants voluntarily completed ques-tionnaires in relation to seven health-promoting behaviours (fruit and vegetableconsumption, physical exercise, eating breakfast every day, taking vitamin pills,seatbelt use, sleep, hand-washing) and seven health-risk behaviours (eating fattyfoods, adding salt to savoury food, drug use, alcohol consumption, caffeineconsumption, smoking, eating sweets). Informed consent was obtained prior toparticipants’ completion of the questionnaires in class under the supervision of thefirst author. Participants completed the personality measures and indicated theirintentions, perceptions of behavioural control and identification with prototypes atTime 1; 2 weeks later (Time 2) they reported their behaviour.

Measures

Intention to perform the 14 behaviours was assessed using the stem: ‘To what extentdo you intend to do each of the following over the next 2 weeks?’ followed by 7-pointresponse scales (definitely do not intend to do this–definitely intend to do this).Perceived behavioural control was assessed by the stem: ‘How easy or difficult wouldit be for you to do each of the following over the next 2 weeks?’ followed by a list ofthe 14 behaviours with 7-point response scales (very difficult–very easy). Prototype:To ensure that participants were thinking about health-related prototypes whenresponding to the prototype similarity items, participants were first presented withthe definition of a prototype:

‘The following question concerns your images of people. What we are interestedin here are your ideas about typical members of different groups. For example, we allhave ideas about what typical movie stars are like or what the typical grandmother islike. When asked, we could describe one of these images – we might say we think thetypical movie star is pretty or rich, or that the typical grandmother is sweet and frail.We are not saying that all movie stars or all grandmothers are exactly alike, butrather that many of them share certain characteristics.’ (Gibbons et al., 1995, p. 87)

Prototype identification was assessed by the stem: ‘In general, how similar areyou to the type of person your age who does the following?’ followed by a list of the14 behaviours with 7-point response scales (not at all similar–very similar). Behaviourat Time 2 was assessed by asking participants to indicate the number of times theyhad engaged in each of the 14 behaviours over the previous 2 weeks.

The coefficients of internal reliability (e.g. Cronbach’s �) could not be computedbecause we used single-item measures to reduce the burden on participants.We therefore assessed reliability of the constructs over time (1 week) amonga sub-sample of participants (n¼ 30). Test–retest correlations were strong forintention (Mdn r¼ 0.70, p5 0.001), perceived behavioural control (Mdn r¼ 0.66,p5 0.001), and prototype similarity (Mdn r¼ 0.64, p5 0.001). Thus, all of theconstructs exhibited satisfactory test–retest reliability.

1132 A. Rivis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

Personality

To further reduce the burden on participants, we used Goldberg’s (1992) Big-FiveFactor Markers Scale to assess each of the five personality dimensions (extraversion,agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism/emotional stability and openness/intellect: Costa & McCrae, 1992). This scale consists of 35 adjective-anchoredbipolar rating scales with 7 scales marking each of the big five factors. Respondentswere asked to use the list of traits to describe themselves as accurately as possibleby circling a number from (1) very (e.g. ‘introverted’) through (5) neither(e.g. ‘introverted’ or ‘extraverted’) to (9) very (e.g. ‘extraverted’). These scales havebeen shown to exhibit satisfactory reliability and validity in previous research(cf. Goldberg, 1992) and exhibited satisfactory reliability here (�’s ¼ 0.78–0.87).

Social comparison

We assessed social comparison at Time 1 by the Iowa-Netherlands ComparisonOrientation Measure (INCOM; Gibbons & Buunk, 1999). The INCOM is an 11-itemscale assessing a general tendency to compare oneself with others (e.g. ‘I oftencompare myself with others with respect to what I have accomplished in life’).Each statement was followed by a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to7 (strongly agree). The 11 items were combined and the average was used as ameasure of general social comparison tendencies (�¼ 0.75).

Results

Prediction of health behaviour

Because intention, prototype identification, perceived behavioural control andbehaviour were measured with respect to 14 behaviours, we were able to computewithin-participants correlations between intention, prototype identification, per-ceived behavioural control and behaviour for each participant. Median values wereused to indicate the overall strength of the within-participants correlations because itcannot be assumed that these correlations are normally distributed (Mischela, 1990).The median within-participants correlation between prototype identification andbehaviour was 0.46, and the median within-participants correlation betweenintention and behaviour was 0.50. These correlations represent ‘large’ effect sizes(Cohen, 1992).

The median within-participants correlations between intention, prototype iden-tification, perceived behavioural control and behaviour were used as the input matrixfor the within-participants hierarchical multiple regression analysis that tested thepredictive validity of prototype identification, after controlling for intentions andperceived behavioural control from the TPB. Thus, intention and perceivedbehavioural control entered the equation at the first step, and prototype identifi-cation entered the equation at the second step.

Table 1 shows that intention and perceived behavioural control accounted for26% of the variance in behaviour with intention ( ß¼ 0.42, p5 0.001), but notperceived behavioural control (ß¼ 0.14, n.s.), making a significant contribution tothe regression equation. At the second step of the equation, intention remainedsignificant (ß¼ 0.39, p5 0.001). However, the addition of prototype identificationcontributed an additional 6% to the variance explained in behaviour, above and

Psychology and Health 1133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

beyond intention (DR2¼ 0.06, DF¼ 12.12, p5 0.001). Both intention and prototype

identification were significant predictors of health behaviour in the final equationand jointly accounted for 32% of the variance. Thus, the health behaviours engagedin by particular adolescents is governed by both intention and prototypeidentification.

Individual differences and the predictive validity of intention versus identification

We also examined whether the extent to which adolescents’ health behaviour iscontrolled by prototype identification (vs. intention) was associated with relevantindividual difference variables. Because our concern was with the relative importanceof the two predictors, we computed an index reflecting the predictive validity ofintention versus identification using the difference between each participant’s �weight for prototype identification and their � weight for intention (derived fromwithin-participants regression analyses). Higher scores indicate greater intentionalcontrol whereas lower scores indicate greater control of behaviour by prototypeidentification. Correlations were then computed between this index of action controland the six personality measures (Table 2).

Table 2 shows that more frequent social comparison (‘INCOM’) (r¼�0.20,p5 0.05), greater perceived intellect (r¼�0.17, p5 0.05), less agreeableness(r¼ 0.17, p5 0.05) and less emotional stability (r¼ 0.16, p¼ 0.058) were each

Table 2. Correlations between personality variables and intentional vs. identified control ofhealth behaviour.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Intention vs. identification 1.00 �0.20* �0.08 0.17* 0.01 0.16y �0.17*2. INCOM 1.00 0.04 0.00 0.09 �0.21*** 0.033. Introversion 1.00 0.26*** 0.31*** 0.26*** 0.45***4. Agreeableness 1.00 0.52*** 0.37*** 0.31***5. Conscientiousness 1.00 0.37*** 0.43***6. Emotional stability 1.00 0.30***7. Intellect 1.00

Notes: *p5 0.05**p5 0.01**p5 0.001.

Table 1. Hierarchical regression of behaviour on study variables.

Step Variables entered � �

1. Intention 0.42*** 0.39***

Perceived behavioural control 0.14 �0.052. Prototype identification – 0.32**R2 0.26 0.32Model F 23.69*** 15.74***

Notes: **p5 0.01***p5 0.001.

1134 A. Rivis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

associated with control of health behaviour by prototype identification as opposed

to intention. There were no associations between the extent to which participants’

health behaviour was governed by intention versus identification and extroversion

(r¼�0.08, n.s.) or conscientiousness (r¼ 0.01, n.s.).1

Discussion

The aims of the present study were twofold: (a) to examine the predictive validity

of prototype identification versus intention for adolescents’ health behaviours and

(b) to examine whether control of health behaviour by intention versus identification

is associated with key individual difference variables. A within-participants hierar-

chical regression analysis showed that intention and prototype identification jointly

accounted for 32% of the variance in health behaviour – a percentage that compares

favourably with existing meta-analytic findings on the proximal predictors of health

and social behaviour (cf. Armitage & Conner, 2001; Sheeran, 2002). Identification

with the type of person who engages in health-related behaviours uniquely accounted

for 6% of the variance in health behaviours, above and beyond intention and

perceived behavioural control. Greater identified control of health behaviour was

significantly associated with greater social comparison tendencies, lower emotional

stability, lower agreeableness and greater self-reported intellect.We noted earlier that two previous studies – Rivis and Sheeran (2003) and

Norman et al. (2007) – have demonstrated a direct relationship between prototype

similarity and behaviour, after taking intention and perceived behavioural control

into account. The present findings both replicate and extend these findings: Whereas

these studies examined single behaviours (exercise and binge drinking, respectively),

we found a direct impact of prototype similarity across 14 behaviours using a

within-participants design. The fact that prototype similarity accounted for an

additional 6% of the variance in health behaviour, and exhibited similar predictive

validity as intention (standardised �’s were 0.32 and 0.39, respectively) suggests that

prototype identification may play a greater role in influencing the performance of

health behaviours than previously supposed. This finding also supports previous

research highlighting the importance of social identification for young people’s

health behaviour (Mosbach & Leventhal, 1988; Rivis, 2002; Schofield et al., 2003;

Sussman et al., 1990; Verkooijen et al., 2007).Our findings also revealed significant, albeit small, associations between several

individual difference variables and intentional versus identified control of health

behaviours. We found that greater control of health behaviour by prototype

identification (relative to intention) was associated with a stronger tendency to

compare the self with others. This finding supports previous research demonstrating

the moderating role of social comparison in the impact of prototype perceptions

(Gerrard et al., 2002; Gibbons et al., 2002; Ouellette et al., 2005) and offers tentative

support for the idea that prototype perceptions influence health-related behaviour

through a process of comparing the self with others (Gibbons & Gerrard, 1997).

Since an important motive for social comparison is self-enhancement (Gibbons &

Buunk, 1999), this finding may also suggest that identification with prototypes is an

important way in which adolescents could enhance their self-esteem (Aloise-Young

& Hennigan, 1996). Evidence that low self-esteem individuals are particularly likely

Psychology and Health 1135

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

to engage in prototype-matching when arriving at behavioural decisions is consistentwith this idea (Setterlund & Niedenthal, 1993).

This is the first study (to our knowledge) to examine whether the extent to whichadolescents’ health behaviour is guided by intention relative to prototype identifi-cation is associated with the ‘big five’ personality factors. Our finding that lowerlevels of emotional stability (i.e. neuroticism) appeared to be associated with greatercontrol of health behaviour by prototype identification is consistent with analysesdemonstrating that more neurotic individuals exhibit greater vulnerability andself-consciousness (McCrae & Costa, 1990) and thus may be more concerned withmaintaining a positive self-image. Perhaps the health behaviour of less emotionallystable adolescents is influenced to a greater extent by prototype identificationbecause, for these people, maintenance of a positive self-image is a particularlyimportant or salient goal. Future research might usefully examine the relative impactof intention versus prototype identification under differing conditions of goalsalience or goal conflict (e.g., the goal to be popular vs. the goal to be healthy).

Interestingly, greater direct control of health behaviour by prototype identifica-tion (vs. intention) was also associated with higher self-ratings of intellect. Oneexplanation for this finding is that high-intellect individuals might be more willingor able to acknowledge that their health behaviour is governed by non-intentionalfactors such as identification with prototypes. Alternatively, since intellect is closelyassociated with socially desirable traits such as creativity and sophistication(Goldberg, 1992), the health behaviour of such people may be particularly motivatedby social goals such as projecting desired identities on to audiences (Tedeschi &Norman, 1985). Agreeableness also influenced the extent to which adolescents’health behaviour was controlled by intention versus prototype identification: Loweragreeableness was associated with greater control of health behaviour by prototypeidentification; more agreeableness, on the other hand, was associated with greatercontrol of health behaviour by intention. This finding makes sense when oneconsiders correlates of agreeableness within a self-regulatory context. Specifically,compared to antagonistic individuals, agreeable individuals are more pro-socialin their orientation (Saucier, 1998) and also score higher on measures of self-controland assertiveness (Sneed, 2007). It is not surprising, therefore, that agreeablenessmight facilitate increased realisation of adolescents’ health intentions and reducethe impact of prototype identification.

Findings from the present study did not support our hypothesis thatconscientiousness would moderate the extent to which health behaviour is governedby intention versus prototype identification. Although this finding seems at oddswith previous research that found that people higher in conscientiousness are morelikely to translate their intentions into action (e.g. Rhodes et al., 2002), it is worthnoting that the present research differs from previous studies in three importantrespects. First, the present study was concerned specifically with the relative influenceof intentional versus identified control rather than the influence of intentions per se.Second, the present study examined a wider range of health-related behaviours(both risky and healthy) than previous studies that have focussed on either singlebehaviours or a narrower range of health-related behaviours. Finally, a within-participants design was used here whereas between-participants designs were usedin previous research. It will be important to disentangle each of these potentialinfluences in future research aimed at examining the conditions under whichconscientiousness plays a moderating role in cognition–behaviour relations.

1136 A. Rivis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

Before discussing the implications of the present findings for interventionsdesigned to promote healthier behaviours among adolescents, we should addresssome possible limitations of our study: First, while significant, the correlationsobtained here involving the individual difference measures are weak – furtherresearch that examines the role of hitherto unexplored individual differences in theextent to which young people’s actions are governed by intention versus prototypeidentification is warranted. Second, although we obtained good test–retestreliabilities for our single item measures of intention and prototype identification,and although empirical evidence attests to the reliability and validity of single-itemmeasures of intentions and other cognitions (cf. Armitage, 2003; Finlay, Trafimow &Jones, 1997), more confident conclusions would be afforded by the use of multi-itemmeasures of the constructs. Third, while our study had the advantage of aprospective design, the time interval between measurement of the predictor andcriterion variables (2 weeks) is relatively short – further research over longer timeperiods would be valuable in order to corroborate the findings obtained here.Fourth, an alternative explanation for the direct impact of prototype similarity uponbehaviour observed here is that prototype similarity may simply be a proxy for pastbehavioural performance. While Rivis and Sheeran (2003) found that perceivedsimilarity directly predicted exercise behaviour even after past behaviour (andintentions and perceived behavioural control) had been taken into account –suggesting that such an explanation for the present findings is unlikely – futureresearch should nevertheless control for the effects of past behaviour whenexamining the predictive validity of prototype identification for health behaviour.Fifth, our findings are based upon a relatively small sample of school pupils froma single secondary school in United Kingdom; thus, replications involving largerand more diverse samples of adolescents would enhance the generalisability of thepresent findings.

The final potential limitation of the present study concerns our utilisation of ahierarchical regression methodology. This methodology has a less straightforwardinterpretation than it might seem (cf. Trafimow, 2004): Two issues are of particularrelevance: The first is statistical, and centres around use of the DR2 statistic; thesecond is conceptual and centres around the criteria we should adopt to determinewhether a variable is truly adding anything beyond what is already present in thetheory. The first issue is summarised by Trafimow (2004) and is summarised asfollows: ‘Firstly, unless perfectly reliable and valid measures are used for Step 1variables, it is possible that the additional variable at Step 2 is merely accounting forvariance that would have been accounted for at Step 1 had perfectly reliable andvalid measures been used. Secondly, the meaning of the DR2 statistic depends verymuch on the size of the correlation obtained at Step 1; as the Step 1 correlationincreases, the same DR2 implies a lesser degree of change in the probability ofsuccess’ (p. 528). We acknowledge the accuracy of Trafimow’s analysis but wouldreiterate that the R2 value obtained for the prediction of behaviour by intention is inline with existing findings on the predictive utility of intention (cf. Armitage &Conner, 2001; Sheeran, 2002). Thus, the findings obtained here are unlikely to be theoutcome of more reliable or valid measures in previous studies compared to thepresent research.

The second question concerns how meaningful is an increment of 6% to thevariance explained in behaviour after intention and perceived behavioural control

Psychology and Health 1137

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

from the TPB have been taken into account. There are several ways of demonstrating

that effects of this magnitude are meaningful (see Sutton, 1998, for a review). For

instance, the effect size observed here for prototype identification (r¼ 0.24) compares

favourably to established biomedical interventions such as chemotherapy (r¼ 0.02),

tamoxifen (r¼ 0.03), and the effect of aspirin on myocardial infarction (d¼ 0.04;

Pennebaker, 2005; Rosenthal, 1994). Similarly, the binomial effect size display

(Rosenthal & Rubin, 1982) indicates that the behavioural impact of an experiment

that changed prototype identification (assuming R2¼ 0.06) is equivalent to

increasing the probability of performing the behaviour from 0.38 in the control

condition to 0.62 in the experimental condition. Clearly, even ostensibly small effect

sizes can have important implications for public health.Notwithstanding the limitations addressed above, the present results have both

practical and theoretical significance. Our findings suggest that initiatives designed

to promote healthy intentions may have some success in changing behaviour

(cf. Hardeman et al., 2002; Webb & Sheeran, 2006), especially among adolescentswhose health behaviour is governed more by their intentions than by identification

with social images. However, given that identification with health-related images

also exerts an influence upon behaviour – as evidenced by the findings here –

interventions that enhance young people’s similarity to positive images, and their

dissimilarity to negative images might also benefit behaviour change (Rivis et al.,

2006). The media (e.g. movies and television) is a particularly important source

of image acquisition (Gibbons, Gerrard, & Lane, 2002). Exposure to role models

in the televised media can lead to the development of favourable risk prototypes

(Dal Cin et al., 2009) and causally impact upon the cognitions and behaviour of

people who strongly identify with such role models (Dal Cin, Gibson, Zanna,

Shumate, & Fong, 2007). Inducing comparison with a specific individual (i.e. an

exemplar) who represents the prototype may be one fruitful strategy for reducing the

impact of risky images, or increasing the impact of healthy images (cf. Gibbons et al.,

2003; Rivis, 2002).The findings from the present study also suggest a number of avenues for further

research. Broad personality dispositions might obscure other moderating influences

(Rhodes, et al., 2002); thus, the role of more narrowly specified traits such as

self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974) or need for cognition (Petty, Haugtvedt, & Smith,

1995), as well as susceptibility to goal priming effects (cf. Bargh, Gollwitzer,

Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trotschel, 2001) in moderating intentional versus identified

control of health behaviour might usefully be explored in future research.In conclusion, the present findings indicate that health behaviours may be

governed both by conscious intention and by prototype identification. Prototype

identification was associated with a significant and substantial increment in the

variance explained in health behaviour, after intentions and perceived behavioural

control had been taken into account (DR2¼ 0.06). The fact that we also found a

number of personality correlates of intentional versus identified control of health

behaviour highlights the possibility of targeting health-related interventions specif-

ically to adolescents who favour these two modes of action control. Further

experimental and applied research is warranted to replicate the effects observed

here, to address methodological shortcomings, and to investigate other potential

influences on intentional versus identified control of health behaviours.

1138 A. Rivis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant from the ESRC (RES-00-22-0847).

Note

1. Possible concerns about the use of difference scores can be allayed by the fact thatcorrelations between personality measures and the intentional vs. identified index ofaction control are reflected in significant correlations between personality measuresand the raw �’s for prototype identification: The correlations for social comparisonfrequency, agreeableness, and emotional stability were 0.21, �0.22 and �0.22, respec-tively (all ps5 0.05).

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50, 179–211.

Aloise-Young, P.A., & Hennigan, K.M. (1996). Self-image, the smoker stereotype and

cigarette smoking: Developmental patterns from fifth through eighth grade. Journal of

Adolescence, 19, 163–177.

Armitage, C.J. (2003). The relationship between multidimensional health locus of control and

perceived behavioural control: How are distal perceptions of control related to proximal

perceptions of control? Psychology and Health, 18, 723–738.Armitage, C.J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour:

A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A cognitive social theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bargh, J.A., Gollnitzer, P.M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trotschel, R. (2001). The

automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioural goals. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.Blaxter, M. (1990). Health and lifestyles. London: Tavistock.Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach

to human behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag.Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned behavior:

Towards a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and behavior.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1547–1561.Costa Jr, P.T., & Macrae, R.R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory: (NEO-PI-R) and

NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological

Assessment Resources.Dal Cin, S., Gibson, B., Zanna, M.P., Shumate, R., & Fong, G.T. (2007). Smoking in movies,

implicit associations of smoking with the self, and intentions to smoke. Psychological

Science, 18, 559–563.

Dal Cin, S., Worth, K.A., Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F.X., Stoolmiller, M., Wills, T.A., et al.

(2009). Watching and drinking: Expectancies, prototypes, and friends’ alcohol use mediate

the effect of exposure to alcohol use in movies on adolescent drinking. Health Psychology,

28, 473–483.Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

Psychology and Health 1139

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

Finlay, K.A., Trafimow, D., & Jones, D. (1997). Predicting health behaviors from attitudes

and subjective norms: Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 27, 2015–2031.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F.X., Reis-Bergan, M., Trudeau, L., vande Lune, L.S., & Buunk, B.

(2002). Inhibitory effects of drinker and nondrinker prototypes on adolescent alcohol

consumption. Health Psychology, 21, 601–609.Gibbons, F.X., & Buunk, B.P. (1999). Individual differences in social comparison:

Development and validation of a measure of social comparison orientation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 129–142.Gibbons, F.X., & Gerrard, M. (1995). Predicting young adults’ health-risk behavior. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 505–517.

Gibbons, F.X., & Gerrard, M. (1997). Health images and their effects on health behaviour.

In B.P. Buunk, & F.X. Gibbons (Eds.), Health, coping, and well-being: Perspectives from

social comparison theory (pp. 63–94). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., & Boney-McCoy, S.B. (1995). Prototype perception pre-

dicts (lack of ) pregnancy prevention. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,

85–93.Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., & Lane, D.J. (2002). A social-reaction model of adolescent

health risk. In J.M. Suls, & K.A. Wallston (Eds.), The handbook of social-health

psychology. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., Blanton, H., & Russell, D.W. (1998a). Reasoned action and

social reaction: Willingness and intention as independent predictors of health risk. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1164–1180.

Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., & Lane, D.J. (2003). A social-reaction model of adolescent

health risk. In J.M. Suls & K.A. Wallston (Eds.) The handbook of social-health psychology.

Oxford: Blackwell.Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., Ouelette, J., & Burzette, B. (1998b). Cognitive antecedents to

adolescent health risk: Discriminating between behavioral intention and behavioral

willingness. Psychology and Health, 13, 319–340.Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the big five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–42.Hagger, M.S., & Chatzisarantis, N.L.D. (2006). Self-identity and the theory of planned

behaviour: Between- and within-participant analyses. British Journal of Social Psychology,

45, 731–757.

Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D.W., Bonetti, D., Wareham, N., & Kinmouth, A.L.

(2002). Application of the theory of planned behaviour in behaviour change interventions:

A systematic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 123–158.Locke, E.A., & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal-setting and task performance.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.McCrae, R.R., & Costa, P.T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guildford.Mischela, J.L. (1990). Within-person correlational design and analysis. In C. Hendrick, &

M.S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods and personality and social psychology (pp. 279–311).

London: Sage Publications.

Mosbach, P., & Leventhal, H. (1988). Peer-group identification and smoking: Implications for

intervention. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 97, 238–245.Niedenthal, P.M., Cantor, N., & Kihlstrom, J.F. (1985). Prototype matching: A strategy for

social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 575–584.Norman, P., & Conner, M. (2005). Predicting and changing behaviour: Future directions.

In M. Conner, & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice

with social cognition models (2nd ed., pp. 324–371). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University

Press.

1140 A. Rivis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

Norman, P., Armitage, C.J., & Quigley, C. (2007). The theory of planned behavior and binge

drinking: Assessing the impact of binge drinker prototypes. Addictive Behaviors, 32,

1753–1768.

Norman, P., Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (2003). Does state versus action orientation moderate

intention-behaviour relations? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 536–553.Norman, P., Sheeran, P., & Rivis, A. (2009). Habitual versus intentional control of social

behavior: The role of person type. Under revision.Ouellette, J.A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple

processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124,

57–74.Ouellette, J.A., Hessling, R., Gibbons, F.X., Reis-Bergan, M., & Gerrard, M. (2005). Using

images to increase exercise behavior: Prototypes versus possible selves. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 610–620.Pennebaker, J.W. (2005, September). Two decades of expressive writing and health: The

current state of the field. Keynote address presented at the European Health Psychology

Society Conference, Galway, Ireland.Petty, R.E., Haugtvedt, C.P., & Smith, S.M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude

strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior.

In R.E. Petty, & J.A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences

(pp. 93–130). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Rhodes, R.E., Courneya, K.S., & Hayduk, L.A. (2002). Does personality moderate the theory

of planned behavior in the exercise domain? Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24,

120–132.Rhodes, R.E., Courneya, K.S., & Jones, L.W. (2003). Translating exercise intentions

into behaviour: Personality and social cognitive correlates. Journal of Health Psychology,

8, 447–458.Rivis, A. (2002). The role of social influences in young people’s health behaviour:

Descriptive norms and social images. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Sheffield,

Sheffield, UK.Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P. (2003). Social influences and the theory of planned behaviour:

Evidence for a direct relationship between prototypes and young people’s exercise

behaviour. Psychology & Health, 18, 567–583.Rivis, A., Sheeran, P., & Armitage, C.J. (2006). Augmenting the theory of planned behaviour

by the prototype/willingness model: Predictive validity of actor versus abstainer

prototypes for adolescents’ health protective and health risk intentions. British Journal

of Health Psychology, 11, 483–500.Rogers, C. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change:

A revised theory of protection motivation. In J.T. Cacioppo, & R.E. Petty (Eds.), Social

psychophysiology: A source book (pp. 153–176). New York: Guilford Press.

Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper, & V.L. Hedges (Eds.),

The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D.B. (1982). A simple, general-purpose display of magnitude of

experimental effect. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 166–169.Saucier, G. (1998). Replicable item-cluster subcomponents in the NEO Five-Factor Inventory.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, 263–276.Schofield, P.E., Pattison, P.E., Hill, D.J., & Borland, R. (2003). Youth culture and smoking:

Integrating social group processes and individual cognitive processes in a model of health-

related behaviours. Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 291–306.Setterlund, M.B., & Niedenthal, P.M. (1993). ‘‘Who am I? Why am I here?’’; Self-esteem, self-

clarity, and prototype-matching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 769–780.Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review.

In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 12,

pp. 1–36). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Psychology and Health 1141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012

Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1998). Do intentions predict condom use? Meta-analysis andexamination of six moderator variables. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 231–250.

Sheeran, P., Trafimow, D., Finlay, K.A., & Norman, P. (2002). Evidence that the typeof person affects the strength of the perceived behaviour control-intention relationship.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 253–270.Sneed, C.D. (2007). Correlates and implications for agreeableness in children. Journal of

Psychology, 136, 59–67.

Snyder, M. (1974). The self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 30, 526–537.

Stephens, T., Jacobs, D.R., & White, C. (1985). A descriptive epidemiology of leisure-time

physical activity. Public Health Reports, 100, 147–158.Sussman, S., Dent, C.W., Stacy, A.W., Burciaga, A.R., Turner, G.E., Charlin, V., et al.

(1990). Peer group association and adolescent tobacco use. Journal of Abnormal

Psychology, 99, 349–352.Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing?

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1317–1338.Tedeschi, J.T., & Norman, N.M. (1985). Social power, self-presentation, and the self.

In B.R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self and social life. New York: McGraw-Hill.Trafimow, D. (2004). Problems with change in R2 as applied to theory of reasoned action

research. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 515–530.

Trafimow, D., & Finlay, K.A. (1996). The importance of subjective norms for a minority ofpeople: Between-subjects and within-subjects analyses. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 22, 820–828.

Triandis, H.C. (1980). Values, attitudes and interpersonal behaviour. In M.M. Page (Ed.),Nebraska symposium on motivation 1979 (pp. 195–259). Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress.

Verkooijen, K.T., de Vries, N.K., & Nielsen, G.A. (2007). Youth crowds and substance use:

The impact of perceived group norm and multiple group identification. Psychology ofAddictive Behaviors, 21, 55–61.

Webb, T.L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior

change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132,249–268.

Webb, T.L., & Sheeran, P. (2005). Integrating concepts from goal theories to understand the

achievement of personal goals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 69–96.

1142 A. Rivis et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Sh

effi

eld]

at 0

0:42

02

Mar

ch 2

012