University of Hertfordshire

From the same journal

By the same authors

View graph of relations
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages19
JournalPsychology and Health
Early online date14 May 2020
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 14 May 2020

Abstract

Objective: In relation to sitting behaviour, to investigate which theoretical domains best formed the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation constructs of the COM-B, and compare the predictive validity to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), taking habit strength into consideration. Design: Using a prospective design, 186 adults completed measures capturing domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework for the three COM-B constructs, and habit strength, which were examined using a formative measurement model. Predictive validity was then compared to the TPB.Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported sitting behaviour. Results: Self-monitoring (behavioural regulation domain) formed Capability; subjective norm (social influences domain) formed Opportunity; intention (intentions domain), positive affect (emotion domain), and perceived behavioural control (beliefs about capabilities domain), formed Motivation. The COM-B strongly predicted sitting behaviour (27% variance explained), with Capability, Opportunity, and habit strength as key drivers. The TPB explained a large amount of variance (23%) in sitting behaviour, with intention and habit strength as key drivers. Conclusions: The behavioural regulation domain of Capability, the social influences domain of Opportunity, and habit strength were important drivers of sitting behaviour, with comparable variance predicted in the COM-B and TPB. Future research should consider this approach to conceptualise the COM-B for specific populations and behaviours.

Notes

© 2020 Taylor & Francis. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Psychology & Health on 14 May 2020, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2020.1763994.

ID: 18852532