↓ Skip to main content

Understanding action control of daily walking behavior among dog owners: a community survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Understanding action control of daily walking behavior among dog owners: a community survey
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3814-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan E. Rhodes, Clarise Lim

Abstract

Walking among dog owners may be a means to achieve health benefits, yet almost half of owners (approximately 30% of households) are not regularly walking their dogs. Current research on the correlates of dog walking has generally considered intention as the primary determinant of behavior, yet the intention-behavior relationship is modest. The purpose of this paper was to apply a framework designed to evaluate the intention-behavior gap, known as multi-process action control (M-PAC), to understand daily walking among dog owners. A community sample of adult dog owners (N = 227) in Victoria, Canada completed M-PAC measures of motivational (dog and human outcome expectations, affective judgments, perceived capability and opportunity), regulatory (planning), and reflexive (automaticity, identity) processes as well as intention to walk and behavior. Three intention-behavior profiles emerged: a) non-intenders who were not active (26%; n = 59), b) unsuccessful intenders who failed to enact their positive intentions (33%; n = 75), and c) successful intenders who were active (40%; n = 91). Congruent with M-PAC, a discriminant function analysis showed that affective judgements (r = 0.33), automaticity (r = 0.38), and planning (r = 0.33) distinguished between all three intention-behavior profiles, while identity (r = 0.22) and dog breed size (r = 0.28) differentiated between successful and unsuccessful intenders. The majority of dog owners have positive intentions to walk, yet almost half fail to meet these intentions. Interventions focused on affective judgments (e.g., more enjoyable places to walk), behavioral regulation (e.g., setting a concrete plan), habit (e.g., making routines and cues) and identity formation (e.g., affirmations of commitment) may help overcome difficulties with translating these intentions into action, thus increasing overall levels of walking.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 4 5%
Other 3 4%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 34 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 12%
Sports and Recreations 9 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 36 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 November 2016.
All research outputs
#8,247,976
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,152
of 17,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,593
of 288,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#87
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,754 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.