↓ Skip to main content

The theory of planned behaviour and discrete food choices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Readers on

mendeley
478 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
The theory of planned behaviour and discrete food choices: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12966-015-0324-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Máirtín S. McDermott, Madalyn Oliver, Alexander Svenson, Thomas Simnadis, Eleanor J. Beck, Tim Coltman, Don Iverson, Peter Caputi, Rajeev Sharma

Abstract

The combination of economic and social costs associated with non-communicable diseases provide a compelling argument for developing strategies that can influence modifiable risk factors, such as discrete food choices. Models of behaviour, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) provide conceptual order that allows program designers and policy makers to identify the substantive elements that drive behaviour and design effective interventions. The primary aim of the current review was to examine the association between TPB variables and discrete food choice behaviours. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant studies. Calculation of the pooled mean effect size (r + ) was conducted using inverse-variance weighted, random effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity across studies was assessed using the Q- and I(2)-statistics. Meta-regression was used to test the impact of moderator variables: type of food choice behaviour; participants' age and gender. A total of 42 journal articles and four unpublished dissertations met the inclusion criteria. TPB variables were found to have medium to large associations with both intention and behaviour. Attitudes had the strongest association with intention (r +  = 0.54) followed by perceived behavioural control (PBC, r +  = 0.42) and subjective norm (SN, r +  = 0.37). The association between intention and behaviour was r +  = 0.45 and between PBC and behaviour was r +  = 0.27. Moderator analyses revealed the complex nature of dietary behaviour and the factors that underpin individual food choices. Significantly higher PBC-behaviour associations were found for choosing health compromising compared to health promoting foods. Significantly higher intention-behaviour and PBC-behaviour associations were found for choosing health promoting foods compared to avoiding health compromising foods. Participant characteristics were also found to moderate associations within the model. Higher intention-behaviour associations were found for older, compared to younger age groups. The variability in the association of the TPB with different food choice behaviours uncovered by the moderator analyses strongly suggest that researchers should carefully consider the nature of the behaviour being exhibited prior to selecting a theory.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 475 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 71 15%
Student > Bachelor 58 12%
Researcher 36 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 5%
Other 66 14%
Unknown 140 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 12%
Social Sciences 57 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 56 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 6%
Other 88 18%
Unknown 157 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 22 September 2017.
All research outputs
#3,183,460
of 25,047,899 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,070
of 2,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,373
of 405,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#33
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,047,899 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,089 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.9. 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 405,289 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.