Premium
The protection motivation theory within the stages of the transtheoretical model – Stage‐specific interplay of variables and prediction of exercise stage transitions
Author(s) -
Lippke Sonia,
Plotnikoff Ronald C.
Publication year - 2009
Publication title -
british journal of health psychology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.05
H-Index - 88
eISSN - 2044-8287
pISSN - 1359-107X
DOI - 10.1348/135910708x399906
Subject(s) - transtheoretical model , psychology , stage (stratigraphy) , moderation , stage theory , logistic regression , structural equation modeling , social psychology , mediation , variance (accounting) , developmental psychology , statistics , behavior change , mathematics , paleontology , accounting , political science , law , business , biology
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.