the importance of affective beliefs and attitudes in the ... · the importance of affective beliefs...

1824

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2005 35 9 pp 1824-1848Copyright copy 2005 by V H Winston amp Son Inc All rights reserved

The Importance of Affective Beliefs and Attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behavior

Predicting Intention to Increase Physical Activity1

DAVID P FRENCH2 STEPHEN SUTTON SUSIE J HENNINGSJO MITCHELL NICHOLAS J WAREHAM SIMON GRIFFIN

WENDY HARDEMAN AND ANN LOUISE KINMONTHDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care

University of CambridgeCambridge United Kingdom

Standard theory of planned behavior (TPB) questions to elicit salient behavioral beliefsmay elicit instrumental consequences of behavior and overlook affective consequencesTwo hundred thirteen English adults (35 to 75 years of age) completed a questionnaire thatcontained closed measures of TPB constructs and open-ended questions that asked notonly about advantages and disadvantages but also what respondents would like or enjoyand dislike or hate about being more physically active Beliefs elicited by affective ques-tions were associated more strongly with a closed affective attitude scale Beliefs elicitedby instrumental questions were associated more strongly with a closed instrumental atti-tude scale Closed measures of the standard TPB variables explained 48 of the variancein intention to increase physical activity while affective attitude explained an additional11 of the variance Applications of the TPB should consider affective and not just instru-mental determinants of behavior

The most active areas of attitude research over the past two decades haveinvolved the theory of reasoned action (TRA Ajzen amp Fishbein 1975 Fishbeinamp Ajzen 1980) and its extension the theory of planned behavior (TPB Ajzen1988 1991) One reason for this is the parsimony of these theories According tothe TRA behavior is predicted solely by intention to perform that behavior Inturn intention is predicted by attitude toward the behavior and subjective normThe TPB added the construct of perceived behavioral control to the TRA as apredictor of both intention and behavior itself In a variety of settings it has beenshown repeatedly that the TPB is successful at predicting not only intention to

1David French was a Welcome Trust Training Fellow in Health Services Research (reference060634Z00Z) while this work was being conducted

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David P French School of Sportand Exercise Sciences University of Birmingham Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2TT UnitedKingdom E-mail DPFrench1bhamacuk

PREDICTING INTENTION TO INCREASE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY 1825

perform a variety of behaviors but also whether or not those behaviors are per-formed (Armitage amp Conner 2001 Sutton 1998)

In both the TRA and TPB the processes by which attitudes and behavior arerelated are specified clearly According to the TRA and TPB salient behavioralbeliefs in combination with outcome evaluations are hypothesized to lead to atti-tude which in turn leads to intention to perform a behavior and on to behavioritself Numerous authors have argued that the relationships between these con-structs as both measured and modeled do not focus sufficiently on the affectiveaspects of making a decision (eg Crites Fabrigar amp Petty 1994 Manstead ampParker 1995 van der Pligt Zeelenberg van Dijk de Vries amp Richard 1998Zanna amp Rempel 1988) The affective component of attitude refers to emotionsand drives engendered by the prospect of performing a behavior This is in con-trast to the instrumental component of attitude which refers to a more cognitiveconsideration of the extent to which performing a behavior would be advanta-geous (eg Breckler amp Wiggins 1989)

One response to these observations has been to include measures of antici-pated affect (ie what respondents would expect to feel about the consequencesof a behavior) as predictors of intention (eg Parker Manstead amp Stradling1995 Richard de Vries amp van der Pligt 1998 Sheeran amp Orbell 1999) Gener-ally these measures have improved the prediction of intention beyond that ofstandard TPB variables (for a review see Conner amp Armitage 1998) Further-more an intervention designed to influence anticipated regret with respect tospeeding in residential areas has shown some promise by altering both antici-pated regret and attitude (Parker Stradling amp Manstead 1996) Howeveralthough this research is potentially valuable in its own right the logical implica-tion of research on anticipated emotion is to add another construct to the TPBreducing its parsimony

An alternative approach is to examine anticipatory affect (ie how respon-dents feel about performing the behavior not how they feel about the likely con-sequences of that behavior Loewenstein Weber Hsee amp Welch 2001) Thusone could ask respondents how they feel about eating chocolate or drinkingalcohol (anticipatory emotion) or how they would feel about the likely conse-quences of these behaviors (anticipated emotion) In the present study we exam-ine anticipatory emotion specifically the more affective aspects of behavioralbeliefs and attitude itself in addition to the more instrumental aspects of theseconstructs usually examined

In our view the concept of anticipatory affect shares fewer similarities withthe instrumental elements of the TRA and TPB than does anticipated affectThe concept of anticipatory affect refers to the emotion associated with theperformance of a behavior whereas anticipated affect refers to the feelings asso-ciated with the consequences of a behavior in the same way that instrumentalattitude refers to the appraisal of how advantageous would be the consequences

1826 FRENCH ET AL

of a behavior To date two lines of research have attempted to explore empiri-cally these anticipatory components of attitude in the context of the TRA andTPB

First the questions used to elicit behavioral beliefs have been varied in termsof their affective versus instrumental focus The authors of the TRA have pro-vided clear guidance on how to elicit behavioral beliefs Respondents are askedwhat they think would be the advantages and disadvantages of performing thebehavior of interest (Ajzen amp Fishbein 1980) In research investigating moreaffective behavioral beliefs respondents were asked also what they would like orenjoydislike or hate about the behavior

To our knowledge two studies to date have examined the responses obtainedto these two types of question in relation to mountain climbing and boating(Ajzen amp Driver 1991) and driving violations (Manstead amp Parker 1995) Bothstudies noted that responses to questions concerning advantagesdisadvantagescontain some overlap with responses to questions about what respondents wouldlikedislike but also marked differences These differences are crucial becauseonly the advantagesdisadvantages questions are usually used to elicit salientbeliefs By not including the more affective questions TPB studies may be fail-ing to identify a number of salient beliefs with potentially unfortunate conse-quences for prediction and intervention

The second line of research into the distinction between affective and instru-mental components of attitude in the TRA and TPB has developed more affectivemeasures of attitude and examined whether they lead to better prediction ofintention and behavior alongside more traditional measures of attitude Theauthors of the TRA again are explicit in how to assess attitudes toward a behav-ior Respondents complete a series of semantic-differential items indicating theextent to which they think that performing the behavior would be goodbad wisefoolish and harmfulbeneficial (Ajzen amp Fishbein 1980) In research investi-gating more affective attitudes respondents were asked also to complete othersemantic-differential items with more affective endpoints such as boringinteresting and unenjoyableenjoyable

To our knowledge six studies have examined the increase in prediction ofthese affective attitude scales in comparison with more traditional instrumentalattitude scales The first study investigated the association of these two types ofscales with a self-report measure that aggregated several health behaviors (Ajzenamp Timko 1986) The other studies examined whether measures of affective atti-tude lead to better prediction of intention to exercise in diverse populations(Godin 1987 Lowe Eves amp Carroll 2002 Valois Desharnais amp Godin 1988)or to engage in five leisure activities spending time at the beach jogging or run-ning mountain climbing boating and biking (Ajzen amp Driver 1992)

More recently a series of studies examined the relative capacity of instru-mental and affective attitudes to predict a diverse range of behaviors (Trafimow


et al 2004) Across these studies as a whole the measures of affective attitudewere more predictive than were measures of instrumental attitude Of particularrelevance to the present study in all the exercise studies measures of affectiveattitude were related more strongly to intention to exercise in the future than weremeasures of instrumental attitude Furthermore in one of these studies measuresof affective attitude were related more strongly to self-reported exercise behaviorat 6-month follow-up than were measures of instrumental attitude (Lowe et al2002) These findings are also critical To the extent that there is a lack of focuson measuring affective aspects of attitude the predictive capacity of the TPB islikely to be underestimated

Related to this strategy is the approach taken by several authors of factor-analyzing responses to semantic-differential items to examine whether the itemsgroup into affective and instrumental factors (eg Ajzen amp Driver 1992Breckler amp Wiggins 1989 Crites et al 1994 Trafimow amp Sheeran 1998) Ifaffective and instrumental components of attitude were genuinely distinct onewould expect them to form different factors Before attempting to predict inten-tion using measures of instrumental and affective attitudes it seems prudent toestablish first that factor-analytic techniques can distinguish between items thatare supposed to reflect each of the components

In summary to date there have been two types of studies that have examinedthe distinction between affective and instrumental attitudes The first type ofstudy has shown that different sets of beliefs are elicited by asking respondentswhat they would like or dislike about an activity as opposed to asking respon-dents what they think would be the advantages or disadvantages The second typeof study has shown that measures of affective attitudes are often more predictiveof intention than are measures of instrumental attitude However no study to datehas examined the relationship between the affective and instrumental beliefs elic-ited by the two types of open-ended question and the closed measures of affectiveand instrumental attitude The present study aims to examine these relationshipswith the overall aim of integrating the two lines of research in the context ofbeing more physically active over the next 12 months

Several meta-analyses have shown that the TPB is a good predictor of bothintention to exercise and also exercising itself (Blue 1995 Godin amp Kok 1996Hagger Chatzisarantis amp Biddle 2002 Hausenblas Carron amp Mack 1997)Prediction of both intention and behavior itself was above average for exercisingbehavior in comparison with a variety of other health-related behaviors (Godinamp Kok 1996) Based on 23 studies a weighted average correlation of 52 wasfound between attitude and intention almost twice that of the correlationbetween subjective norm and intention (r = 27) based on the same number ofstudies (Hausenblas et al 1997) However given the preceding discussion itwould appear that incorporating a more affective measure of attitude shouldresult in increased prediction (Lowe et al 2002 Valois et al 1988)

1828 FRENCH ET AL

Aims and Predictions

The overall aim of the present study is to examine the extent to which there isa matching of responses to the affective and instrumental beliefs elicited by thetwo types of open-ended question and the closed measures of affective andinstrumental attitude The following specific predictions are made

Prediction 1 The types of beliefs elicited by questions asking aboutthe affective and instrumental aspects of being more physicallyactive will not completely overlap whether positive (like or enjoyand advantages) or negative (dislike or hate and disadvantages)

Prediction 2 A model specifying instrumental and affective com-ponents of attitude should provide a better fit to the closed mea-sures of attitude than models specifying (a) only one generalattitude factor or (b) two components of attitude reflecting posi-tive and negative aspects of attitude

Prediction 3 For those types of beliefs that are elicited more oftenby one or the other of the open-ended questions about being moreactive there will be an association between whether or not eitheropen-ended question elicited that type of belief and scores on thematching closed measure of attitude

Prediction 4 The overall numbers of responses to open-endedquestions and ratings on closed questions will be associated morestrongly for matched questions (ie where they both concerneither instrumental or affective aspects of being more active) thanfor nonmatched questions

Prediction 5 In line with previous research a closed measure ofaffective attitudes will be related more strongly to intention andwill add to the prediction of intention over and above the standardTPB variables

Method

Participants and Procedure

The sample was drawn from two population-based sampling frames in ElyCambridgeshire United Kingdom The participants were invited by letter toattend the Ely Research Center between December 1999 and October 2000 for a


series of tests to measure energy expenditure fitness and glucose tolerance(Wareham Hennings Prentice amp Day 1997 Wareham Wong amp Day 2000)

A subsample of 243 people who attended the research center consecutivelywere asked to complete a questionnaire titled ldquoAttitudes to Physical Activityrdquowhich was given to them by a research nurse to complete in her presence atthe end of the testing session Of these 243 people 213 (877) completedthe questionnaire 12 were unable or unwilling to complete the tests (includingthe questionnaire) 3 people completed the tests but refused to complete thequestionnaire and 15 were excluded from the exercise component for healthreasons

The 213 participants (95 male 115 female 3 did not report gender) ranged inage from 35 to 75 years (M = 515 years SD = 104) The breakdown by socioeco-nomic group was as follows professional = 61 managers and executives =225 other nonmanual = 268 skilled manual = 216 semi-skilled manual =99 unskilled manual = 89 armed forces = 14 and missing = 28 Par-ticipants and nonparticipants did not differ significantly on these variables

Materials and Coding

An introductory paragraph on the questionnaire explained that being morephysically active means doing anything that makes you more active for examplewalking faster or further than you do now walking or cycling instead of takingthe car climbing the stairs more often doing more gardening or do-it-yourselfThe open-ended questions were presented at the beginning of the questionnaire

The advantagesdisadvantages questions were based on those recommendedby Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) and the likeenjoy and dislikehate questions onthose used by Ajzen and Driver (1991) Each question was followed by five lines(numbered 1 to 5) for participants to write in their responses The order of theinstrumental and affective questions was balanced For approximately half of theparticipants the advantages and disadvantages questions appeared first in thequestionnaire while for the other half the likeenjoy and dislikehate questionswere placed at the beginning

The first 27 questionnaires were used to develop the coding frame for eachquestion The same coding frame was used for the likeenjoy and advantagesquestions Similarly identical coding frames were used for the dislikehate anddisadvantages questions Using these frames the remaining 186 questionnaireswere coded independently by two researchers Cohenrsquos kappa indicates reason-able agreement advantages κ = 72 like or enjoy κ = 68 disadvantages κ =73 dislike or hate κ = 75

These questions to elicit behavioral beliefs were followed by four more ques-tions designed to elicit positive and negative normative beliefs and controlbeliefs which are not reported here (Sutton et al 2003) There then followed a

1830 FRENCH ET AL

series of closed questions (two per construct) one of which was negativelyphrased (with the exception of the intention items) Responses were rated on a5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) The itemsalong with the Pearson correlations between each pair of items as well as theCronbachrsquos alpha for each scale are presented in Table 1

Results

Prediction 1 Behavioral Beliefs Elicited by Different Questions

Overall the 213 respondents who completed the questionnaires produced 449responses to the advantages question with a mean of 211 beliefs (SD = 140) perperson However the likeenjoy question elicited 397 responses with a mean of186 beliefs (SD = 151) per person The difference between these two totals wasstatistically significant t(212) = 252 p lt 05

The number of people who reported different categories of beliefs is pre-sented in Table 2 according to whether they were in response to questions aboutadvantages or likeenjoy Differential responses to these questions were assessedby comparing the proportion of participants who gave one or more responses ineach coding category using the test recommended by Newcombe and Altman(2000) for paired samples Thus the question concerning the advantages of beingmore active was more likely to elicit responses concerning better appearanceincluding weight control (p lt 01) better sleepingappetiteless specific physicalsymptoms (p lt 01) a general increase in fitnessstaminacapacity (p lt 01) anda general improvement in health (p lt 01) By contrast the question concerningwhat respondents would likeenjoy about being more active was more likely toelicit responses concerning intrinsically enjoyable activities (p lt 01)

The respondents produced 159 responses to the disadvantages question witha mean of 075 beliefs (SD = 102) per person whereas the dislikehate questionelicited 141 responses with a mean of 066 beliefs (SD = 087) per person Thisdifference was not statistically significant

The number of people who reported different categories of beliefs is shown inTable 3 according to whether they were in response to questions about disadvan-tages or dislikehate Again the test recommended by Newcombe and Altman(2000) for paired samples was used to assess differential responding Thus thequestion concerning the disadvantages of being more physically active was morelikely to elicit responses concerning a physical inabilitystrain or injuries (p lt01) By contrast the question concerning what respondents would dislikehateabout being more active was more likely to elicit responses concerning generallynot liking it or specific associated sensations such as feeling hot and sweaty orcold and wet (p lt 01) that being more active would be boring or a chore (p lt05) or no response (p lt 01)


Table 1

Closed TPB Questions Used in the Current Study Showing Scales Formed and Associated Means Cronbachrsquos Alphas and Pearson Correlation Coefficients

Scale and associated items

Scale statistics

M SD α r

Instrumental attitudes 827 129 48 -32Q5 For me being more physically active in

the next 12 months would be harmful (R)Q10 Being more physically active in the next

12 months would be good for meAffective attitudes 756 155 62 -45

Q3 For me being more physically active in the next 12 months would be enjoyable

Q8 For me being more physically active in the next 12 months would be boring (R)

Subjective norm 752 168 73 -58Q1 Most people who are important to me

would want me to be more physically active in the next 12 months

Q9 Most people whose views I value would disapprove if I was more physically active in the next 12 months (R)

Perceived behavioral control 717 160 62 -46Q4 I am confident I could be more physically

active in the next 12 months if I wanted to

Q7 It would be difficult for me to be more physically active in the next 12 months even if I wanted to (R)

Intention 681 178 85 74Q2 I intend to be more physically active in the

next 12 monthsQ6 It is likely that I will be more physically

active in the next 12 months

Note TPB = theory of planned behavior (R) = reverse scored All scales were formedby adding two items with five response options (resulting in scale range from 2 to 10)

1832 FRENCH ET AL

Prediction 2 Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Closed Measures of Instrumental and Affective Attitudes

A series of confirmatory factor analyses was conducted on the twoclosed items designed to assess instrumental attitudes along with the two closeditems designed to assess affective attitudes The aim was to establish whethermodels specifying one or two factors provided a better fit Both of the two-factormodels were nested within the single-factor model allowing a comparison of therelative fit of the two-factor models compared with the single-factor modelCovariance matrices were used for these analyses with maximum likelihoodestimation This study followed the recommended practice of using the chi-square statistic in conjunction with several other fit indexes (Hu amp Bentler1995)

Table 2

Number of Participants Who Gave Responses in Each Category for the Advantages and LikeEnjoy Questions

Category

Advantages Likeenjoy

n n

A Would do intrinsically enjoyable activities 15 70 52 244B Better appearanceweight control 85 399 55 258C General increase fitnessstaminacapacity 95 446 65 305D Improved ability for specific intrinsic

activities (eg work) 8 38 6 28E Improve health (not otherwise specified) 47 221 22 103F Feeling better 38 178 38 178G More mentally alert 9 42 4 19H Social and family aspects 11 52 18 85I Better sleepingappetiteless specific physical

symptoms 31 146 9 42J Feeling of achievement 2 09 2 09X Other unclassifiable miscellaneous 51 239 48 225Y None nothing canrsquot think of anything

already doing enough exercise 29 136 35 164Z Missing 1 05 4 19

p lt 01


A one-factor model provided a very poor fit to these data χ2(2 N = 209) =2251 p = 00001 (TLI = 62 CFI = 87 RMSEA = 22) A two-factor modelspecifying factors comprising positive items (ie good enjoyable) and negativeitems (ie harmful boring) provided a significant improvement in terms of thechi-square test χ2(1 N = 209) = 450 p = 034 However it still provided a verypoor fit to these data χ2(1 N = 209) = 1801 p = 00002 (TLI = 38 CFI = 90RMSEA = 29) with the TLI and RMSEA indicating worse fit A two-factormodel specifying factors comprising instrumental items (ie good harmful) andaffective items (ie enjoyable boring) showed a highly significant improvementover the one-factor model in terms of the chi-square test χ2(1 N = 209) = 1581p = 00007 Despite this improvement in fit there was still a significant lack of fitof the instrumentalaffective two-factor model to the data χ2(1 N = 209) = 670p = 01 (TLI = 79 CFI = 97 RMSEA = 17) Nevertheless a model comprisinginstrumental and affective attitude factors still provided the best fit to these databy a considerable margin

Table 3

Number of Participants Who Gave Responses in Each Category for the Disadvantages and DislikeHate Questions

Category

Disadvantages Dislikehate

n n

ATime consuming 46 216 38 178B Difficult to fit into routine 1 05 2 09C Donrsquot like itdonrsquot like feeling hot

sweaty cold wet etc 1 05 22 103D Tiringless rest 14 66 10 47E Motivationeffort 5 23 7 33F Boringchore 2 09 9 42G Impaired work performance 2 09 0 00H Physical inabilitystrain or injuries 28 131 12 56I Staying overweightgaining more weight 4 19 1 05J Moneymaterial resources 4 19 3 14X Other unclassifiable miscellaneous 30 141 32 150Y None nothing canrsquot think of anything


p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL

Prediction 3 Relationship Between Beliefs Elicited and Closed Measures of Instrumental and Affective Attitudes

For each category of behavioral belief independent-sample t tests wereemployed to examine the differences in means between those who reported sucha belief and those who did not on ratings of closed measures of instrumentalattitudes and affective attitudes (Tables 4 and 5) It was predicted that those cate-gories of beliefs that are elicited more often by questions about what respondentswould like or enjoy about being more active than about the advantages would beassociated more strongly with closed measures of affective attitudes than instru-mental attitudes The only category in which the question about what respondentswould like or enjoy elicited more beliefs was that concerning intrinsically enjoy-able activities Consistent with predictions those respondents who reported suchbeliefs had significantly higher affective attitudes than did those respondents whodid not report such beliefs Furthermore there was no relationship with instru-mental attitudes

A similar prediction was made concerning the advantages question beingmore strongly associated with closed measures of instrumental attitudes thanaffective attitudes There were four categories in which the question about advan-tages elicited more beliefs concerning (a) better appearance and weight control(b) fewer symptoms (c) fitness and (d) health Again consistent with predic-tions those respondents who reported beliefs about better appearance and weightcontrol and about fewer symptoms had significantly higher instrumental attitudesthan did those who did not report such beliefs while there was no relationshipbetween whether or not respondents reported such beliefs and affective attitudesInconsistent with predictions whether or not respondents reported beliefs aboutfitness and about health was associated with both instrumental and affective atti-tudes

It was predicted that those categories of beliefs that are elicited more often byquestions about the disadvantages of being more active than what respondentswould dislikehate would be associated more strongly with closed measures ofinstrumental attitudes than affective attitudes The only category in which thequestion about the disadvantages of being more active elicited more beliefs wasthat concerning the likelihood of injury or strains Consistent with predictionsthose respondents who reported such beliefs had significantly lower instrumentalattitudes than did those respondents who did not report such beliefs There wasno relationship between whether or not respondents reported such beliefs andaffective attitudes

There were two categories in which the question concerning what respon-dents would dislikehate about being more active elicited more beliefs beingboring and being intrinsically unenjoyable Again consistent with predictionsthose respondents who reported beliefs about an increase in physical activity

PREDICTING INTENTION TO INCREASE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY 1835Ta

ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)


being boring had significantly lower affective attitudes than did those respon-dents who did not report such beliefs There was no significant relationshipbetween whether or not respondents reported such beliefs and instrumental atti-tudes That this finding was consistent with predictions also might be explainedby the observation that one of the closed items assessing affective attitudes askedabout how boring respondents thought they would find being more physicallyactive Inconsistent with predictions there was no association between reportingbeliefs about an increase in activity being intrinsically unenjoyable and affectiveattitudes but there was an association with instrumental attitudes However thisassociation was positive Respondents who reported beliefs about an increase inactivity being intrinsically unenjoyable had higher instrumental attitudes

Overall then these predictions were supported Of the eight categories ofbeliefs that were elicited differentially by the affective and instrumental ques-tions in seven cases there was an association between whether either open-endedquestion elicited that belief and the matched closed measure of attitude How-ever of the eight categories in three cases there was also an association betweenwhether either open-ended question elicited that belief and the nonmatchedclosed measure of attitude In sum there was excellent evidence for the con-vergent validity of the affectivendashinstrumental distinction but only moderate evi-dence for the discriminant validity of this distinction

A further notable finding is that those individuals who generated specificbeliefs about the advantages of being more physically active or what they wouldlike or enjoy about it on average had higher scores on both closed measures ofattitude across most categories of beliefs On the other hand there was no suchconsistency between closed measures of instrumental and affective attitudes forthose who mentioned beliefs in response to either the disadvantages or dislikehate questions and those who did not For 8 of the 10 categories of negativebeliefs producing such beliefs was associated with higher scores on theinstrumental attitudes scale contrary to predictions By contrast higher affectiveattitude scores were obtained for those producing negative beliefs for only 2 ofthe 10 categories of negative beliefs That is there was a general trend for thosepeople indicating they had negative beliefs about being more physically active toscore higher on the instrumental attitudes measure contrary to predictions Suchpeople also tended to score lower on the affective attitudes measure consistentwith the predicted relationship between beliefs and attitudes

Prediction 4 Relationship Between Number of Beliefs Elicited and Closed Measures of Instrumental and Affective Attitudes

Pearson correlations were calculated between the number of beliefs elicited inresponse to each of the four open-ended questions (concerning advantagesdisadvantages likeenjoy and dislikehate) and the three closed measures of

1838 FRENCH ET AL

affective attitudes instrumental attitudes and the other standard TPB variables(Table 6) In all instances there was a significant positive association betweenthe four open-ended questions

The specific predictions made concerned the relationships between the open-ended questions and closed measures of affective and instrumental attitudes Theprediction that the number of beliefs generated in response to the advantages andlikeenjoy questions would be positively associated with the closed measures ofaffective and instrumental attitudes was supported uniformly All such correla-tion coefficients were positive and statistically significant

The prediction that responses to the matched pairs of questions (eg advan-tages question and instrumental attitudes scale) would more strongly associatedrelative to the associations between the nonmatched pairs of questions was notsupported Consistent with this prediction the number of beliefs elicited by theadvantages question was slightly more strongly associated with the instrumentalattitudes scale (r = 40) than the affective attitudes scale (r = 33) However thenumber of beliefs elicited by the likeenjoy scale was not more strongly associ-ated with the affective attitudes scale (r = 16) than the instrumental attitudesscale (r = 20)

The prediction that the number of beliefs generated in response to the disad-vantages and dislikehate questions would be negatively associated with theclosed measures of affective and instrumental attitudes was not supported Aspredicted the relationship between responses to the dislikehate question wassignificantly negatively associated with scores on the affective attitude scale (r =-15) All other associations between these negative open-ended questions andthe closed measures of affective and instrumental attitude were nonsignificant

Prediction 5 Prediction of Intention From Closed Measures of TPB Cognitions

A hierarchical regression analysis was used to predict intention with differentsets of variables entered on each of three steps (a) gender and age (b) instru-mental attitude subjective norm and perceived behavioral control and (c) affec-tive attitudes (Table 7) Demographic variables explained 9 of the variance inintention to be more physically active In particular age was significantly nega-tively correlated with intention such that younger adults were more likely toindicate that they were intending to be more physically active in the next yearStandard TPB variables explained an additional 39 of variance in intentionThe instrumental attitude measure was not significantly related to intention evenwhen just the standard TPB and demographic measures were entered into theregression equation Finally the measure of affective attitude explained a further11 of variance in intention to be more physically active above and beyond thestandard TPB and demographic measures


Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion

Although there was some overlap there were important differences in theresponses elicited by the advantages and likeenjoy questions Similarly althoughthere was some overlap there were important differences in the responses elic-ited by the disadvantages and dislikehate questions The categories of beliefselicited by the open-ended questions were differentially related to the closedmeasures of instrumental and affective attitudes generally in line with predic-tions Those categories of beliefs that were elicited more often by open-endedquestions about instrumental aspects of being more active were more stronglyassociated with closed measures of instrumental attitudes Those categories ofbeliefs that were elicited more often by open-ended questions about affectiveaspects were more strongly associated with closed measures of affective atti-tudes

For nearly all categories of beliefs the number of positive beliefs was posi-tively associated with both instrumental and affective attitudes whereas the num-ber of negative beliefs was positively associated with instrumental attitudes butnegatively associated with affective attitudes In common with previous findingsthe closed measure of instrumental attitudes did not explain any unique variancein intention to be more physically active but the closed measure of affective atti-tude explained an additional 11 of variance in intention Overall we believe

Table 7

Hierarchical Regression Analyses Showing Demographic and Cognitive Predictors of Intention to Be More Physically Active

Variable Adj R2R2

increase Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Step 1 Gender -01 06 06 Age 09 -31 -12 -13Step 2 Instrumental attitude 12 -01 Subjective norm 41 31 Perceived behavioral control 48 39 24 27Step 3 Affective attitude 59 11 39

p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001


our results support the validity of the instrumentalndashaffective distinction and showthat different beliefs can underlie the two kinds of attitude

Prediction 1 Different Behavioral Beliefs Elicited by Different Questions

In common with previous research examining the patterns of beliefs elicitedby more instrumental and more affective questions (Ajzen amp Driver 1991Manstead amp Parker 1995) there was some overlap between the beliefs elicitedby the two types of questions but some important differences The differences inthe present study have been reported in detail elsewhere (Sutton et al 2003) andso will not be discussed here Generally the number of beliefs elicited was low(M = 211 and 186 beliefs for the advantages and likeenjoy questions respec-tively) This probably can be attributed to respondent fatigue at the end of asomewhat lengthy testing session combined with the fact that this was an adultpopulation sample rather than the more usual student convenience samples

Prediction 2 Dimensionality of Closed Measures of Instrumental and Affective Attitudes

The data in the present study were much more consistent with a model con-taining both instrumental and affective attitudes than a model containing only asingle attitude factor which provided a very poor fit to the data This findingadds to the literature on factor-analytic approaches supporting this distinction(eg Breckler amp Wiggins 1989 Crites et al 1994 Trafimow amp Sheeran 1998)and particularly to the single study that used exploratory factor analysis toexplore this distinction in the context of the TPB (Ajzen amp Driver 1992) Thevalidity of this distinction is supported for the present data at least Therefore itis reasonable to explore the associations between the closed measures of instru-mental and affective attitudes and other measures

It should be noted however that the instrumental scale had low reliability andthis may have impacted on the results of this confirmatory factor analysis In futurework useful might be a better adjective anchor than good which may be somewhataffective In future research potential respondents could be asked to identifywithin a number of semantic-differential scales the adjectives that best describeaffective and instrumental dimensions Different adjectives may be needed toassess attitudes toward different behaviors correctly (Valois amp Godin 1991)


We predicted that those categories of beliefs that are elicited more often byopen-ended questions about instrumental aspects of being more active would beassociated more strongly with closed measures of instrumental attitudes We also

1842 FRENCH ET AL

predicted that those categories of beliefs that are elicited more often by open-ended questions about affective aspects would be associated more strongly withclosed measures of affective attitudes Both of these predictions were supportedThe evidence that instrumental and affective beliefs were associated with thematched measure of attitude was strong although the evidence that the two typesof beliefs were not associated with the nonmatched measure of attitude was lessclear That is there was good evidence for convergent validity between matchedbeliefs and attitudes and weaker evidence for discriminant validity Our findingsshow that it is possible to distinguish between the two types of attitude althoughthey are not completely separate

In sum there do appear to be differential relationships between affectivebeliefs and attitudes and between instrumental beliefs and attitudes providingfurther evidence of the validity of both the instrumentalndashaffective distinction andthe measurement techniques employed To our knowledge this is the first timethese differential relationships have been demonstrated which is an importanttheoretical finding Our findings also show that different beliefs appear to under-lie instrumental attitudes and affective attitudes which has practical implicationsfor prediction and intervention in the TRA and TPB For instance there is goodevidence that it is salient beliefs such as those elicited by the open-ended ques-tions used in the present study that are predictive of attitudes (Fishbein 1967van der Pligt de Vries Manstead amp van Harreveld 2000) However currentmethods of developing a TRA or TPB questionnaire using the recommendationsof Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) assess only salient instrumental behavioral beliefsTherefore they are likely to omit salient affective beliefs such as the intrinsicallyenjoyable or boring aspects of being more active that were elicited less frequentlyby the advantages and disadvantages questions employed in the present study Alikely consequence of this is that the current methods may be underestimating therelationship between behavioral beliefs and attitudes and also misidentifying thesalient behavioral beliefs underlying affective attitude


In addition to the relationships between the closed measures of attitude andspecific categories of beliefs just discussed there also were relationships foundbetween the overall number of beliefs elicited and the closed measures of atti-tude The more salient behavioral beliefs respondents could generate in responseto the advantages and likeenjoy questions the more positive were their attitudeswhether instrumental or affective This relationship held up even when each spe-cific category of beliefs was examined The more behavioral beliefs elicited foreach category of beliefs the more positive were the measures of instrumental andaffective attitudes However there was no evidence that the number of beliefs


differentially elicited by each question is important in distinguishing betweeninstrumental and affective attitudes Thus although the two questions eliciteddifferent patterns of beliefs and even different numbers of beliefs it is the overallnumber of positive beliefs elicited that is important in predicting respondentsrsquoinstrumental and affective attitudes irrespective of which question was used toelicit them

The picture is somewhat different when responses to the disadvantages anddislikehate questions are considered The more behavioral beliefs that respon-dents produced in response to the dislikehate question the lower their affectiveattitude although the degree of association was weak There was no relationshipbetween number of responses to the dislikehate question and instrumental atti-tude There was also no relationship between number of responses to the disad-vantages question and either instrumental or affective attitude In sum it appearsthat when respondents have salient negative behavioral beliefs about being morephysically active they have a generally less positive emotional response to theidea of being physically active although there is no relation with whether theygenerally consider it to be good for them

Put more simply the overwhelming majority of respondents seem to agreethat being more physically active would be good for them and can think ofspecific reasons why this might be the case These reasons could be more instru-mental (eg appearance) or more affective (eg intrinsically enjoyable) Conse-quently there is little apparent relationship between behavioral beliefs as elicitedby the advantages and likeenjoy questions Equally few respondents could thinkof specific reasons why being active might be bad for them again producing littlediscrimination between instrumental and affective attitudes However thoserespondents who could think of specific reasons why they did not want to bemore physically active although agreeing that being more active might be goodfor them appear to have had more negative affective reactions Thus the patternof results obtained might be largely a result of the behavior being studied Formost respondents being more active would be ldquoa good thingrdquo By contrast forthose respondents who could think of reasons why they might not enjoy it thethought of being more active elicits more negative affective evaluationsalthough they apparently do not think it would be any less of a good thing


The standard TPB variables in combination with demographic measuresexplained 48 of the variance in intention to be more physically active It isnotable that although instrumental attitude and intention correlated 55 (Table 6)and hence instrumental attitude explains 30 of the variance in intention itaccounts for no unique variance in a regression equation containing subjective

1844 FRENCH ET AL

norm and perceived behavioral control (Table 7) Furthermore the measure ofaffective attitude explains an additional 11 of the variance above and beyonddemographic and standard TPB variables

The reliability of the instrumental attitude scale in the present study is some-what low (α = 48) and is lower than the other scales used which are all at least62 (Table 1) This could be one explanation as to why instrumental attitude doesnot explain any unique variance in intention However the correlation coefficientfound in the present study between instrumental attitude and intention (r = 55) iscomparable to that generally found in studies of intention to exercise (r = 52Hausenblas et al 1997) Thus there is little reason to think that the pattern ofresults found in the present study can be explained by the measure of instrumen-tal attitudes being deficient

Furthermore the current study replicates previous studies (Ajzen amp Driver1992 Lowe et al 2002) in showing that affective attitude is a stronger predictorof intention to exercise than is instrumental attitude This suggests that in the areaof exercise and physical activity more generally affective attitudes and beliefs aregenuinely more important than instrumental attitudes and beliefs in the predictionof intention and in at least one study (Lowe et al 2002) behavior itself

Distinction Between Affective and Instrumental Attitudes

The present study has provided several lines of support for the distinctionbetween instrumental and affective attitudes and beliefs In common with previ-ous research it has shown that the standard TPB methodology is not sufficient inadequately eliciting affective behavioral beliefs and that affective attitudesexplain unique variance in intention above and beyond that explained by standardTPB variables It also provides evidence for the first time showing that behav-ioral beliefs elicited by more affective questions are generally related in mean-ingful ways to closed measures of instrumental and affective attitudes Despitethis a number of issues remain unclear

First many of the studies investigating instrumental versus affective attitudesand beliefs are concerned with physical activity This may be because of reasonsalready discussed that is most people think that exercise is good for them incontrast to whether or not people enjoy exercise (which is more variable) In thepresent study scores on the instrumental attitudes scale were much higher thanscores on the affective attitudes scale and the other standard TPB scales andthere was less variation in scores on the instrumental attitudes scale Futureresearch should examine the instrumentalndashaffective distinction with other behav-iors (eg Trafimow amp Sheeran 1998 Trafimow et al 2004) to assess the gener-alizability of the findings obtained here

Second the zero-order correlation between instrumental attitude andintention was of comparable size (r = 55) to that between affective attitude and


intention (r = 58) However affective attitude explained a considerable amountof unique variance in intention (Table 7) whereas this was not the case for instru-mental attitude This suggests that people distinguish more clearly between theaffective attitude construct and other TPB constructs than between instrumentalattitude and these other TPB constructs Inspection of the zero-order correlationsin Table 6 supports this view Future research should examine the reliability ofthis effect and what might be the reasons for the empirical overlap betweeninstrumental attitude and other TPB constructs

The present study in common with previous research showed that measuresof instrumental and affective attitudes load on different factors and are associateddifferentially with other constructs such as intention More compelling evidencewould be provided by experimental studies involving manipulations to differen-tially alter the two types of attitude and observing their effects on intention andbehavior It is not clear whether attempts to change attitudes will have a differen-tial impact on instrumental and affective attitudes Proposals for how this type ofevidence could be established have been made (Sutton 2002) Finally given thelarge amounts of research on anticipated emotions (eg regret Parker et al1995) some attempts should be made to integrate these separate literatures onanticipated emotions and anticipatory emotions studied here (Loewenstein et al2001)

References

Ajzen I (1988) Attitudes personality and behavior Milton Keynes UK OpenUniversity Press

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes 50 179-211

Ajzen I amp Driver B L (1991) Prediction of leisure participation from behav-ioral normative and control beliefs An application of the theory of plannedbehavior Leisure Sciences 13 185-204

Ajzen I amp Driver B L (1992) Application of the theory of planned behaviorto leisure choice Journal of Leisure Research 24 207-224

Ajzen I amp Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting socialbehavior Englewood Cliffs NJ Prentice-Hall

Ajzen I amp Timko C (1986) Correspondence between health attitudes andbehavior Basic and Applied Social Psychology 7 259-276

Armitage C J amp Conner M (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behav-ior A meta-analytic review British Journal of Social Psychology 40471-499

Blue C L (1995) The predictive capacity of the theory of reasoned action andthe theory of planned behavior in exercise research An integrated literaturereview Research in Nursing and Health 18 105-121

1846 FRENCH ET AL

Breckler S J amp Wiggins E C (1989) Affect versus evaluation in the structureof attitudes Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25 253-271

Conner M amp Armitage C J (1998) Extending the theory of planned behaviorA review and avenues for further research Journal of Applied Social Psy-chology 28 1429-1464

Crites S L Fabrigar L R amp Petty R E (1994) Measuring the affective andcognitive properties of attitudes Conceptual and methodological issues Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20 619-634

Fishbein M (1967) A consideration of beliefs and their role in attitude mea-surement In M Fishbein (Ed) Readings in attitude theory and measurement(pp 257-266) New York NY John Wiley amp Sons

Fishbein M amp Ajzen I (1975) Belief attitude intention and behaviorReading MA Addison-Wesley

Godin G (1987) Importance of the emotional aspect of attitude to predict inten-tion Psychological Reports 61 719-723

Godin G amp Kok G (1996) The theory of planned behavior A review of itsapplications to health-related behaviors American Journal of Health Promo-tion 11 87-98

Hagger M S Chatzisarantis N L D amp Biddle S J H (2002) A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviorin physical activity An examination of predictive validity and the contri-bution of additional variables Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 243-32

Hausenblas H A Carron A V amp Mack D E (1997) Application of the theo-ries of reasoned action and planned behavior to exercise behavior A meta-analysis Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 19 36-51

Hu L amp Bentler P M (1995) Evaluating model fit In R H Hoyle (Ed)Structural equation modeling Concepts issues and applications (pp 76-99)Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Loewenstein G F Weber E U Hsee C K amp Welch N (2001) Risk as feel-ings Psychological Bulletin 127 267-286

Lowe R Eves F amp Carroll D (2002) The influence of affective and instru-mental beliefs on exercise intentions and behavior A longitudinal analysisJournal of Applied Social Psychology 32 1241-1252

Manstead A S R amp Parker D (1995) Evaluating and extending the theory ofplanned behavior European Review of Social Psychology 6 69-95

Newcombe R G amp Altman D G (2000) Proportions and their differences InD G Altman D Machin T N Bryant amp M J Gardner (Eds) Statisticswith confidence (2nd ed pp 45-56) London UK BMJ Books

Parker D Manstead A S R amp Stradling S G (1995) Extending the theory ofplanned behaviour The role of personal norm British Journal of Social Psy-chology 34 127-137


Parker D Stradling S G amp Manstead A S R (1996) Modifying beliefs andattitudes to exceeding the speed limit An intervention study based onthe theory of planned behavior Journal of Applied Social Psychology 261-19

Richard R de Vries N K amp van der Pligt J (1998) Anticipated regret andprecautionary sexual behavior Journal of Applied Social Psychology 281411-1428

Sheeran P amp Orbell S (1999) Augmenting the theory of planned behaviorRoles for anticipated regret and descriptive norms Journal of Applied SocialPsychology 29 2107-2142

Sutton S (1998) Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior How wellare we doing Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 1317-1338

Sutton S (2002) Testing attitudendashbehavior theories using non-experimentaldata An examination of some hidden assumptions European Review ofSocial Psychology 13 293-323

Sutton S French D P Hennings S J Mitchell J Wareham N J Griffin Set al (2003) Elicting salient beliefs in research on the theory of plannedbehavior The effect of question wording Current Psychology Developmen-tal Learning Personality Social 22 229-246

Trafimow D amp Sheeran P (1998) Some tests of the distinction between cogni-tive and affective beliefs Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 34378-397

Trafimow D Sheeran P Lombardo B Finlay K A Brown J amp ArmitageC J (2004) Affective and cognitive control of persons and behavioursBritish Journal of Social Psychology 43 207-224

Valois P Desharnais R amp Godin G (1988) A comparison of the Fishbein andAjzen and the Triandis attitudinal models for the prediction of exercise inten-tion and behavior Journal of Behavioral Medicine 11 459-472

Valois P amp Godin G (1991) The importance of selecting appropriate adjectivepairs for measuring attitude based on the semantic differential method Qual-ity and Quantity 25 57-68

van der Pligt J de Vries N Manstead A S R amp van Harreveld F (2000)The importance of being selective Weighing the role of attribute importancein attitudinal judgment In M Zanna (Ed) Advances in experimental socialpsychology (Vol 32 pp 135-200) San Diego CA Academic Press

van der Pligt J Zeelenberg M van Dijk W W de Vries N K amp Richard R(1998) Affect attitudes and decisions Letrsquos be more specific EuropeanReview of Social Psychology 8 33-66

Wareham N J Hennings S J Prentice A M amp Day N E (1997) Feasibilityof heart-rate monitoring to estimate total level and pattern of energy expendi-ture in a population-based epidemiological study The Ely young cohort fea-sibility study 1994-1995 British Journal of Nutrition 78 889-900

1848 FRENCH ET AL

Wareham N J Wong M-Y amp Day N E (2000) Glucose intolerance andphysical inactivity The relative importance of low habitual energy expendi-ture and cardiorespiratory fitness American Journal of Epidemiology 152132-139

Zanna M P amp Rempel J K (1988) Attitudes A new look at an old concept InD Bar-Tal amp A W Kruglanski (Eds) The social psychology of knowledge(pp 315-334) Cambridge UK Cambridge University Press


perform a variety of behaviors but also whether or not those behaviors are per-formed (Armitage amp Conner 2001 Sutton 1998)

In both the TRA and TPB the processes by which attitudes and behavior arerelated are specified clearly According to the TRA and TPB salient behavioralbeliefs in combination with outcome evaluations are hypothesized to lead to atti-tude which in turn leads to intention to perform a behavior and on to behavioritself Numerous authors have argued that the relationships between these con-structs as both measured and modeled do not focus sufficiently on the affectiveaspects of making a decision (eg Crites Fabrigar amp Petty 1994 Manstead ampParker 1995 van der Pligt Zeelenberg van Dijk de Vries amp Richard 1998Zanna amp Rempel 1988) The affective component of attitude refers to emotionsand drives engendered by the prospect of performing a behavior This is in con-trast to the instrumental component of attitude which refers to a more cognitiveconsideration of the extent to which performing a behavior would be advanta-geous (eg Breckler amp Wiggins 1989)

One response to these observations has been to include measures of antici-pated affect (ie what respondents would expect to feel about the consequencesof a behavior) as predictors of intention (eg Parker Manstead amp Stradling1995 Richard de Vries amp van der Pligt 1998 Sheeran amp Orbell 1999) Gener-ally these measures have improved the prediction of intention beyond that ofstandard TPB variables (for a review see Conner amp Armitage 1998) Further-more an intervention designed to influence anticipated regret with respect tospeeding in residential areas has shown some promise by altering both antici-pated regret and attitude (Parker Stradling amp Manstead 1996) Howeveralthough this research is potentially valuable in its own right the logical implica-tion of research on anticipated emotion is to add another construct to the TPBreducing its parsimony

An alternative approach is to examine anticipatory affect (ie how respon-dents feel about performing the behavior not how they feel about the likely con-sequences of that behavior Loewenstein Weber Hsee amp Welch 2001) Thusone could ask respondents how they feel about eating chocolate or drinkingalcohol (anticipatory emotion) or how they would feel about the likely conse-quences of these behaviors (anticipated emotion) In the present study we exam-ine anticipatory emotion specifically the more affective aspects of behavioralbeliefs and attitude itself in addition to the more instrumental aspects of theseconstructs usually examined

In our view the concept of anticipatory affect shares fewer similarities withthe instrumental elements of the TRA and TPB than does anticipated affectThe concept of anticipatory affect refers to the emotion associated with theperformance of a behavior whereas anticipated affect refers to the feelings asso-ciated with the consequences of a behavior in the same way that instrumentalattitude refers to the appraisal of how advantageous would be the consequences

1826 FRENCH ET AL












1828 FRENCH ET AL








Method












1830 FRENCH ET AL


Results







Table 1



Scale statistics

M SD α r
















1832 FRENCH ET AL



Table 2


Category


n n





p lt 01



Table 3


Category


n n




p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL



1826 FRENCH ET AL












1828 FRENCH ET AL








Method












1830 FRENCH ET AL


Results







Table 1



Scale statistics

M SD α r
















1832 FRENCH ET AL



Table 2


Category


n n





p lt 01



Table 3


Category


n n




p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL








1828 FRENCH ET AL








Method












1830 FRENCH ET AL


Results







Table 1



Scale statistics

M SD α r
















1832 FRENCH ET AL



Table 2


Category


n n





p lt 01



Table 3


Category


n n




p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL












1830 FRENCH ET AL


Results







Table 1



Scale statistics

M SD α r
















1832 FRENCH ET AL



Table 2


Category


n n





p lt 01



Table 3


Category


n n




p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL




Table 1



Scale statistics

M SD α r
















1832 FRENCH ET AL



Table 2


Category


n n





p lt 01



Table 3


Category


n n




p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL



1832 FRENCH ET AL



Table 2


Category


n n





p lt 01



Table 3


Category


n n




p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL





Table 3


Category


n n




p lt 05 p lt 01

1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL



1834 FRENCH ET AL







ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL




ble

4

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e Li

keE

njoy

or

Adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

attit

ude

Yes

No

pYe

sN

oM

SDM

SDM

SDM

SDp

A

Wou

ld d

o in

trins

ical

ly e

njoy

able

act

iviti

esa

834

115

824

134

793

133

740

161

lt05

B

Bet

ter a

ppea

ranc

ew

eigh

t con

trolb

855

099

800

147

lt01

770

155

742

154

C

Gen

eral

incr

ease

fitn

ess

stam

ina

capa

city

b8

501

207

971

34lt

017

751

347

301

77lt

05D

Im

prov

ed a

bilit

y fo

r spe

cific

intri

nsic

ac

tiviti

es (e

g

wor

k)8

551

048

261

307

821

177

541

57E

Impr

ove

heal

th (n

ot o

ther

wis

e sp

ecifi

ed)b

859

101

816

136

lt05

786

119

744

165

lt05

FFe

elin

g be

tter

879

097

806

134

lt00

18

051

407

351

57lt

01G

Mor

e m

enta

lly a

lert

836

129

827

129

810

094

752

157

H

Soci

al a

nd fa

mily

asp

ects

8

461

178

251

307

461

247

571

59I

Bet

ter s

leep

ing

appe

tite

less

spec

ific

phys

ical

sym

ptom

sb8

681

128

191

30lt

057

791

437

511

57J

Feel

ing

of a

chie

vem

ent

925

096

825

128

925

096

752

154

lt05

X

Oth

er u

ncla

ssifi

able

mis

cella

neou

s8

521

108

121

37lt

057

851

317

381

66lt

05Y

Non

e n

othi

ng c

anrsquot

thin

k of

any

thin

g

alre

ady

doin

g en

ough

exe

rcis

e7

261

488

561

07lt

001

624

164

793

131

lt00

1Z

Mis

sing

875

096

826

129

825

050

754

156

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

like

enjo

y) b

This

cat

egor

y of

bel

ief w

as e

lic-

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g ad

vant

ages

)

1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL



1836 FRENCH ET ALTa

ble

5

Mea

n Sc

ores

on

Clo

sed

Mea

sure

s of I

nstr

umen

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

Acc

ordi

ng to

Whe

ther

or N

ot th

e D

islik

eH

ate

or

Dis

adva

ntag

es Q

uest

ions

Elic

ited

a Re

spon

se in

Eac

h C

ateg

ory

Cat

egor

y

Inst

rum

enta

lA

ffect

ive

Yes

No

Yes

No

pM

SDM

SDp

MSD

MSD

A

Tim

e co

nsum

ing

843

120

819

132

734

143

766

160

B

Diff

icul

t to

fit in

to ro

utin

e8

670

588

271

297

332

527

561

54C

D

onrsquot

like

itdo

nrsquot l

ike

feel

ing

hot

swea

ty

cold

wet

etc

a8

780

808

211

32lt

017

171

807

601

51D

Ti

ring

less

rest

760

185

834

120

730

142

758

156

EM

otiv

atio

nef

fort

873

130

825

130

727

162

757

155

FB

orin

gch

orea

864

121

825

129

591

239

765

144

lt05

GIm

paire

d w

ork

perf

orm

ance

950

071

826

128

650

071

757

144

H

Phys

ical

inab

ility

stra

in o

r inj

urie

sb7

811

428

361

24lt

057

721

377

521

58I

Stay

ing

over

wei

ghtg

aini

ng m

ore

wei

ght

900

071

825

129

840

055

753

156

JM

oney

mat

eria

l res

ourc

es8

601

348

261

296

601

347

581

55X

O

ther

unc

lass

ifiab

le m

isce

llane

ous

827

132

827

128

731

173

764

148

YN

one

not

hing

can

rsquot th

ink

of a

nyth

ing

al

read

y do

ing

enou

gh e

xerc

ise

831

120

819

147

762

158

741

148

ZM

issi

nga

910

104

822

128

lt05

782

178

754

154

Not

e A

ttitu

de sc

ales

wer

e fo

rmed

by

addi

ng tw

o ite

ms w

ith fi

ve re

spon

se o

ptio

ns (r

esul

ting

in sc

ale

rang

e fr

om 2

to 1

0)

a Thi

s ca

tego

ry o

f bel

ief w

as e

licite

d si

gnifi

cant

ly m

ore

by a

n af

fect

ive

ques

tion

(con

cern

ing

disl

ike

hate

) b T

his

cate

gory

of b

elie

f was

elic

ited

sign

ifica

ntly

mor

e by

an

inst

rum

enta

l que

stio

n (c

once

rnin

g di

sadv

anta

ges)







1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL









1838 FRENCH ET AL








Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL




Tabl

e 6

Cor

rela

tion

Mat

rix

Show

ing

Rela

tions

hip

Betw

een

Num

ber o

f Bel

iefs

Elic

ited

by E

ach

Ope

n-En

ded

Que

stio

n an

d C

lose

d M

easu

res o

f Sta

ndar

d TP

B Va

riab

les

Incl

udin

g In

stru

men

tal a

nd A

ffect

ive

Attit

udes

12

34

56

78

1N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to li

kee

njoy

que

stio

nmdash

2N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to a

dvan

tage

s que

stio

n5

3

mdash3

Num

ber o

f res

pons

es to

dis

like

hate

que

stio

n3

1

31

mdash

4N

umbe

r of r

espo

nses

to d

isad

vant

ages

que

stio

n2

7

30

4

0

mdash5

Scor

e on

inst

rum

enta

l atti

tude

scal

e2

0

40

0

6-0

3mdash

6Sc

ore

on a

ffect

ive

attit

ude

scal

e1

63

3

-15

-09

45

mdash

7Sc

ore

on su

bjec

tive

norm

scal

e2

6

36

0

6-0

66

6

44

mdash

8Sc

ore

on p

erce

ived

beh

avio

ral c

ontro

l sca

le1

32

5

06

-07

54

1

9

42

mdash

9Sc

ore

on in

tent

ion

scal

e2

1

43

0

1-0

45

5

58

6

1

51

p lt

05

p

lt 0

1

1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL



1840 FRENCH ET AL

Discussion



Table 7


Variable Adj R2R2



p lt 05 p lt 01 p lt 001










1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL












1842 FRENCH ET AL











1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL









1844 FRENCH ET AL











References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL






References









1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL



1846 FRENCH ET AL






























1848 FRENCH ET AL

















1848 FRENCH ET AL



the importance of affective beliefs and attitudes in the ... · the importance of affective beliefs...

Documents