Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Effects of An Intervention Based On Self-Determination Theory On Self-Reported Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation
Effects of An Intervention Based On Self-Determination Theory On Self-Reported Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation
net/publication/41579292
CITATIONS
READS
281
3,986
2 authors:
Nikos L D Chatzisarantis
Martin Hagger
Curtin University
University of California, Merced
176 PUBLICATIONS 9,851
CITATIONS 443 PUBLICATIONS 14,220 CITATIONS
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Martin Hagger on 04 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Planned behaviour and self-determination theory 1
5 Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour:
6 A meta-analysis
9 Martin S. Hagger
10 University of Nottingham
11 Nikos L. D. Chatzisarantis
13
14
15
16 Author Note
22
2
5 Integrating the theory of planned behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour:
6 A meta-analysis
9
Planned behaviour and self-determination theory 3
1 Abstract
3 and self-determination theory (SDT) in health contexts is presented. The analysis aimed to
5 motivation from SDT predicts the proximal predictors of intentions and behaviour from the
6 TPB.
8 between TPB and SDT variables. Hunter and Schmidt’s (1994) methods of meta-analysis were
9 used to correct the effect sizes across the studies for statistical artifacts. Age (old vs. young),
12 behaviours) were evaluated as moderators of the effects. A path-analysis using the meta-
14 sequence.
16 autonomy support and self-determined motivation constructs from SDT and the attitude,
18 constructs from the TPB. Only six of the 28 effect sizes were moderated by the proposed
19 moderators. Path analysis revealed that the significant effects of self-determined motivation on
20 intentions and behaviour were partially mediated by the proximal predictors from the TPB.
21 Conclusions. Evidence from this synthesis supported the theoretical integration and
22 proposed motivational sequence. Results are discussed with reference to the complimentary
23 aspects of the TPB and SDT and the need for integrated experimental or intervention studies on
25
Planned behaviour and self-determination theory 4
1 Research into the antecedent factors and processes that underpin people’s motivation to
2 engage in health-related behaviour has been conducted from an array of different theoretical
3 perspectives (Conner & Norman, 2005; Johnston, 2005; Orbell, 2004). Prominent among these
4 theories is the planned behaviour (TPB, Ajzen, 1985), which was developed as a systematic
6 the deliberative formation of intentions, and their enactment. This approach has been shown to
7 account for substantial variance in behaviour in a number of contexts (Armitage & Conner,
8 2001; Conner & Armitage, 1998). In contrast, organismic approaches to motivation have
9 focused on the contextual contingencies and dispositional orientations that give rise to
10 motivational states and subsequent behaviour. One such approach is self-determination theory
11 (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000), a leading theory of human motivation that has been shown
15 for variation in health-related behaviour (e.g., Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, Smith, & Wang,
16 2003; Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Biddle, 2002b; Sheeran & Orbell, 1998), both have
17 shortcomings in terms of their predictive utility. SDT does not chart the exact process by which
18 motivational orientations are converted into intentions and behaviour and the TPB has
19 provided an effective basis for the explanation of variance in intentions and health-related
20 behaviour without identifying the origins of the antecedents of the behaviour (Chatzisarantis,
22 In this article we propose that these two prominent social psychological theories can
23 serve to assist in overcoming these shortcomings by integrating their constructs and hypotheses
24 in a unified model of motivation to explain intentions and health-related behaviour. The basis
25 for integration is offered by Deci and Ryan (1985) and Vallerand (1997) who state that
26 motivational theories can offer explanations for the origins of social cognitive beliefs and
1 expectations outlined in models of intention like the TPB. It is proposed that individuals with a
3 attitudes and perceptions of control, two key determinants of intention from the TPB,
4 congruent with their motivational orientations (Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2008b; Hagger et al.,
5 in press; Vallerand, 2007). Support for the proposed integrated model and motivational
9 Prior to outlining the rationale behind the theoretical integration, a brief explanation of
10 the hypotheses of each component theory is warranted. The TPB posits that an individual’s
11 intention is the most proximal predictor of health-related behaviour and mediates the effect of
12 three sets of belief-based perceptions on behaviour: attitudes, subjective norm, and perceived
13 behavioural control (PBC) (Ajzen, 1985). Attitudes are a person’s overall positive or negative
14 evaluation of the target behaviour. Subjective norms summarise a person’s expectation that
15 significant others want them to engage in the target behaviour. PBC comprises a person’s
16 overall judgment whether they have the ability and resources available to engage in the target
17 behaviour.
18 Self-determination theory (SDT) takes a different approach and focuses on the quality of
19 an individual’s motivation in a given context and the environmental factors that affect
20 motivation in that context (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Connell, 1989). Central to the theory is
21 the distinction between self-determined versus controlled types of motivation (Deci & Ryan,
23 and autonomy when behaving and feel their actions represent their true self. Those whose
25 external forces. SDT research has shown that self-determined motives positively affect
1 behavioural engagement (Chatzisarantis et al., 2003) and that self-determined motivation can
3 salient others (Hagger et al., 2007; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999).
5 Recently, researchers have sought to integrate SDT and the TPB because these
6 approaches are deemed to provide complimentary explanations of the processes that underlie
7 motivated behaviour. (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2001; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury,
8 2002; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003; Wilson & Rodgers, 2004). Numerous authors have
9 proposed that organismic theories of motivation like SDT could potentially offer explanations
10 for the origins of constructs in social cognitive theories (Andersen, Chen, & Carter, 2000; Deci
11 & Ryan, 1985). The integration is based on the links between self-determined motivation and
12 the system of beliefs that underpin the proximal antecedents of intention: attitudes, subjective
14 Ajzen (1985) proposed that attitudes and PBC comprise beliefs that a given health-related
15 behaviour will result in certain outcomes and that the behaviour is under control of the
16 individual. However, like many social cognitive theories, the TPB is not explicit in the reasons
17 that these beliefs are pursued (Deci & Ryan, 1985). For example, the theory does not make the
18 distinction between beliefs about outcomes that people choose to seek and are related to their
19 true sense of self (self-determined outcomes) and beliefs about outcomes that people feel
21 beliefs about outcomes could be interpreted as either self-determined or controlled reasons for
22 participating in health-related behaviour (e.g., “I exercise in order to lose weight”). For some
23 people exercising to lose weight may be self-determined because they value being healthy and
24 view it as representative of their true self (self-determined). They are therefore likely to
25 actively seek opportunities to exercise to lose weight. For others losing weight may be to look
1 good for others, an external contingency (controlling). In such cases, they are not likely to
2 pursue exercise to lose weight or may even avoid it. Therefore, SDT offers an interpretation of
3 whether these beliefs about outcomes are interpreted as self-determined or controlling. The
5 controlling reasons predisposes individuals to form beliefs congruent with these motives.
7 attitudes and PBC. Attitudes and PBC are, in turn, proximal predictors of the formation of
8 intentions to engage in future health-related behaviour in accordance with the TPB. Therefore a
10 intentions and health-related behaviour are mediated by the proximal determinants, namely,
13 The literature testing the proposed relations between variables from the TPB and SDT in
14 health contexts is substantial. We aimed to test whether there was consistency in the pattern of
15 the proposed relationships in the motivational sequence across these studies using meta-
16 analytic techniques. This is important as it will provide support for the proposed sequence
17 based on the available literature and resolve any inconsistencies attributable to methodological
19 We also propose to test the effectiveness of five key moderator variables in accounting
20 for additional variation in the effect sizes among the integrated model constructs: age, gender,
21 publication status, study design, and behaviour type. Previous meta-analyses have examined
22 these moderator variables in syntheses of research on the TPB and SDT separately
23 (Chatzisarantis et al., 2003; Hagger et al., 2002b; Sheeran & Orbell, 1998). Age and gender
24 will be examined as moderators to test the hypothesis that the proposed effects are universal.
25 Evidence for publication bias in the hypothesised effects among constructs in the current
1 integrated theoretical approach will be evaluated by including publication status as a
2 moderator. Study design was tested as a moderator to ensure that there was no variation in the
3 effects due to the adoption of an experimental or correlational design. Finally, the universality
4 hypothesis suggests that the proposed effects should be invariant across health behaviours and
6 In addition, the proposed motivational sequence can be tested empirically using the meta-
7 analytically derived effect sizes in a path analysis (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). This provides
8 corroborative evidence for the unique effects in the motivational sequence and also tests for
9 key mediation effects. Specifically, a meta-analytic path analysis model will be tested with
10 self-determined motivation from SDT set to predict the proximal predictors of intentions to
11 engage in health-related behaviour from the TPB, namely, attitudes, subjective norms, and
12 PBC. It is expected that self-determined motivation be strongly related to attitudes and PBC as
15 related to subjective norms because the latter is defined as controlling rather than self-
16 determined perceptions and this is supported by tests of this relationship have yielded small or
17 negative effects (Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Barkoukis, Wang, & Baranowski, 2005; Hagger,
18 Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse, & Biddle, 2003). Further, attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC
19 are expected to predict intentions in keeping with proposals from the TPB (Ajzen, 1985).
20 Attitudes and PBC are expected to mediate the effect of self-determined motivation on
21 intentions. Finally, intentions are proposed to mediate the effects of attitudes, subjective norms,
22 and PBC on health-related behaviour, in accordance with the TPB. The sequence is expected to
23 mediate the effects of self-determined motivation on health behaviour such that there is no
2 autonomy support as a variable that reflects whether the environment is perceived to support
3 self-determined motivation (e.g., Hagger et al., in press; Shen, McCaughtry, & Martin, 2007).
6 past behaviour and we will control for past behaviour in the meta-analytic path analysis.
7 Method
8 Literature search
9 Research articles were located via an exhaustive search of electronic databases (e.g.,
10 Medline, PsychINFO, Psyarticles, ISI Web of Science), manual searches of key journals, and
11 the reference sections of review articles on SDT and the TPB to the end of July 20081. The aim
12 of the literature search was to establish a fully-inclusive database of integrated tests of effects
13 between constructs from the TPB and SDT and to ensure that all reasonable attempts had been
15 Inclusion criteria
16 Studies were included if they provided an empirical test of an effect size from the
17 integration of the TPB and SDT in health-related behaviour contexts. Studies therefore had to
18 include effect sizes from a measure of at least one construct from SDT and one from the TPB
19 or, its predecessor, the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In addition, studies
21 coefficients in correlational studies or cell means, standard deviations, F-ratios, or effect size
24 among the measures used in tests of the desired effect size. In the present analysis, only a small
1 subset of measures was used to tap the TPB and self-determination theory constructs across
2 studies. This made identifying studies that had tested specific effects relatively unambiguous.
3 The TPB constructs were exclusively measured using items derived directly or indirectly from
4 the guidelines proposed by Ajzen (2003). SDT constructs were invariably derived from
5 variants of the perceived locus of causality scales or the relative autonomy index or self-
6 determination index, which are reweighted aggregates of the self-determined and non-self-
7 determined motivational constructs from the perceived locus of causality (Ryan & Connell,
8 1989)2. Experimental or intervention studies based on the theories used conventional methods
9 to manipulate key variables such as self-determined motivation using autonomy support (e.g.,
11 The literature search yielded 34 studies that met the search criteria. The majority of the
13 intervention designs based on SDT and reporting effects on TPB constructs like intention (e.g.,
14 Chatzisarantis et al., 2007, Study 3; Edmunds, Ntoumanis, & Duda, in press). There were no
15 studies that had manipulated TPB variables and examined the effects on SDT constructs.
16 Studies that integrated the two theories and but did not target a health-related behaviour were
17 excluded (e.g., Lin, 2007; Phillips, Abraham, & Bond, 2003). There were 43 independent tests
18 of effect sizes among the constructs from both theories. The highest number of tests of an
19 individual effect was 38 for the association between self-determined motivation and intention.
20 Meta-analytic strategy
21 We used Hunter and Schmidt’s (1994) methods for meta-analysis to correct the effect
22 sizes for statistical artifacts. Statistical theorists have advocated the adoption of such random
23 effects models for meta-analysis as these are optimal in permitting the generalization of
24 corrected effect sizes to the population (Field, 2001; Hagger, 2006; Hunter & Schmidt, 2000).
25 We corrected for two statistical artifacts in the present study: sampling error and measurement
1 error. The effect size of choice was the zero-order correlation coefficient as it was the most
2 frequently adopted metric. Studies reporting other metrics were converted into correlation
3 coefficients using Hunter and Schmidt’s (1994) algorithms. We corrected for measurement
4 error using the reliability statistics, usually Cronbach alpha coefficients, of the constructs used
5 in each effect size calculation. Where reliability statistics were unavailable, measurement error
6 was inferred from available attenuation statistics using a formula supplied by Stauffer (1996).
7 The analysis produces a ‘bare bones’ correlation coefficient (r+) representing the mean
8 average effect size corrected for sampling error only and a fully-corrected correlation
9 coefficient (r++) which is the mean average effect size corrected for both sampling and
10 measurement error. 95% confidence intervals (CI95) reflecting the distribution about the mean
11 effect size are used to test the statistical significance of the average corrected effect size. If the
12 CI95 does not include the value of zero, then it is likely that the effect exists in the population
13 (Hunter & Schmidt, 1994). The analysis also yields 90% credibility intervals (CI90)
14 representing the distribution about the average corrected correlation using the residual standard
15 deviation and provides an estimation of the distribution of the effect size in the population.
16 This is used to evaluate the discriminant validity of the constructs i.e. the hypothesis that
17 population effect size is significantly different from unity. We also computed the ‘fail safe’
18 sample size (NFS) which represents the number of studies with null findings required reduce the
19 effect size to a trivial value, in this case resulting in the confidence intervals including the
20 value of zero (Rosenberg, 2005). If the number of ‘null finding’ tests of an effect is sufficiently
21 large the researcher can be confident that the chances of such a number of studies existing is
22 improbable. Finally, the percentage variance in the effect sizes across studies attributed to the
23 corrected artifacts relative to the overall variance in the effect size is given. Hunter and
24 Schmidt (1994) advocate a 75% cutoff criterion for an effect size to be considered
25 ‘homogenous’, that is, the vast majority of the variance in the effect across studies can be
1 accounted for by the statistical artifacts. Should the value fall below this criterion it is likely
2 that there is substantial variance in the effect size unattributed to methodological artifacts and
4 Coding of Moderators
5 We anticipated that five key factors would moderate the proposed effects based on
6 previous research (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Hagger et al., 2002b): age of participants (old vs.
7 young), gender, publication status (published vs. unpublished), and study design (correlational
8 vs. experimental/intervention), and behaviour type (physical activity vs. other health-related
9 behaviours). The influence of moderator variables was evaluated by segregating studies on the
10 basis of the moderator variable and conducting separate meta-analyses for each moderator
11 group. The moderator was considered effective if the average corrected effect sizes calculated
12 in each moderator group were significantly different as evidenced by the CI95. Moderation was
13 further supported if the moderator resulted in a narrowing of the credibility intervals and an
15 We used the criteria offered by previous studies to define age moderator groups of studies
16 for older (over 18 years) and younger (under 18 years) samples (Hagger et al., 2002b; Sheeran
17 & Orbell, 1998). As only four studies reported effect sizes for exclusively female samples and
19 analyses by gender was not possible. While the number of unpublished studies was relatively
20 small (n = 4), it still permitted an evaluation of publication bias as a moderator variable. To test
21 the moderation of the effect sizes across studies by study design, we classified studies into
22 those that had used experimental or intervention designs to manipulate one or more of the TPB
23 or SDT variables and examined their effects on the remaining variables. Finally, although the
24 vast majority of the studies were conducted with physical activity as the focal behaviour, four
25 studies conducted analyses on other health-related behaviours, namely dieting (Hagger &
1 Chatzisarantis, 2008a; Hagger et al., 2006), breast feeding (Wells, Thompson, & Kloeblen-
2 Tarver, 2002), and condom use (Rentzelas & Hagger, 2008), so we were therefore able to
3 compare results the effect sizes across moderator groups of physical activity and other health-
4 related behaviours.
6 The corrected correlations derived from the meta-analysis were used as an input matrix
7 for a path analysis to test the hypotheses of the proposed model integrating the TPB and SDT
8 (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). As the model was based on correlations from different subsets of
9 studies there was variation in the sample sizes used to compute the corrected averaged
10 correlations for each effect. In order to reduce bias caused by the variation in sample sizes
11 across studies we opted for the most conservative strategy proposed by other researchers and
12 used the smallest sample size (Carr, Schmidt, Ford, & DeShon, 2003; Viswesvaran & Ones,
13 1995). The goodness-of-fit of the model was evaluated relative to a fully independent (totally
14 free) model. Goodness-of-fit was established using multiple criteria the Comparative Fit Index
15 (CFI) and Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), which should exceed .95 for a well-fitting model
16 (Hu & Bentler, 1999), and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and the
17 Standardized Root Mean Squared Residuals (SRMSR), which should be close to .05 and .08
19 Results
20 Summary of Studies
21 Summary statistics for the studies included in the analysis are provided in Table 1. The
22 table provides all pertinent information germane to the analysis including the coding used to
24 Zero-Order Analysis
1 The averaged correlation coefficients corrected for artifacts of sampling and
2 measurement error for the relationships among the TPB and SDT constructs from this sample
3 of studies are provided in Table 2. The 95% confidence intervals indicated that all of the
4 corrected correlations were significantly different from zero. The 90% credibility intervals
5 indicated that the majority of the effects exhibited discriminant validity. The only exceptions
6 were the credibility intervals for the intention-past behaviour and behaviour-past behaviour
7 correlations that included the value of 1.00. This finding was not surprising given the strong
8 prediction of the study variables and future behaviour by past behaviour. However, although it
9 is important to control for the effect of past behaviour in social cognitive models, its effect
10 merely represents the effects of unmeasured constructs rather than effects of meaningful
11 psychological variables (Ajzen, 2002; Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Overall, these findings
12 provide confirmation that the tested effects were representative of a true effect in the
13 population. Furthermore, the ‘fail safe’ sample size (NFS) values all exceeded Rosenberg’s
14 (2005) recommended critical value of 5N + 10. The only exception was the NFS for the effect
15 between perceived autonomy support and PBC, and although the CI95 value did not include the
16 value of zero, a relatively small number of null findings would overturn the significant effect.
17 Moderator Analyses
18 Moderator analyses were conducted in cases where there were more than three studies in
19 a moderator group. A summary of the average corrected effect sizes that were significantly
20 different across the moderator groups is provided in Table 3. Turning first to age as a
22 younger (r++ = .59) and older samples (r++ = .39). It seems that younger samples equate self-
23 determined motivation with perceived control more strongly than older samples. In terms of
24 the moderation by behaviour type, significantly stronger effects were evident in studies with
25 physical activity as the target behaviour relative to studies with other health-related behaviours
1 as the target for the attitude-PBC (physical activity, r++ = .57; other health-related behaviours
2 r++ = .30), and PBC-behaviour (r++ = .41; .13) relationships. Conversely, the effects were
3 significantly stronger in studies with other health-related behaviours as the target behaviour
4 relative to studies with physical activity as the target for the attitude-past behaviour (physical
5 activity, r++ = .39; other health-related behaviours r++ = .70) and intention-past behaviour (r++ =
9 that correlational designs tend to result in an overestimation of this effect size, although,
10 importantly, adopting an experimental or intervention design does not attenuate the proposed
11 effect to a trivial value. Finally, none of the effects were significantly moderated by publication
12 status.
13 Path Analysis
14 The meta-analytically derived corrected correlation matrix was used test the pattern of
16 correlations were used as an input matrix for a path analytic model that stipulated a priori the
17 proposed pattern of relationships in the sequence. The model was estimated using the EQS
18 structural equation modelling computer software using a maximum likelihood method (Bentler,
19 2004). The path model exhibited acceptable goodness-of-fit with the data according to the
20 multiple criteria adopted (CFI = .98; NNFI = .98; SRMSR = .03; RMSEA = .08). Beta
21 coefficients from the meta-analytic path analysis are provided in Figure 1. Overall, the model
22 accounted for 64.6% and 59.2% of the variance in intentions and behaviour respectively.
25 motivation predicted attitudes ( = .44, p < .01) and PBC ( = .38, p < .01) in accordance with
1 the hypothesised integrated model. There was also a significant, positive relationship between
2 self-determined motivation and subjective norms ( = .14, p < .01) which was incongruent with
3 hypotheses. Attitudes ( = .37, p < .01), subjective norms ( = .06, p < .01), and PBC ( = .23,
4 p < .01) significantly predicted intentions and intentions significantly predicted behaviour ( =
5 .29, p < .01) in accordance with the TPB. There was a significant direct effect for self-
6 determined motivation on intention ( = .10, p < .01), but the size of the effect was small
7 relative to the indirect effect of self-determined motivation on intention ( = .27, p < .01).
9 intention ( = .37, p < .01). There were also a significant indirect effect of self-determined
10 motivation on behaviour mediated by the motivational sequence ( = .10, p < .01), but no
11 significant direct effect3. Importantly, these were the attenuated effects after controlling for
12 past behaviour. Therefore, although past behaviour significantly predicted all of the constructs
13 in the model, it did not reduce the effects to trivial values and suggests that the motivation
15 Discussion
16 The aim of the present study was to provide a cumulative synthesis of findings from
17 studies that have integrated two leading theories of motivation in health contexts: the theory of
19 search of quantitative tests of at least one effect between constructs from the TPB and SDT
21 Hunter and Schmidt (1994) were used to produce averaged correlation coefficients among
22 constructs from the studies corrected for the methodological artifacts of sampling and
23 measurement error. All correlations were significant and only two did not exhibit discriminant
24 validity. We tested the influence of five possible moderators of the effects: age, gender,
25 publication status, study design, and behaviour type. Age significantly moderated the self-
1 determined motivation-PBC relation, behaviour type significantly moderated the attitude-PBC,
4 The hypothesized pattern of relations or ‘motivational sequence’ among the TPB and
5 SDT constructs were tested using path analysis with the meta-analytically derived correlation
9 behavioural control (PBC). Contrary to hypotheses, subjective norms was also positively
10 related to self-determined motivation which led to a significant albeit small mediated path of
11 self-determined motivation on intention through this variable. Intention mediated the effect of
12 attitudes, subjective norms, and PBC on behaviour. There was a significant indirect effect of
13 self-determined motivation on behaviour with no direct effect. Finally, the proposed pattern of
16 The present synthesis provides support for integrated motivational approaches adopting
17 the TPB and SDT to explain health-related behaviour. The pattern of effects in the path
18 analysis support those found in individual tests of the relations among constructs of the two
19 theories and the significant mediation effects that provide insight into the possible processes
21 support. Perceived autonomy support serves as a proxy of social events that support self-
22 determined motivation (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Reeve et al., 1999). The
2 in the present integrated model shows that self-determined motivation is linked to the proximal
3 antecedents of intentional behaviour. Results from the path analysis indicated that self-
5 particularly attitudes and PBC, and has a significant indirect effect on intentions via the
6 mediation of these predictors. Theoretically, this lends support to SDT in that self-determined
7 motives towards health behaviour is related to individuals reporting attitudes and perceptions
8 of control that are consistent with those self-determined motives. Previous theorists have
9 supported such relations. For example, Vallerand (2007) explicitly suggests that self-
10 determined motivation will predict cognitive beliefs regarding the target behaviour.
12 intentions and health-related behaviour there were no significant direct effects found. This was
13 as expected and congruent with previous research (e.g., Hagger et al., 2003; Pihu, Hein, Koka,
14 & Hagger, in press; Shen et al., 2007). Previous studies have reported direct effects of self-
15 determined motivation on intentions and behaviour (e.g., Chatzisarantis et al., 2002; Hagger et
16 al., 2005; Hagger et al., in press) and it has been suggested that such effects indicate the more
18 formation and enactment (Hagger et al., 2006). However, present results suggest that such
19 effects are comparatively unsubstantial compared with indirect effects. This indicates that the
21 engagement is one that is reflective rather than impulsive (Strack & Deutsch, 2004).
22 One finding that was contrary to hypotheses was the significant and positive effect of
23 self-determined motivation on subjective norms, and effect that was hypothesised to be zero or
24 even negative. This is because subjective norms are defined as social pressures to engage in
25 future behaviour and therefore reflect more controlling, externally-referenced beliefs about
26 engaging in future health behaviour. However, subjective norms may, on the surface, reflect
1 beliefs about the controlling nature of others, but these ‘others’ are generally specified as
2 ‘significant others’ in measures of the construct. Research in SDT has suggested that people
3 will tend to conform to the wishes of significant others because although they may appear
4 outwardly controlling, if the referent is a significant other, then the person is likely to have
6 Lepper, 1999). In other words, the person perceives the significant other as acting in their best
7 interests and supporting their autonomy. As a consequence, the variable may reflect both
8 controlling and internalised aspects of social beliefs on future health behaviour engagement.
9 This may account for the inconsistent findings for this relationship in the literature (Hagger et
10 al., 2005; Hagger et al., 2003). Future studies should make the distinction between perceived
11 pressure from different referents at the beliefs level as recommended by Ajzen (1985) and
12 relate them to self-determined motivation. This would test the hypothesis that self-determined
13 motivation would be positively related to beliefs about salient referents’ social influence while
14 a negative relationship would be expected for beliefs about non-salient referents’ influence.
15 Importance of Moderators
16 In the present study, this was relevant as none of the effect sizes could be considered
17 homogenous according to the Hunter and Schmidt (1994) 75% rule indicating the presence of
18 moderators. The moderation analyses produced some interesting contrasts. For example, the
19 relationship between self-determined motivation and PBC was significantly stronger in studies
20 with younger samples. This may be due to the fact that younger people have a less-
21 differentiated view of self-determined motivation and may equate it more with competence
23 Grouzet, & Pelletier, 2005). Behaviour type also moderated a number of effects most notably
24 the attitude-PBC and PBC-behaviour relationships. This may be because the behaviours
25 included in the other health-related behaviours sample (e.g., dieting and condom use) are
1 behaviours for which there is a strong social component compared with physical activity which
2 has stronger attitudinal and control components (Hagger et al., 2006; Sheeran & Orbell, 1998).
4 A limitation of studies integrating these theories is its heavy bias towards cross-sectional
5 and prospective designs and a disproportionate focus on physical activity as the target
6 behaviour. Current studies using this integrative approach have adopted valid and reliable
7 measurement instruments (e.g., Hagger et al., 2007; Markland & Tobin, 2004) with large,
8 representative samples and appropriate prospective designs to avoid confounding artifacts like
9 common method variance (e.g., Hagger et al., 2003). However, the majority of the studies
10 included in the analysis were correlational in design, which prevents the inference of causality
11 (Weinstein, 2007). Furthermore, although we have articulated a theory to account for the
12 proposed sequence of effects in the integration of the SDT and TPB, there are likely to be
13 alternative models that exhibit good fit with the data, although such models would need
14 theoretical justification to illustrate their plausibility. On the issue of causality, the moderator
15 analyses using study design as a moderator provided some preliminary evidence that findings
16 from the few experimental or intervention designs included in the present study were largely
17 consistent with those of the correlational studies. Not only does this suggest that the method
18 adopted, on the whole, does not result in a drastic attenuation of the effect sizes in the proposed
19 integrated theory, but it also provides some preliminary evidence of the causal nature of the
20 hypothesised relationships in the theory. However, there is a need for further research to bolster
21 support for the integrative approach advocated here by adopting experimental or randomised
22 controlled intervention designs to manipulate SDT constructs and examining their influence on
23 TPB variables (e.g., Chatzisarantis & Hagger, in press). Such designs will permit researchers
24 integrating these theories to generate evidence that either corroborates or refutes the proposed
2 heterogeneity in the meta-analysed effect sizes. Therefore, the path analytic model was
3 estimated using effect sizes that may vary due to the influence of moderator variables. The
5 on structural equations as this is known to produce biased estimates (Viswesvaran & Ones,
6 1995). These difficulties also apply to individual studies and there is a need for future research
7 to test moderation effects of the effects in mediation models (Harris & Hagger, 2007).
8 We have indicated in the current analysis of the probable presence of moderator variables
9 and tested a limited set based on previous research to ensure that our analysis was informative
10 as possible and to identify directions for future research. However, the potential for moderators
11 to affect the true nature of the effects proposed by path analysis is a real limitation and has
12 been acknowledged in previous studies adopting the same approach (Carr et al., 2003; Colquitt
13 & LePine, 2000; Schepers & Wetzels, 2007). Although we have provided some evidence based
14 on the confidence intervals of the meta-analysed correlations that the heterogeneity has little
15 effect on the overall pattern of results, this does not resolve the problem that some paths in the
16 model may be moderated by extraneous variables. More research studies integrating these
17 theories may permit future path analytic meta-analyses to be conducted separately across sets
18 of studies by moderator subgroups using a multi-group procedure (Edwards & Lambert, 2007;
19 Hom, Caranikas-Walker, Prussia, & Griffeth, 1992), although given the relative dearth of
20 studies conducting analyses on moderator groups, this will be unlikely in the very near future.
21 Finally, we were only able to locate three studies integrating the TPB and SDT on health-
22 related behaviours other than health-related physical activity. Although type of health-related
23 behaviour did not serve to moderate the proposed relations among the effects in the present
24 analysis, future research needs to examine these effects in a wider range of health behaviour
motivation, each varying in the degree of self-determination on a continuum ranging from high
to low self-determination, known as the perceived locus of causality (PLOC). Most self-
three forms of extrinsic motivation, which vary in the degree to which they are self-determined
motivation to engage in a behaviour because it services goals that are intrinsic and salient to the
engagement due to perceived internal pressures like avoiding shame or guilt or gaining
contingent self-worth or pride and external regulation is the prototypical form of extrinsic
motivation, and therefore the least self-determined, reflecting engaging in behaviours due to
self-determination index based on the PLOC or individual self-determined scales from the
There were insufficient studies to explore individual tests of the individual perceived locus of
causality subscales with TPB variables. In cases where studies did not report the reweighted
self-determination index but reported effect sizes between the two most self-determined forms
of motivation from the PLOC, namely, intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, and the
TPB variables, we used the arithmetic average value of the two effect sizes in our analysis.
3
In all analyses testing for significant indirect effects the following criteria proposed by
Baron and Kenny (1986) were met: (1) significant correlations between the dependent variable
and the independent (predictor) variable(s); (2) significant correlations between the mediator
and the independent variable(s); (3) a significant unique effect of the mediator on the
test of these relationships; and (4) the significant effect of independent variable on the
predictor of the dependent variable. The tests of indirect effects are equivalent to the Sobel
(1982) test.
4
The path analysis was conducted on a matrix of meta-analysed correlations that included
considerable variance across studies unaccounted for by the methodological artifacts for which
the effect sizes were corrected. This suggested the presence of moderator variables.
Viswesvaren and Ones (1995) cite this as one drawback of using meta-analysed effect sizes
using path analyses. One solution they offer is to test the relative contribution of the
heterogeneity makes to the pattern of relations in the model and the overall goodness-of-fit of
the model. They proposed that the fit of the model estimated using the mean corrected
correlation coefficients be compared with the same model estimated using the upper bound and
lower bound confidence intervals (CI95) of the corrected correlations using multi-group path
analyses. We therefore estimated both these models in the present meta-analysis. We first
estimated a baseline multi-group model in which the tenability of the pattern of relationships
was tested between the model based on the mean corrected correlation matrix and models
based on the upper and lower bound CI95 values. We subsequently estimated a constrained
multi-group model in which equality constraint equations were specified to test the invariance
of the specified paths among the model variables across models based on the upper and lower
bound confidence intervals of the corrected correlations and the model based on the mean
corrected correlations. Results indicated that the effect of the heterogeneity as represented by
the confidence intervals of the effect sizes did not produce substantial deviations in the CFI
and NNFI fit indexes according to the criteria specified by Cheung and Rensvold (2002) of a
difference in the indexes of less than .01. This provides some evidence that heterogeneity in the
relations does not contribute substantially to variations in the pattern of effects specified in the
Characteristics of Studies Included in Meta-Analysis of Theory of Planned Behaviour and Self-Determination Theory
Study Health Sample(s)1 Mean Age of TPB Constructs SDT Constructs Measured2 Study Design Behaviour Past
Behaviour Sample (SD) Measured Measure Behaviour
Measure
Alexandris, Physical 220 (92 females, 128 males) Range: 18-40 Intention SMS Correlational, single — —
Kouthouris, & Grouios activity adults years [B] Intrinsic (know), wave [A]
(2007) [A] [A] Intrinsic (accomplishment),
Intrinsic (stimulation),
Identified,
Introjection,
External
Biddle, Soos, & Physical 723 high school pupils Range: 12-16 Intention PLOC Correlational, single — —
Chatzisarantis (1999) activity years [A] Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] [A] Identified,
Introjection,
External
Brickell, Physical 163 (99 females, 63 males) 23.15 (6.05) All Autonomous and controlling intentions Correlational, Self-report – —
Chatzisarantis, & activity University students and staff Range: 18-44 prospective – 2 weeks LTEQ
Pretty (2006) [A] [A] [B] [A]
Chatzisarantis & Physical 215 (109 females, 106 males) 14.84 (0.48) All PLOC Intervention based on Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger (in press) [A] activity high school pupils Intrinsic, SDT – baseline and 5- LTEQ 1 item
[A] Identified, week follow-up
Introjection, measures [B]
External;
Perceived autonomy support (LCQ)
Chatzisarantis, Physical 168 (83 females, 85 males) 13.53 (0.05) Intention, PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, Biddle, & activity high school pupils [A] Attitude, Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Karageorghis (2002) [A] PBC Identified, [A]
[A] Introjection,
External
Chatzisarantis, Physical 177 (107 females, 69 males) School pupils: All Perceived autonomy support (HCCQ) Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, & Smith activity high school pupils and 13.95 (0.61); prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
(2007) (study 1) [A] [A] University students University [A]
students 18.98
(2.63) [U]
Chatzisarantis, Physical 165 (79 females, 86 males) 14.56 (0.77) All Perceived autonomy support (HCCQ) Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, & Smith activity high school pupils [A] prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
(2007) (study 2) [A] [A] [A]
Chatzisarantis, Physical 79 (39 females, 40 males) high 14.53 (0.70) Intention, Perceived autonomy support (HCCQ) (dependent Experimental, 1-way — —
Hagger, & Smith activity school pupils [A] Attitudes measure) factorial design
(2007) (study 3) [A] [A] (dependent (autonomy-support
measures) and control) [B]
Table 1 Continues
Study Health Sample(s)1 Mean Age of TPB Constructs SDT Constructs Measured Study Design Behaviour Past
Behaviour Sample (SD) Measured Measure Behaviour
Measure
Chatzisarantis, Physical 460 (254 females, 206 males) School pupils: All Intrinsic motivation (BREQ) Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Hagger, Smith, & activity high school pupils, University 14.25 (1.04); prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Sage (2006) [A] [A] students and adults University [A]
students 19.52
(1.44); adults
34.33 (1.14)
[U]
Edmunds, Ntoumanis, Physical 49 (41 females, 8 males) obese 44.98 (14.61) Intention PLOC (BREQ-2) Behavioural Self-report – —
& Duda (2007)[A] activity or overweight volunteers [B] Intrinsic, intervention design in LTEQ
[A] Identified, obese and overweight
Introjection, people with 1- and 3-
External; month follow-ups [B]
Perceived autonomy support (adapted HCCQ)
Edmunds, Ntoumanis, Physical 56 female University students Control group: Intention PLOC (BREQ-2) SDT intervention with Exercise —
& Duda (in press) [A] activity and staff (31 in control group, 21.26 (3.80) Intrinsic, 5- and 9-week follow- class
[A] 25 in SDT group) Range: 18-53; Identified, ups [B] attendance
SDT group: Introjection,
21.36 (6.71) External
Range: 18-38
[B]
Goudas, Dermitzaki, Physical 247 (103 females, 144 males) 15.30 [A] Attitude IMI Correlational, single Self-report —
& Bagiatis (2001) [A] activity high school pupils (outcome Enjoyment/interest wave [A] sports
[A] expectancies/ Effort/importance participation
outcome Competence
evaluation) Tension/Pressure
Hagger & Dieting 153 (115 females, 53 males) 23.60 (10.21) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis (2008a) [B] University students and staff [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 4 weeks 2 items 2 items
[B] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Hagger, Physical 1088 (537 females, 551 males) Range 12-14 All PLOC Correlational, single — —
Chatzisarantis, & activity high school pupils years [A] Intrinsic, wave [A]
Biddle, (2002a) [A] [A] Identified,
Introjection,
External
Hagger, Physical 551 (298 females, 253 males); British: 14.68 All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis, activity British sample 222 (118 (1.47); Greek: Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Barkoukis, Wang, & [A] females, 104 males); Greek 13.99 (0.80); Identified, [A]
Baranowski (2005) sample 93 (57 females, 36 Polish: 16.28 Introjection,
[A] males); Polish sample 103 (56 (1.12); External;
females, 47 males); Singaporean: Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
Singaporean sample 133 (67 13.32 (0.47)
females, 66 males) high school [A]
pupils
Table 1 Continues
Study Health Sample(s)1 Mean Age of TPB Constructs SDT Constructs Measured Study Design Behaviour Past
Behaviour Sample (SD) Measured Measure Behaviour
Measure
Hagger, Physical 295 (163 females, 132 males) 14.50 (1.35) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis, activity high school pupils Range 13-16 Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Culverhouse, & Biddle [A] [A] Identified, [A]
(2003) [A] Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
Hagger, Physical 261 (166 females, 95 males) 24.93 (9.69) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – —
Chatzisarantis, & activity University students [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks 2-items
Harris (2006) (Sample [A] Identified, [A]
1) [A] Introjection,
External
Hagger, Dieting 250 (141 females, 109 males) 24.64 (6.39) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – —
Chatzisarantis, & [B] University students [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks 2 items
Harris (2006) (Sample Identified,
2) [A] Introjection,
External
Hagger, Physical 840 (460 females, 382 males); British: 13.19 All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
Chatzisarantis, Hein, activity British sample 210 (116 (1.12); Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ 1 item
Soós, Lintunen & [A] females, 94 males); Estonian Estonian: Identified, [A]
Leemans (in press) [A] sample 268 (151 females, 117 15.04 (0.91); Introjection,
males); Finnish sample 127 Finnish: 14.30 External;
(72 females, 55 males); (0.49); Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
Hungarian sample 235 (121 Hungarian:
females, 114 males) high 14.02 (0.99)
school pupils [A]
Martin Ginis, Jung, Physical 41 sedentary older adults (34 75.4 (5.40) [B] Intention Enjoyment Non-theory based Self-report – —
Brawley, Latimer, & activity females, 7 males) Attitude intervention using PASE
Hicks (2006) [A] [A] weight training and
activities of daily
living [A]
McLachlan & Hagger Physical 185 (129 females, 56 males) 30.83 (13.21) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
(2008) [B] activity adults [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 3 weeks 2 items 2 items
[A] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Ntoumanis (2001) [A] Physical 428 (218 females, 206 males, 14.84 (0.52) Intention PLOC Correlational – single — —
activity 4 non-respondent) high school Range 14-16 Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] pupils [A] Identified,
Introjection,
External;
Choice climate (PECCS)
Ntoumanis (2005) [A] Physical 302 (91 females, 211 males) 15.00 [A] Intention PLOC (SRQ) Correlational – single — —
activity high school pupils Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] Identified,
Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (LCQ)
Table 1 Continues
Study Health Sample(s)1 Mean Age of TPB Constructs SDT Constructs Measured Study Design Behaviour Past
Behaviour Sample (SD) Measured Measure Behaviour
Measure
Palmeira, Teixeira, Physical 133 overweight and obese 38.30 (5.80) All IMI Intervention based on — —
Branco, Martins, activity community-based [B] Enjoyment/interest social cognitive theory
Minderico, Barata, [A] females Effort/importance – baseline measures
Serpa, & Sardinha Competence used in analysis [A]
(2007) [A] Tension/Pressure
Papacharisis, Simou, Physical 643 high school pupils 12.90 (1.20) Intention IMI Correlational – single — —
& Goudas (2003) [A] activity [A] Attitude Enjoyment/interest wave [A]
[A] PBC (barriers) Effort/importance
Competence
Tension/Pressure
Pihu, Hein, Koka, & Physical 399 (276 females, 123 males) 14.70 (1.40) Intention PLOC Correlational, Self-report – —
Hagger (in press) [A] activity high school pupils [A] Attitude Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ
[A] PBC Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External;
Perceived teacher feedback and learning styles
Rentzelas & Hagger Condom 84 (69 females, 15 males) 22.06 (3.92) All PLOC Correlational, Self-report – Self-report –
(2008) [B] use [B] undergraduate and [B] Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks 2 items 1 item
postgraduate students Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Sarrazin, Vallerand, Drop out 335 female handball players 14.07 (0.79) Intention SMS Correlational, Dropout —
Guillet, Pelletier, & from sport [A] Intrinsic to know, prospective – 21 from
Cury (2002) [A] activity Intrinsic accomplishment, months [A] handball
[A] Intrinsic stimulation,, programme
Identified,
Introjection,
External
Amotivation
Shen, McCaughtry, & Physical 653 high school pupils (335 12.4 All PLOC Correlational, Self-report - —
Martin (2007) [A] activity females, 318 males) Range 11-15 Intrinsic, prospective – 5 weeks LTEQ
[A] [A] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External;
IMI
Competence
Standage, Duda, & Physical 328 high school pupils (138 13.56 (0.59) Intention SMS Correlational – single — —
Ntoumanis (2003) [A] activity females, 160 males) Range 12-14 Intrinsic (know), wave [A]
[A] [A] Intrinsic (accomplishment),
Intrinsic (stimulation),
Identified,
Introjection,
External
Amotivation
Table 1 Continues
Study Health Sample(s)1 Mean Age of TPB Constructs SDT Constructs Measured Study Design Behaviour Past
Behaviour Sample (SD) Measured Measure Behaviour
Measure
Thøgerson-Ntoumani Physical 376 fitness clubs attendees 38.7 (10.9) Intention PLOC (BREQ) Correlational – single — —
& Ntoumanis (2007) activity (246 females, 121 males) Range 16-66 Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] [A] [B] Identified,
Introjection,
External
Vierling, Standage, & Physical 239 elementary school pupils 12.11 (1.21) Attitude PLOC Correlational, Pedometer —
Treasure (2007) [A] activity (119 females, 120 males) Range 9.81- Intrinsic, prospective – 2 weeks step counts
[A] 14.41 [A] Identified, [A] over 2 weeks
Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (adapted WCQ)
Vlachopoulos, Sport 1145 sports participants; Sample 1: Intention SMS Correlational – single — Regularity of
Karageorghis, & Terry participati Sample 1 590 (236 females, 23.35 (7.54) Attitude Intrinsic to know, wave [A] sports
(2000) [A] on [A] 353 males, 1 non-respondent); Range 18-32; Intrinsic accomplishment, participation
Sample 2 555 (250 females, Sample 2: Intrinsic stimulation,, – 1 item
305 males) 23.48 (6.56) Identified,
Range 18-30; Introjection,
[B] External
Amotivation
Wallhead & Hagger Physical 189 (95 females, 97 males) Caucasian: Intention PLOC Correlational, single — —
(2008) [B] activity high school pupils; Caucasian 11.13 (1.25); Attitude Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] sample 136 (67 females, 69 American PBC Identified,
males); American Indian Indian: 10.47 Subjective norm Introjection,
sample 56 (28 females, 28 (0.63) [A] (American External;
males) Indian sample Perceived autonomy support (PASSES)
only)
Wells, Thompson, & Breast- 228 pregnant women from 23.00 Range Intention Intrinsic Motivation Correlational, single — 5-item
Kloeblen-Tarver feeding prenatal clinics 13-45 [U] Extrinsic Motivation wave [A] measure of
(2002) type and
duration of
breast feeding
Wilson & Rodgers Physical 232 female university students 20.86 (2.21) Intention PLOC (BREQ-2) Correlational – single — —
(2004) [A] activity and staff Range 17-31 Intrinsic, wave [A]
[A] [B] Identified,
Introjection,
External;
Perceived autonomy support (adapted HCCQ)
Wilson, Rodgers, Physical 53 (44 females, 9 males) 41.75 (10.75) Attitude PLOC (BREQ) Non-theory based Self-report – —
Blanchard, & Gessell activity community volunteers [B] Intrinsic, exercise intervention LTEQ
(2003) [A] [A] Identified, [A]
Introjection,
External
Note. [A] = Denotes studies coded for moderators as: published, physical activity behaviours, younger participants, and correlational design; [B] =
Denotes studies coded for moderators as: unpublished, other health behaviours, older participants, and experimental/intervention in design; LTEQ =
Leisure time exercise questionnaire (Godin & Shephard, 1985); TPB = Theory of planned behaviour; SDT = Self-determination theory; PLOC =
Perceived locus of causality; PBC = Perceived behavioural control; BREQ = Behavioural regulations in exercise questionnaire (Mullan, Markland, &
Ingledew, 1997); BREQ-2 = Behavioural regulations in exercise questionnaire-2 (Markland & Tobin, 2004); HCCQ = Health care climate
questionnaire (G.C. Williams, Cox, Kouides, & Deci, 1999); IMI = Intrinsic motivation inventory (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989); PASSES =
Perceived autonomy support scale for exercise settings (Hagger et al., 2007); PECCS = Physical education class climate scale (Biddle et al., 1995);
SRQ = Self-regulation questionnaire (Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994); LCQ = Learning climate questionnaire (G. C. Williams & Deci, 1996); SMS =
Sport Motivation Scale (Briere, Vallerand, Blais, & Pelletier, 1995); PASE = Physical activity scale for the elderly (Washburn, Smith, Jette, & Janney,
1993); WCQ = Work Climate Questionnaire (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004).
Table 1 Continues
Planned behaviour and self-determination theory 39
Table 2.
Theory Components
LB UB LB UB
Self-determined motivation— 18 4036 .32 .38 .32 .44 .20 .56 .11 .03 418 31.62
Perceived autonomy support
Self-determined motivation— 38 10784 .44 .52 .46 .57 .25 .79 .16 .03 6325 12.64
Intention
Self-determined motivation— 28 7296 .45 .54 .44 .64 .13 .95 .25 .05 3499 6.33
Attitude
Self-determined motivation— 18 4489 .19 .24 .15 .33 -.05 .54 .18 .05 170 17.21
Subjective norm
Self-determined motivation— 22 5835 .37 .46 .35 .57 .05 .87 .25 .05 1215 7.34
PBC
Self-determined motivation— 28 5505 .30 .37 .30 .45 .08 .67 .18 .04 1765 18.32
Behaviour
Self-determined motivation— 18 4041 .28 .34 .26 .43 .06 .62 .17 .04 611 17.65
Past behaviour
Perceived autonomy support— 19 4139 .24 .28 .25 .32 .05 .51 .14 04 492 23.09
Intention
Perceived autonomy support— 15 2715 .29 .32 .24 .41 .10 .55 .14 .04 327 24.02
Attitude
Perceived autonomy support— 11 1862 .21 .27 .16 .37 .03 .50 .14 .05 65 31.98
Subjective norm
Perceived autonomy support— 13 2397 .15 .19 .11 .26 .01 .37 .11 .04 67 37.67
PBC
Perceived autonomy support— 14 2636 .20 .25 .17 .33 .05 .44 .11 .04 110 34.69
Behaviour
Perceived autonomy support— 11 2021 .23 .24 .14 .33 .01 .47 .14 .05 76 21.36
Past behaviour
Intention—Attitude 26 6662 .59 .70 .64 .75 .50 .90 .12 .03 5673 21.11
Intention—Subjective norm 21 5005 .33 .43 .33 .52 .09 .76 .20 .05 1184 14.14
Intention—PBC 24 5708 .51 .62 .53 .71 .27 .97 .22 .05 3011 9.04
Intention—Behaviour 27 5594 .52 .62 .54 .70 .28 .95 .21 .04 5347 10.72
Intention—Past behaviour 19 4171 .48 .57 .45 .70 .12 1.02 .27 .06 2413 5.99
Attitude—Subjective norm 20 4831 .32 .42 .31 .53 .04 .79 .23 .05 972 11.14
Attitude—PBC 23 5534 .45 .54 .47 .61 .29 .79 .15 .04 2295 16.48
Table 2 Continues
Effect k N r+a r++b CI95 CI90 SD SE NFS Varc
LB UB LB UB
Attitude—Behaviour 24 4840 .37 .45 .38 .52 .21 .69 .15 .03 2222 22.08
Attitude—Past behaviour 18 3956 .34 .42 .30 .54 -.01 .84 .26 .06 895 8.54
Subjective norm—PBC 20 4831 .27 .37 .26 .47 .01 .72 .22 .05 598 13.68
Subjective norm—Behaviour 18 3610 .19 .25 .17 .33 .01 .49 .15 .04 342 28.86
Subjective norm—Past 15 2739 .27 .35 .25 .45 .07 .63 .17 .05 265 24.22
behaviour
PBC—Behaviour 22 4487 .30 .38 .29 .48 .03 .73 .21 .05 1248 13.61
PBC—Past behaviour 16 2907 .29 .37 .26 .48 .03 .72 .21 .06 493 15.14
Behaviour-past behaviour 17 3081 .57 .73 .61 .84 .35 1.10 .23 .06 2360 10.79
a
Note. Averaged correlation corrected for sampling error only; bAveraged correlation
corrected for sampling error and measurement error; cVariance accounted for by statistical
Number of effect sizes contributing to averaged corrected correlation from the meta-analysis;
N = total sample size across studies contributing to correlation; CI95 = 95% confidence
intervals for averaged correlation corrected for sampling error only; CI90 = 90% confidence
interval for averaged correlation corrected for measurement error; LB = Lower bound of
Standard deviation of averaged correlation corrected for sampling and measurement error;
SE
= Standard error of averaged correlation corrected for sampling and measurement error; NFS =
Fail safe N.
Planned behaviour and self-determination theory 41
Table 3.
Results of Moderator Analyses for Effects of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and Self-Determination Theory Components
LB UB LB UB
Age Self-determined 15 4129 .48 .59 .51 .67 .34 .83 .14 .04 16.13
motivation—PBC
(7) (1228) (.33) (.39) (.29) (.48) (.22) (.54) (.09) (.05) (39.92)
Behaviour Attitude—PBC 20 5047 .47 .57 .50 .63 .33 .80 .14 .04 17.98
type
(3) (487) (.25) (.30) (.22) (.37) (.29) (.29) (.00) (.04) (100.00)
Attitude—Past behaviour 15 3534 .31 .39 .25 .52 -.02 .80 .25 .07 8.80
(3) (422) (.59) (.70) (.65) (.74) (.70) (.70) (.00) (.02) (100.00)
Intention—Past behaviour 16 3684 .45 .52 .39 .65 .08 .95 .26 .07 5.37
(3) (487) (.71) (.89) (.87) (.91) (.89) (.89) (.00) (.01) (100.00)
PBC—Behaviour 19 4000 .32 .41 .31 .51 .07 .75 .20 .05 14.09
(3) (487) (.10) (.13) (.01) (.24) (.05) (.20) (.05) (.06) (81.84)
Table 3 continues
Moderator Effect k N r+a r++b CI95 CI90 SD SE Varc
LB UB LB UB
Study Self-determined 34 10385 .45 .53 .47 .58 .26 .79 .16 .03 11.85
design motivation—Intention
(4) (399) (.31) (.32) (.24) (.39) (.32) (.32) (.00) (.03) (100.00)
Note. Statistics for younger participants, physical activity behaviours, and correlational studies are shown without parentheses and statistics for
older participants, other health behaviours, and experimental/intervention studies are shown in parentheses. aAveraged correlation corrected for
sampling error only; bAveraged correlation corrected for sampling error and measurement error; cVariance accounted for by statistical artifacts of
sampling and measurement error. PBC = Perceived behavioural control; k = Number of effect sizes contributing to averaged corrected correlation
from the meta-analysis; N = total sample size across studies contributing to correlation; CI95 = 95% confidence intervals for averaged correlation
corrected for sampling error only; CI90 = 90% confidence interval for averaged correlation corrected for measurement error; LB = Lower bound
of confidence/credibility interval; UB = Upper bound of confidence/credibility interval; SD = Standard deviation of averaged correlation
corrected for sampling and measurement error; SE = Standard error of averaged correlation corrected for sampling and measurement error.
Planned behaviour and self-determination theory 43
Figure caption
Figure 1. Meta-analytic path analysis of the proposed motivational sequence arising from the
Note.
shown.
.55**
.27**
Attitude
.37**
.31** .44**
Perceived Self-
Past .24** Autonomy .31** Determined .14** Subjective .06** .29**
Intention Behavior
Behaviour Support Motivation Norm
.27** .10**
.38**
Perceived .23**
Behavioral
.24**
Control
.27**