| Literature DB >> 17974022 |
Ryan E Rhodes1, Kerry S Courneya, Chris M Blanchard, Ronald C Plotnikoff.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking is the primary focus of population-based physical activity initiatives but a theoretical understanding of this behaviour is still elusive. The purpose of this study was to integrate personality, the perceived environment, and planning into a theory of planned behaviour (TPB) framework to predict leisure-time walking.Entities:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17974022 PMCID: PMC2174941 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-4-51
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Correlations of social cognition, perceived environment and personality with walking (N = 358).
| Construct | M | SD | Walking |
| Affective Attitude | 5.48 | 0.92 | .32** |
| Instrumental Attitude | 6.19 | 0.82 | .25** |
| Subjective Norm | 5.60 | 1.11 | .24** |
| PBC | 5.92 | 1.27 | .27** |
| Intention | 5.51 | 1.42 | .41** |
| Planning | 5.01 | 1.80 | .29** |
| Proximity to Retail | 2.75 | 1.16 | .17** |
| Proximity to Recreation | 3.37 | 0.86 | .09 |
| Infrastructure Quality | 3.08 | 1.14 | .17** |
| Neighbourhood Aesthetics | 3.31 | 0.77 | .14** |
| Traffic Safety | 1.74 | 0.89 | -.01 |
| Crime | 1.67 | 0.85 | .07 |
| Extraversion | 4.93 | 0.79 | .03 |
| Neuroticism | 3.59 | 0.91 | .03 |
| Conscientiousness | 5.33 | 0.90 | .08 |
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01. PBC = perceived behavioural control. TPB = theory of planned behaviour.
Figure 1Perceived environment and theory of planned behaviour model to predict walking. Note: All effects are standardized; = p < .05, = p > .05.
Factor loadings of selected environmental characteristics, the theory of planned behaviour and walking (n = 358).
| Mean | SD | Factor Loading | Error Variance | |
| Proximity to Retail | 2.76 | 1.16 | 1.00 | .00 |
| Infrastructure Quality | 3.08 | 1.14 | 1.00 | .00 |
| Neighbourhood Aesthetics | 3.31 | 0.77 | 1.00 | .00 |
| Enjoyable-unenjoyable | 5.79 | 1.19 | .87 | .24 |
| Pleasant-unpleasant | 5.93 | 1.01 | .90* | .19 |
| Exciting-boring | 4.69 | 1.16 | .63* | .60 |
| Useful-useless | 6.14 | 0.94 | .79 | .37 |
| Wise-foolish | 6.21 | 1.06 | .87* | .24 |
| Beneficial-harmful | 6.22 | 0.91 | .84* | .29 |
| Item 1 | 5.52 | 1.53 | .80 | .35 |
| Item 2 | 6.31 | 1.14 | .87* | .24 |
| Item 3 | 4.95 | 1.47 | .56* | .68 |
| Item 1 | 5.99 | 1.51 | .96 | .08 |
| Item 2 | 6.20 | 1.35 | .92* | .16 |
| Item 3 | 5.57 | 1.45 | .77* | .41 |
| Item 1 | 5.55 | 1.45 | .92 | .16 |
| Item 2 | 5.47 | 1.50 | .96* | .08 |
| "when" | 4.77 | 2.04 | .92 | .15 |
| "where" | 5.14 | 1.91 | .95* | .10 |
| "what" | 5.15 | 1.85 | .93* | .14 |
| "how" | 4.94 | 2.08 | .86* | .26 |
| GLTEQ | 4.27 | 2.09 | 1.00 | .00 |
Note: All loadings reported are standardized. No t-values are available for the first loading, because it was fixed for model identification purposes. * All freed factor loadings significant p < .01.
Correlation matrix of selected environmental characteristics, the theory of planned behaviour and walking (n = 358).
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| 1. Proximity to Retail | .58 | .02 | .11 | .06 | .08 | .13 | .11 | .09 | .17 |
| 2. Infrastructure Quality | .30 | .25 | .20 | .21 | .17 | .22 | .17 | .17 | |
| 3. Neighbourhood Aesthetics | .23 | .06 | .18 | .08 | .15 | .12 | .14 | ||
| 4. Affective Attitude | .69 | .54 | .11 | .70 | .53 | .37 | |||
| 5. Instrumental Attitude | .71 | .12 | .67 | .51 | .32 | ||||
| 6. Subjective Norm | .22 | .55 | .42 | .28 | |||||
| 7. Perceived Behavioural Control | .36 | .31 | .24 | ||||||
| 8. Intention | .76 | .47 | |||||||
| 9. Planning | .29 | ||||||||
| 10. Walking |
Perceived environment, planning, and personality as moderators of intention when predicting walking (n = 358).
| Fchange | df | R2change | β1 | β2 | |
| (Block #1) | 18.08* | 4,340 | .18 | ||
| intention | .42** | .37** | |||
| planning | -.01 | -.01 | |||
| conscientiousness | .00 | .03 | |||
| proximity to recreation | .06 | .06 | |||
| (Block #2) | 2.95* | 3,337 | .02 | ||
| Planning × intention | -.07 | ||||
| conscientiousness × intention | .10* | ||||
| proximity to recreation × intention | .11* |
Note: *p < .05; ** p < .01. β1–2 = standardized regression coefficients for equations #1, and #2. df = degrees of freedom.
Figure 2Proximity to recreation as a moderator of the intention-walking relationship.
Figure 3Conscientiousness as a moderator of the intention-walking relationship.