Guangyu Zhou1, Yiqun Gan2, Qin Ke2, Nina Knoll1, Chris Lonsdale3, Ralf Schwarzer3. 1. Department of Educational Science and Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin. 2. Department of Psychology, Peking University. 3. Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Adherence to the use of filtering facemask respirators on hazy days to reduce exposure to air pollution is examined with the aim of uncovering psychological mechanisms that may be responsible for individual differences in motivation and behavior. METHODS: In a longitudinal survey, 164 young adults from Beijing, China, completed assessments at baseline (Time 1), 2 weeks (Time 2), and 4 weeks later (Time 3). Self-efficacy, risk perception, and outcome expectancies were measured along with intention at Time 1, planning and action control at Time 2, and facemask use at Time 3. A structural equation model was specified to test theory-implied pathways of influence. RESULTS: Self-efficacy and risk perception jointly predicted behavioral intention at Time 1. Planning and action control at Time 2 jointly predicted behavior at Time 3, serving as parallel mediators between intention (Time 1) and facemask use (Time 3). The model explained 19.5% and 30.2% of the variance in intention and behavior, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results support theory-based psychological mechanisms, with a focus on planning and action control, which might be influential in the adoption and maintenance of self-protective facemask wearing. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVES: Adherence to the use of filtering facemask respirators on hazy days to reduce exposure to air pollution is examined with the aim of uncovering psychological mechanisms that may be responsible for individual differences in motivation and behavior. METHODS: In a longitudinal survey, 164 young adults from Beijing, China, completed assessments at baseline (Time 1), 2 weeks (Time 2), and 4 weeks later (Time 3). Self-efficacy, risk perception, and outcome expectancies were measured along with intention at Time 1, planning and action control at Time 2, and facemask use at Time 3. A structural equation model was specified to test theory-implied pathways of influence. RESULTS: Self-efficacy and risk perception jointly predicted behavioral intention at Time 1. Planning and action control at Time 2 jointly predicted behavior at Time 3, serving as parallel mediators between intention (Time 1) and facemask use (Time 3). The model explained 19.5% and 30.2% of the variance in intention and behavior, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Results support theory-based psychological mechanisms, with a focus on planning and action control, which might be influential in the adoption and maintenance of self-protective facemask wearing. (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Yanping Duan; Sonia Lippke; Wei Liang; Borui Shang; Franziska Maria Keller; Petra Wagner; Julien Steven Baker; Jiali He Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Lilin Xiong; Jie Li; Ting Xia; Xinyue Hu; Yan Wang; Maonan Sun; Meng Tang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-08-12 Impact factor: 3.390