Neil Howlett1, Joerg Schulz1, Daksha Trivedi2, Nicholas Troop1, Angel Chater1,3,4. 1. Department of Psychology and Sport Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Herts, UK. 2. Centre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Herts, UK. 3. Institute for Sport and Physical Activity Research (ISPAR), School of Sport Science and Physical Activity, Faculty of Education and Sport, University of Bedfordshire, Bedford, UK. 4. UCL School of Pharmacy, Centre for Behavioural Medicine, Research Department of Practice and Policy, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In relation to sitting behaviour, to investigate which theoretical domains best formed the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation constructs of the COM-B, and compare the predictive validity to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), taking habit strength into consideration. DESIGN: Using a prospective design, 186 adults completed measures capturing domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework for the three COM-B constructs, and habit strength, which were examined using a formative measurement model. Predictive validity was then compared to the TPB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported sitting behaviour. RESULTS: Self-monitoring (behavioural regulation domain) formed Capability; subjective norm (social influences domain) formed Opportunity; intention (intentions domain), positive affect (emotion domain), and perceived behavioural control (beliefs about capabilities domain), formed Motivation. The COM-B strongly predicted sitting behaviour (27% variance explained), with Capability, Opportunity, and habit strength as key drivers. The TPB explained a large amount of variance (23%) in sitting behaviour, with intention and habit strength as key drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The behavioural regulation domain of Capability, the social influences domain of Opportunity, and habit strength were important drivers of sitting behaviour, with comparable variance predicted in the COM-B and TPB. Future research should consider this approach to conceptualise the COM-B for specific populations and behaviours.
OBJECTIVE: In relation to sitting behaviour, to investigate which theoretical domains best formed the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation constructs of the COM-B, and compare the predictive validity to the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), taking habit strength into consideration. DESIGN: Using a prospective design, 186 adults completed measures capturing domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework for the three COM-B constructs, and habit strength, which were examined using a formative measurement model. Predictive validity was then compared to the TPB. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported sitting behaviour. RESULTS: Self-monitoring (behavioural regulation domain) formed Capability; subjective norm (social influences domain) formed Opportunity; intention (intentions domain), positive affect (emotion domain), and perceived behavioural control (beliefs about capabilities domain), formed Motivation. The COM-B strongly predicted sitting behaviour (27% variance explained), with Capability, Opportunity, and habit strength as key drivers. The TPB explained a large amount of variance (23%) in sitting behaviour, with intention and habit strength as key drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The behavioural regulation domain of Capability, the social influences domain of Opportunity, and habit strength were important drivers of sitting behaviour, with comparable variance predicted in the COM-B and TPB. Future research should consider this approach to conceptualise the COM-B for specific populations and behaviours.
Keywords:
COM-B; Theoretical Domains Framework; Theory of Planned Behaviour: sitting; habit; sedentary behaviour
Authors: Angel M Chater; Joerg Schulz; Andy Jones; Amanda Burke; Shelby Carr; Dora Kukucska; Nick Troop; Daksha Trivedi; Neil Howlett Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-09-09