| Literature DB >> 33595450 |
Amro Khasawneh1, Kapil Chalil Madathil2, Heidi Zinzow3, Patrick Rosopa3, Gitanjali Natarajan4, Krishnashree Achuthan5, Meera Narasimhan6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based challenges, phenomena that are familiar to adolescents and young adults who spend large amounts of time on social media, range from minimally harmful behaviors intended to support philanthropic endeavors to significantly harmful behaviors that may culminate in injury or death.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; behavior; challenge; integrated behavioral model; participation; self-injurious behavior; social media; survey; web-based challenges; young adult
Year: 2021 PMID: 33595450 PMCID: PMC8078707 DOI: 10.2196/24988
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Pediatr Parent ISSN: 2561-6722
Figure 1Integrated behavior model attitude.
Construct reliability measured using Cronbach alpha.
| Construct | Cronbach alpha for Cinnamon challenge items | Cronbach alpha for ALSa ice bucket challenge items |
| Experiential attitude | .81 | .67 |
| Instrumental attitude | .87 | .69 |
| Value assigned to experiential attitude | .85 | .67 |
| Value assigned to instrumental attitude | .92 | .91 |
| Injunctive norm | .94 | .92 |
| Descriptive norm | .91 | .88 |
| Motivation to comply | .88 | .88 |
| Perceived control | .70 | .85 |
| Self-efficacy | .66 | .78 |
aALS: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Participants’ demographics.
| Variable | Values, n (%) | ||
|
| |||
|
| Female | 389 (82.6) | |
|
| Male | 78 (16.6) | |
|
| Prefer not to answer | 4 (0.8) | |
|
| |||
|
| Some high school | 171 (36.3) | |
|
| High school or GEDa | 155 (32.9) | |
|
| 2-year college degree | 26 (5.5) | |
|
| Some college | 58 (12.3) | |
|
| 4-year college degree | 33 (7.0) | |
|
| Master’s degree | 21 (4.5) | |
|
| PhD degree | 2 (0.4) | |
|
| Professional degree (eg, Juris doctor or Doctor of medicine) | 5 (1.1) | |
|
| |||
|
| White | 220 (46.7) | |
|
| African American | 132 (28.0) | |
|
| Native American | 4 (0.8) | |
|
| Asian | 32 (6.8) | |
|
| Pacific Islander | 2 (0.4) | |
|
| Hispanic or Latino | 55 (11.7) | |
|
| Other | 26 (5.5) | |
|
| |||
|
| Full-time | 86 (18.3) | |
|
| Part-time | 87 (18.5) | |
|
| Student | 236 (50.1) | |
|
| Retired | 2 (0.4) | |
|
| Unemployed | 60 (12.7) | |
|
| |||
|
| <18 | 234 (46.7) | |
|
| 18-35 | 237 (50.3) | |
|
| |||
|
| Cinnamon challenge | 153 (32.5) | |
|
| ALSb ice bucket challenge | 155 (32.9) | |
|
| None | 163 (34.6) | |
|
| |||
|
| <1 | 16 (3.4) | |
|
| 1-2 | 30 (6.4) | |
|
| 2-3 | 63 (13.4) | |
|
| 3-4 | 98 (20.8) | |
|
| >4 | 264 (56.1) | |
aGED: General Educational Development.
bALS: amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Figure 2Procedure flow chart.
Results of binomial logistic regression model predicting cinnamon challenge participation.
| Predictora | Δ | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
| Constant (Intercept) | −0.68 (0.29) | N/Ab | N/A |
| Age groupc | 0.12 (0.35) | 0.1 (1) | 1.12 (0.57-2.26) |
| Experiential attitude | −0.31 (0.16) | 4.0 (1) | 0.73 (0.53-1.00) |
| Instrumental attitude | 0.42 (0.13) | 11.5 (1)** | 1.52 (1.19-1.96) |
| Injunctive norm | 1.15 (0.24) | 30.4 (1)** | 3.15 (2.04-5.15) |
| Descriptive norm | 0.57 (0.23) | 6.6 (1)* | 1.78 (1.15-2.80) |
| Perceived control | 0.53 (0.28) | 3.9 (1) | 1.71 (1.00-3.00) |
| Self-efficacy | 0.25 (0.19) | 1.7 (1) | 1.30 (0.89-1.87) |
| Experiential attitude × value of experiential attitude | −0.09 (0.12) | 0.7 (1) | 0.91 (0.72-1.14) |
| Instrumental attitude × value of instrumental attitude | 0.10 (0.07) | 2.4 (1) | 1.11 (0.97-1.27) |
| Injunctive norm × motivation to comply | −0.48 (0.16) | 8.8 (1)** | 0.62 (0.45-0.85) |
| Descriptive norm × motivation to comply | −0.12 (0.15) | 0.7 (1) | 0.88 (0.64-1.17) |
aModel χ211=151.05; n=318; R2L=0.34; null −2 Log likelihood=440.63; model 2 Log likelihood with predictors=289.58.
bN/A: not applicable.
cAge group was a dummy variable where 0=under 18 years old and 1=from 18 to 35 years old.
*P<.01; **P<.001.
Figure 3The relationship between instrumental attitude and probability of cinnamon challenge participation.
Figure 5The relationship between descriptive norm and probability of cinnamon challenge participation.
Figure 6The relationship between injunctive norm and probability of cinnamon challenge participation moderated by motivation to comply.
Results of binomial logistic regression model predicting amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ice bucket challenge participation.
| Predictora | Δ | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |
| Constant | 0.05 (0.23) | N/Ab | N/A |
| Age groupc | −0.26 (0.30) | 0.7 (1) | 0.78 (0.43-1.40) |
| Experiential attitude | 0.66 (0.16) | 20.4 (1)** | 1.94 (1.44-2.69) |
| Instrumental attitude | −0.25 (0.13) | 4.0 (1) | 0.78 (0.60-1.00) |
| Injunctive norm | 0.28 (0.18) | 2.4 (1) | 1.33 (0.93-1.91) |
| Descriptive norm | 0.61 (0.20) | 9.6 (1)* | 1.84 (1.25-2.79) |
| Perceived control | −0.05 (0.25) | 0.1 (1) | 0.95 (0.58-1.56) |
| Self-efficacy | 0.15 (0.20) | 0.6 (1) | 1.16 (0.79-1.72) |
| Experiential attitude × value of experiential attitude | −0.15 (0.14) | 1.1 (1) | 0.86 (0.65-1.13) |
| Instrumental attitude × value of instrumental attitude | 0.05 (0.07) | 0.6 (1) | 1.05 (0.93-1.20) |
| Injunctive norm × motivation to comply | 0.06 (0.14) | 0.2 (1) | 1.06 (0.80-1.40) |
| Descriptive norm × motivation to comply | −0.24 (0.14) | 3.0 (1) | 0.79 (0.60-1.03) |
aModel χ211=151.05; n=318; R2L=0.34; null −2 Log likelihood=440.63; model 2 Log likelihood with predictors=289.58.
bN/A: not applicable.
cAge group was a dummy variable where 0=under 18 years old and 1=from 18 to 35 years old.
*P<.01; **P<.001.
Figure 7The relationship between experiential attitude and probability of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ice bucket challenge participation.
Figure 8The relationship between descriptive norm and probability of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ice bucket challenge participation.