Cited by 1,258Behavioral Health and InterventionsMedia Influence and HealthEnvironmental Education and Sustainability

Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis

Rivis, Amanda, Sheeran, Paschal·2003·Current Psychology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12144-003-1018-2

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 59.0% variance explained in behavioral intention is significantly higher than the 31.0% obtained by Rise et al. (2010), 33.0% by Rivis et al. (2009), and 39.0% by Rivis and Sheeran (2003).

    “In comparison to other meta-analyses focusing on TPB, these percentages are superior, as the 59.0% variance explained in behavioral intention is significantly higher than the 31.0% obtained by Rise etal. (2010), 33.0% by Rivis etal. (2009), and 39.0% by Rivis and Sheeran (2003).”
  • No percentages of variance explained for use behavior are reported in the articles published by Rise et al. (2010), Rivis et al. (2009), and Rivis and Sheeran (2003).

    “However, no percentages of variance explained for use behavior are reported in the articles published by Rise etal. (2010), Rivis etal. (2009), and Rivis and Sheeran (2003).”
  • Rivis and Sheeran's (2003) meta-analysis found that descriptive norms accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in intentions.

    “For example, Rivis and Sheeran's (2003) meta-analysis found that descriptive norms accounted for an additional 5% of the variance in intentions.”
  • The results support the argument that social factors are important within the theory of planned behaviour and support the inclusion of additional sources of social influence into the TPB.

    “These results support the argument that social factors are important within the theory of planned behaviour and support the inclusion of additional sources of social influence into the TPB (see e.g., Manstead, 2000;Rivis & Sheeran, 2003).”
  • Rivis and Sheeran assessed 14 studies with a total sample of 5,810 and found strong evidence for the predictive validity of descriptive norms in intention formation.

    “Rivis and Sheeran ([2003], p. 228) assessed fourteen studies (total sample size N 5 5,810) covering a wide range of behavioural domains, and they found 'strong evidence in support of the predictive validity of descriptive norms' in 'intention formation'.”

    From Science Communication and the Problematic Impact of Descriptive Norms (2023) · cites this paper as Rivis and Sheeran [2003]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rivis, A., & Sheeran, P.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
Current Psychology
Published
2003-09
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
218-233
ISSN
  • 1046-1310 (ISSN-L)
  • 0737-8262
  • 1936-4733
OpenAlex
W2010512215
Cited by
1,258
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 78 · 2016: 77 · 2015: 75 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 48
FWCI
2.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Current Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Education and Sustainability
Keywords
descriptive norms, theory of planned behavior, behavioral intention, subjective norms, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, health risk behaviors, social influence, age differences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review