Cited by 292Behavioral Health and InterventionsBreastfeeding Practices and InfluencesMedia Influence and Health

Predicting and understanding mothers' infant-feeding intentions and behavior: Testing the theory of reasoned action

Manstead, A. S., Proffitt, Christine, Smart, J. L.·1983·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

The present study examines the applicability of Fishbein and Ajzen's theory of reasoned action to the prediction and understanding of how primiparous and multiparous mothers intended to feed their infants and how they actually fed these infants during the 6 weeks following delivery. Measures of attitudes to behavior, subjective norms, and behavioral intentions were taken during the last trimester of pregnancy. Behavior was assessed by self-report 6 weeks postpartum. In most respects the findings supported the theory of reasoned action. However, attitudes to behavior were found to make an independent and significant contribution to the prediction of infant-feeding behavior, and the previous behavior of multiparous mothers explained an independent and significant proportion of variation in their behavioral intentions. The relative importance of the attitudinal and normative components of the theoretical model tended to vary according to whether the mothers had direct experience of the criterion behavior. Further analysis revealed that mothers who breast-fed during the 6-week postpartum period differed from those who bottle-fed exclusively during this period on a number of behavioral beliefs, outcome evaluations, and normative beliefs, and on one measure of motivation to comply. The implications of these findings for the theory of reasoned action are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.44.4.657

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • A mother's choice of feeding method (breast versus bottle) correlates .82 with intentions expressed several weeks prior to delivery.

    “This choice was found to have a correlation of .82 with intentions expressed several weeks prior to delivery (Manstead, Proffitt, & Smart, 1983).”

    From The theory of planned behavior (1991) · cites this paper as Manstead, Proffitt, & Smart, 1983

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manstead, A. S., Proffitt, C., & Smart, J. L.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
1983
Volume
44
Issue
4
Pages
657-671
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2150633520
Cited by
292
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Breastfeeding Practices and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
Keywords
infant feeding, breastfeeding, bottle feeding, theory of reasoned action, maternal attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral intention, primiparous women, multiparous mothers, postpartum period, pregnancy, theory testing
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attitude to Health, Breast Feeding, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Maternal Behavior, Models, Psychological, Parity, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Third, Psychological Theory

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