Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,769

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 105 of the 105 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: A meta-analysis.

Open access
Albarracín, Dolores, Johnson, Blair T., Fishbein, Martin, Muellerleile, Paige A.·2001·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.142
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To examine how well the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior predict condom use, the authors synthesized 96 data sets (N = 22,594) containing associations between the models' key variables. Consistent with the theory of reasoned action's predictions, (a) condom use was related to intentions (weighted mean r. = .45), (b) intentions were based on attitudes (r. = .58) and subjective norms (r. = .39), and (c) attitudes were associated with behavioral beliefs (r. = .56) and norms were associated with normative beliefs (r. = .46). Consistent with the theory of planned behavior's predictions, perceived behavioral control was related to condom use intentions (r. = .45) and condom use (r. = .25), but in contrast to the theory, it did not contribute significantly to condom use. The strength of these associations, however, was influenced by the consideration of past behavior. Implications of these results for HIV prevention efforts are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.142

Cites

105 of 105 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 105 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Albarracín, D., Johnson, B. T., Fishbein, M., & Muellerleile, P. A.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2001
Volume
127
Issue
1
Pages
142-161
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.142
OpenAlex
W2072498832
Cited by
1,769
References
105
FWCI
9.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.