The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Experimental evidence for the intention–behavior relationship in the physical activity domain: A meta-analysis.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Most contemporary theories of physical activity include an intention construct as the proximal determinant of behavior. Support of this premise has been found through correlational research. The purpose of this paper was to appraise the experimental evidence for the intention-behavior relationship through meta-analysis. METHODS: Studies were eligible if they included: (1) random assignment of participants to intervention/no intervention groups; (2) an intervention that produced a significant difference in intention between groups; and (3) a measure of behavior was taken after the intention measure. Literature searches were concluded in December 2010 among five key search engines. RESULTS: This search yielded a total of 1,033 potentially relevant records; of these, 11 passed the eligibility criteria. Random effects meta-analysis procedures with correction for sampling bias were employed in the analysis. The sample-weighted average effect size derived from these studies was d+ = .45 (95% CI .30 to .60) for intention, yet d+ = .15 (95% CI .06 to .23) for behavior. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate a weak relationship between intention and behavior that may be below meaningful/practical value. We suggest that prior evidence was probably biased by the limits of correlation coefficients in passive designs. It is recommended that contemporary research apply models featuring intention-behavior mediators or action control variables in order to account for this intention-behavior gap.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12265 · Cited by 2,185
Gardner, B. (2015) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2013.876238 · Cited by 1,016
Rhodes, R. E., & de Bruijn, G. (2013) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12032 · Cited by 787
Self-citationUnderstanding the intention-behavior gap: The role of intention strength
Conner, M., & Norman, P. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923464 · Cited by 509
Attitudes, habits, and behavior change
Verplanken, B., & Orbell, S. (2022) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-011744 · Cited by 368
Metadata
- Authors
- Rhodes, R. E., & Dickau, L.
- Venue
- Health Psychology
- Published
- 2012-11
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 724-727
- ISSN
- 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-7810
- OpenAlex
- W1987731618
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Experimental evidence for the intention–behavior relationship in the physical activity domain: A meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/a0027290
- The paper
- Rhodes, R. E., & Dickau, L. (2012). Experimental evidence for the intention–behavior relationship in the physical activity domain: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027290
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.