The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Decisions to donate bone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a field investigation of the determinants of decisions to donate bone marrow. Predictions are made on the basis of a modification of the theory of reasoned action wherein attitudes are operational-ized in separate affective and evaluative components. Boundary conditions of the theory of reasoned action are further explored by examining the effects of culture (Hong Kong Chinese, N= 190; American Chinese, N = 107; black Americans, N = 124; and white Americans N = 122) on decisions to donate for each of four targets: Immediate Family Members (TFM), Close Relatives (CR), Ethnic Strangers (ES), and Total Strangers (TS). For this life or death decision, the willingness to give is hypothesized to vary as a function of the so-called fitness value of the recipients (i.e., their capacity to contribute to the donor's inclusive fitness), as modified by cultural differences between group- versus independent-based cultures. Among other results, the following gradient was found in attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions for Chinese: IFM > CR > ES > TS; for Americans the pattern was IFM = CR > ES = TS. American Chinese showed stronger attitudes and felt norms, but not intentions, to give to close relatives than did Hong Kong Chinese, reflecting differential in-group/out-group pressures. Black and White Americans showed stronger attitudes, subjective norms, and intentions to donate to strangers than did Chinese.
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
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888 · Cited by 7,611
Cited by
Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x · Cited by 3,735
Self-citationTrying to prosume: toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value
Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0060-2 · Cited by 668
Self-citationSome problems with social cognition models: A pragmatic and conceptual analysis.
Ogden, J. (2003) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.22.4.424 · Cited by 426
Anticipated regret as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analysis
Sandberg, T., & Conner, M. (2008) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466607x258704 · Cited by 417
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Barkoukis, V., Wang, C. K. J., & Baranowski, J. (2005) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.376 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Bagozzi, R. P., Lee, K.-H., & Van Loo, M. F.
- Venue
- Psychology & Health
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-01
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-56
- ISSN
- 0887-0446 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-8321
- OpenAlex
- W2066981955
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.85
- 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: Decisions to donate bone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/08870440108405488
- The paper
- Bagozzi, R. P., Lee, K.-H., & Van Loo, M. F. (2001). Decisions to donate bone marrow: The role of attitudes and subjective norms across cultures. Psychology & Health. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440108405488
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.