Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 333

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Using theories of behaviour change to inform interventions for addictive behaviours

Open access
Webb, Thomas L., Sniehotta, Falko F., Michie, Susan·2010·Addiction
DOI 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03028.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aims This paper reviews a set of theories of behaviour change that are used outside the field of addiction and considers their relevance for this field. Methods Ten theories are reviewed in terms of (i) the main tenets of each theory, (ii) the implications of the theory for promoting change in addictive behaviours and (iii) studies in the field of addiction that have used the theory. An augmented feedback loop model based on Control Theory is used to organize the theories and to show how different interventions might achieve behaviour change. Results Briefly, each theory provided the following recommendations for intervention: Control Theory: prompt behavioural monitoring, Goal‐Setting Theory: set specific and challenging goals, Model of Action Phases: form ‘implementation intentions’, Strength Model of Self‐Control: bolster self‐control resources, Social Cognition Models (Protection Motivation Theory, Theory of Planned Behaviour, Health Belief Model): modify relevant cognitions, Elaboration Likelihood Model: consider targets' motivation and ability to process information, Prototype Willingness Model: change perceptions of the prototypical person who engages in behaviour and Social Cognitive Theory: modify self‐efficacy. Conclusions There are a range of theories in the field of behaviour change that can be applied usefully to addiction, each one pointing to a different set of modifiable determinants and/or behaviour change techniques. Studies reporting interventions should describe theoretical basis, behaviour change techniques and mode of delivery accurately so that effective interventions can be understood and replicated.

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 · 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03028.x

Cites

30 of 30 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 30 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Webb, T. L., Sniehotta, F. F., & Michie, S.
Venue
Addiction
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-29
Volume
105
Issue
11
Pages
1879-1892
ISSN
  • 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-0443
DOI
10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03028.x
OpenAlex
W1715143596
Cited by
333
References
30
FWCI
20.20
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.