The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Do intentions predict condom use? Metaanalysis and examination of six moderator variables
Abstract
This study used meta‐analysis to quantify the relationship between intentions and behaviour in prospective studies of condom use. The effects of six moderator variables were also examined: sexual orientation, gender, sample age, time interval, intention versus expectation and condom use with ‘steady’ versus ‘casual’ partners. Literature searches revealed 28 hypotheses based on a total sample of 2532 which could be included in the review. Overall, there was a medium to strong sample‐weighted average correlation between intentions and condom use ( r + = .44), and this correlation was similar to the effect sizes obtained in previous reviews. There were too few studies of gay men to permit meaningful comparison of effect sizes between homosexual versus heterosexual samples. Gender and measurement of intention did not moderate the intention‐behaviour relationship. However, shorter time intervals, older samples and condom use with ‘steady’ rather than ‘casual’ partners were each associated with stronger correlations between intentions and condom use. Factors which might explain the significant effects of moderator variables are discussed and implications of the study for future research on intention‐behaviour consistency are outlined.
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
Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(86)90045-4 · Cited by 5,718
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209170 · Cited by 3,867
Cited by
Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta‐analytic review
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466601164939 · Cited by 9,970
Nature and Operation of Attitudes
Ajzen, I. (2001) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27 · Cited by 4,321
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 · Cited by 3,732
Self-citationIntention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review
Sheeran, P. (2002) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792772143000003 · Cited by 3,688
Self-citationImplementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38002-1 · Cited by 3,236
“Similarly, meta‐analysis has shown that the longer the time interval between measures of goal intentions and goal achievement, the less likely it is that intentions are realized (Sheeran & Orbell, 1998).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S.
- Venue
- British Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1998-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 231-250
- ISSN
- 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8309
- OpenAlex
- W2043019728
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 20.02
- 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: Do intentions predict condom use? Metaanalysis and examination of six moderator variables. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01167.x
- The paper
- Sheeran, P., & Orbell, S. (1998). Do intentions predict condom use? Metaanalysis and examination of six moderator variables. British Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01167.x
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.