The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Social cognitive theory and physical activity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Abstract
Summary: This review investigated three research questions (i) What is the utility of social cognitive theory (SCT) to explain physical activity (PA)?; (ii) Is the effectiveness of SCT moderated by sample or methodological characteristics? and (iii) What is the frequency of significant associations between the core SCT constructs and PA? Ten electronic databases were searched with no date or sample restrictions. Forty‐four studies were retrieved containing 55 SCT models of PA. Methodological quality was assessed using a standardized tool. A random‐effects meta‐analysis revealed that SCT accounted for 31% of the variance in PA. However, methodological quality was mostly poor for these models. Methodological quality and sample age moderated the PA effect size, with increases in both associated with greater variance explained. Although self‐efficacy and goals were consistently associated with PA, outcome expectations and socio‐structural factors were not. This review determined that SCT is a useful framework to explain PA behaviour. Higher quality models explained more PA variance, but overall methodological quality was poor. As such, high‐quality studies examining the utility of SCT to explain PA are warranted.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change
Bandura, A. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191 · Cited by 43,925
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 · Cited by 17,796
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N., Margono, C., Mullany, E. C., Biryukov, S., Abbafati, C., Abera, S. F., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60460-8 · Cited by 11,952
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
Cited by
Theories of motivation: A comprehensive analysis of human behavior drivers
Bandhu, D., Mohan, M. M., Nittala, N. A. P., Jadhav, P., Bhadauria, A., & Saxena, K. K. (2024) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104177 · Cited by 555
Changing Behavior Using the Theory of Planned Behavior
Ajzen, I., & Schmidt, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.002 · Cited by 266
Laird, Y., Fawkner, S., Kelly, P., McNamee, L., & Niven, A. (2016) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-016-0405-7 · Cited by 210
Changing Behavior Using the Model of Action Phases
Keller, L., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2020) · The Handbook of Behavior Change · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.006 · Cited by 147
Factors associated with participation in resistance training: a systematic review.
Rhodes, R. E., Lubans, D. R., Karunamuni, N., Kennedy, S., & Plotnikoff, R. (2017) · British Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096950 · Cited by 120
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Young, M. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins, C. E., Callister, R., & Morgan, P. J.
- Venue
- Obesity Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-10-07
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 983-995
- ISSN
- 1467-7881 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-789X
- OpenAlex
- W1705499022
- Cited by
- 493
- References
- 101
- FWCI
- 2.79
- 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: Social cognitive theory and physical activity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/obr.12225
- The paper
- Young, M. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins, C. E., Callister, R., & Morgan, P. J. (2014). Social cognitive theory and physical activity: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obesity Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.12225
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.
