The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Meta-Analytic Review of the Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior in Physical Activity: Predictive Validity and the Contribution of Additional Variables
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to examine relations between behavior, intentions, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, and past behavior across studies using the Theories of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Planned Behavior (TPB) in a physical activity context. Meta-analytic techniques were used to correct the correlations between the TRA/TPB constructs for statistical artifacts across 72 studies, and path analyses were conducted to examine the pattern of relationships among the variables. Results demonstrated that the TRA and TPB both exhibited good fit with the corrected correlation matrices, but the TPB accounted for more variance in physical activity intentions and behavior. In addition, self-efficacy explained unique variance in intention, and the inclusion of past behavior in the model resulted in the attenuation of the intention-behavior, attitude-intention, self-efficacy-intention, and self-efficacy-behavior relationships. There was some evidence that the study relationships were moderated by attitude-intention strength and age, but there was a lack of homogeneity in the moderator groups. It was concluded that the major relationships of the TRA/TPB were supported in this quantitative integration of the physical activity literature, and the inclusion of self-efficacy and past behavior are important additions to the model.
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
The theory of planned behavior: Frequently asked questions
Ajzen, I. (2020) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1002/hbe2.195 · Cited by 3,347
Implementation 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
McEachan, R. R. C., Conner, M., Taylor, N. J., & Lawton, R. J. (2011) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.521684 · Cited by 2,279
Theory of planned behaviour, identity and intentions to engage in environmental activism.
Fielding, K. S., McDonald, R., & Louis, W. R. (2008) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.03.003 · Cited by 883
Rhodes, R. E., & de Bruijn, G. (2013) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12032 · Cited by 787
Metadata
- Authors
- Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology
- Publisher
- Human Kinetics
- Published
- 2002-03
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-32
- ISSN
- 0895-2779 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-2904
- OpenAlex
- W2106757038
- Cited by
- 1,655
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 50.06
- 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: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior in Physical Activity: Predictive Validity and the Contribution of Additional Variables. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1123/jsep.24.1.3
- The paper
- Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). A Meta-Analytic Review of the Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior in Physical Activity: Predictive Validity and the Contribution of Additional Variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.1.3
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.