CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Behavioral Health and InterventionsInnovative Human-Technology InteractionDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Designing for Future Behaviors: Understanding the Effect of Temporal Distance on Planned Behaviors

Open access
Suh, Minhyang (Mia), Hsieh, Gary·2016·Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/2858036.2858591
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of theories and interventions related to behavior change, our knowledge on how intention for a target, or planned behavior, changes over time remains limited. This hinders our ability to consider the temporal aspect in our designs to support behavior change. To understand the effect of temporal distances on planned behaviors, we conducted two studies, building on the Theory of Planned Behavior and Constual Level Theory. We found that attitude about the target is more salient the further away the event, as people focus on the why of a behavior. On the other hand, perceived behavior control can influence intention in both near and far future. When the target is in the near future, people generally focus on the feasibility, or the how of the behavior. In the far future, people may also consider factors related to behavior control, if they are motivated to do so (i.e., hold a strong attitude towards the action). Findings help advance the Theory of Planned Behavior and offer strategies for designers and event organizers to motivate planned behaviors that are in the near and far future.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2858036.2858591

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Suh and Hsieh (2016) found that behavioral intention reduces by 15-20% when the planned behavior is expected to be executed after a few weeks compared to a temporal lag of only a few days.

    “Suh and Hsieh (2016) found that behavioral intention reduces by 15 - 20% when the planned behavior is expected to be executed after a few weeks compared to a temporal lag of only a few days.”

    From Extending the Theory of Planned Behavior in the Social Commerce Context: A Meta-Analytic SEM (MASEM) Approach (2023) · cites this paper as Suh & Hsieh, 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Suh, M. (., & Hsieh, G.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Hsieh, Gary
Venue
Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2016-05-07
Pages
1084-1096
DOI
10.1145/2858036.2858591
OpenAlex
W2404084944
Cited by
16
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.12
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor, 365 d)
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (1348543)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
theory of planned behavior, temporal distance, behavior change, attitudes, perceived behavioral control, intention, event design, motivation

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