Cited by 119Women's cancer prevention and managementGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningBehavioral Health and Interventions

Behavioral Theory in a Diverse Society: Like a Compass on Mars

Open access
Pasick, Rena J., Burke, Nancy J., Barker, Judith C., Joseph, Galen, Bird, Joyce A., Otero-Sabogal, Regina, Tuason, Noe, Stewart, Susan L. +4 more·2009·Health Education & Behavior

Abstract

The behavioral theory constructs most often used to study mammography utilization—perceived benefit, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, intention, and subjective norms—have neither been developed nor sufficiently tested among diverse racial/ethnic subgroups. The authors explored these constructs and their underlying assumptions relating to the social context of Filipina and Latina women. The mixed-methods study included testing construct measures in the multilingual surveys of a concurrent intervention study of 1,463 women from five ethnic groups. An intensive inductive investigation then targeted Latina and Filipina women to elucidate connections between social context and individual screening behavior. In-depth interviews were conducted with 11 key informant scholars, 13 community gatekeepers, and 29 lay women, and a supplemental study videotaped and interviewed 9 mother—daughter dyads. Three social context domains emerged: relational culture, social capital, and transculturation and transmigration. The meaning and appropriateness of the five behavioral constructs were analyzed in relation to these domains. In contradistinction to tenets of behavioral theory, the authors found that social context can influence behavior directly, circumventing or attenuating the influence of individual beliefs; contextual influences, synthesized from multiple p erspectives, can operate at an unconscious level not accessible to the individual; and contextual influences are dynamic, contingent on distal and proximal forces coming together in a given moment and are thus not consistent with an exclusive focus at the individual level. This article describes the study methods, summarizes main findings, and previews the detailed results presented in the other articles in this issue.

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 · 10.1177/1090198109338917

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bandura A Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory 1986 Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall
  2. Keifer C Doing health anthropology 2007 New York Springer

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pasick, R. J., Burke, N. J., Barker, J. C., Joseph, G., Bird, J. A., Otero-Sabogal, R., Tuason, N., Stewart, S. L., Rakowski, W., Clark, M. A., Washington, P. K., & Guerra, C.
Affiliations
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Institute for Health and Aging, University of California, San Francisco
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco
Venue
Health Education & Behavior
Published
2009-10
Volume
36
Issue
5_suppl
Pages
11S-35S
ISSN
  • 1090-1981 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6127
OpenAlex
W2160783158
Cited by
119
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
10.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Education & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA81816, HHSN261200900383P, R01CA081816)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
mammography utilization, breast cancer screening, behavioral theory, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, self-efficacy, intention, subjective norms, social environment, Filipina women, Hispanic women, racial and ethnic diversity, transculturation, transmigration, social capital, relational culture, mother-daughter dyads
MeSH terms
Behavior, Breast Neoplasms, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Mammography, Models, Theoretical, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Cultural Diversity

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