Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2015
Avoiding exposure to air pollution by using filtering facemask respirators: An application of the health action process approach.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhou Guangyu, Gan Yiqun, Ke Qin, Knoll Nina, Lonsdale Chris, Schwarzer Ralf
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Adherence to the use of filtering facemask respirators on hazy days to reduce exposure to air pollution is examined with the aim of uncovering psychological mechanisms that may be responsible for individual differences in motivation and behavior.
METHODS: In a longitudinal survey, 164 young adults from Beijing, China, completed assessments at baseline (Time 1), 2 weeks (Time 2), and 4 weeks later (Time 3). Self-efficacy, risk perception, and outcome expectancies were measured along with intention at Time 1, planning and action control at Time 2, and facemask use at Time 3. A structural equation model was specified to test theory-implied pathways of influence.
RESULTS: Self-efficacy and risk perception jointly predicted behavioral intention at Time 1. Planning and action control at Time 2 jointly predicted behavior at Time 3, serving as parallel mediators between intention (Time 1) and facemask use (Time 3). The model explained 19.5% and 30.2% of the variance in intention and behavior, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Results support theory-based psychological mechanisms, with a focus on planning and action control, which might be influential in the adoption and maintenance of self-protective facemask wearing.
METHODS: In a longitudinal survey, 164 young adults from Beijing, China, completed assessments at baseline (Time 1), 2 weeks (Time 2), and 4 weeks later (Time 3). Self-efficacy, risk perception, and outcome expectancies were measured along with intention at Time 1, planning and action control at Time 2, and facemask use at Time 3. A structural equation model was specified to test theory-implied pathways of influence.
RESULTS: Self-efficacy and risk perception jointly predicted behavioral intention at Time 1. Planning and action control at Time 2 jointly predicted behavior at Time 3, serving as parallel mediators between intention (Time 1) and facemask use (Time 3). The model explained 19.5% and 30.2% of the variance in intention and behavior, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Results support theory-based psychological mechanisms, with a focus on planning and action control, which might be influential in the adoption and maintenance of self-protective facemask wearing.