Why People Adopt Health-Related Behaviours - Essay Example

Running Head: WHY PEOPLE ADOPT HEALTH-RELATED BEHAVIOURS Why People Adopt Health-Related Behaviours Name Institution Date Introduction In the lives of human beings the value of good health cannot be underestimated. Many people hold this factor in high esteem and majority of them wish to avoid the plight of disease as much as possible. As it turns out, many people fail to look for healthcare when it is needed. It could be said that the laxity of human beings and their lack of personal discipline and commitment to health related matters are responsible for the wreckage caused by disease. According to Hayden, J. (2009), many diseases are as a result of the behavior of man. Many lifestyle diseases and the danger occasions of such action like smoking and prostitution all put an individual at risk of contracting diseases. In the field of health psychology there are several theories that have been put forward to try and explain health related behavior of an individual. The aim of this paper is to look at this theories and their application in the prediction of health behavior. The theories of prediction of health behavior Social cognition Models According to Kegler (2009), social cognitive models refers to a number of similar theories grouped together each of them specifying a small number of affective and cognitive factors (attitudes and beliefs) as the predicted behavior determinants. The models acknowledge that behavior is determined by numerous factors such as personality, cultural and social cultural factors, and more so they have an assumption that the outcomes of such distal factors are completely or largely mediated by proximal factors provided by the model. As opposed to distal factors, the proximal ones have an assumption that they are amenable to change, for instance by the provision of information that is relevant. Consequently social cognition models can be utilized as interventions of health behavior (Davies & Grimshaw, 2003). The theories in the model can be discussed as follows; The Health Belief Model This model was developed in the 1950s by a social psychologists group who worked in the public health field and sought to explain the reason behind some people not using health services like screening and immunization. The model is applicable widely. There exist four core constructs: the first two relate to a specific disease while the following two relate to a course of action that is possible that by be to reduce the risk or the disease severity. Perceived vulnerability or perceived susceptibility is a person risk of contracting the disease which is perceived if he does not change the prevailing action pattern. Perceived severity denotes the disease seriousness and its effects that the individual perceives (Hayden, 2009). Perceived benefits are advantages that are perceived resulting from an alternative course of action inclusive of the degree of at which alleviates the disease risk or the consequences of its severity. Perceived barriers are disadvantages that are perceived by taking up the action recommended together with obstacles that may hinder or prevent its performance from being successful. The mentioned factors are usually assumed to addictively combine in order to impact on the likelihood of affecting a certain behavior. Consequently high severity, high susceptibility, low barriers and high benefits are assumed to result into a probability that is high for implementing the action that is recommended. One factor that is also mentioned in health belief model is cues (behavior triggering events), but little empirical work has been carried out relating to this construct (Denise & Bertha, 2006). There have been two quantitative reviews of research utilizing the health belief model. Studies conducted in 1984 by researchers resulted in the calculation of significance ratios pointing out how frequent each of the health belief construct was significant statically in the predicted direction over forty six studies. The ratios were 65 for percent for severity, 81 percent for susceptibility, 89 percent for barriers, and 78 percent for benefits; the finding patterns were similar when the prospective of studies were only examined. From these research barriers is the greatest consistent behavior predictor while the least consistent is severity. In 1992 a research done utilized inclusion criteria that was extremely strict; only 16 out of the 234 studies initially identified were included. In the 16 studies the correlation mean between health belief model behavior and components were -0.21, 0.13, 0.08, and 0.15 for barriers, benefits, severity, and susceptibility, respectively. Although statistically significant, in substantive terms the correlations are small. The researcher found out that barriers and benefits had significantly greater effect sizes in prospective as opposed to retrospective studies, while on the other hand severity possessed greater impact size in retrospective studies (Sutton, 1997). Protection motivation theory According to Glanz (2008), this theory was originally formulated to give an explanation how individuals react to health threats communications that are fear-arousing. It can be viewed as a health belief adaption. Protection motivation is the motivation to gain protection against health threat; in operation is usually defined as the intention to adopt the action that is recommended. Among the action determinants provided by this model, the four receiving the great empirical attention are severity and vulnerability (equal to severity and susceptibility in health belief model), response efficacy (believing that the action recommended is effective alleviating the threat), and self-efficacy perceived (believing that an individual can implement the action recommended). An individual will be greatly motivated to protect himself to a level he believes the hazard is likely to occur incase the pattern of action is not changed or altered or when the resultant effect is likely to be serious. He can then implement the actions recommended. Two meta-analyses of the protection motivation studies have been carried. The analyses utilized a variety of study inclusion criteria and the effect measures size. 30, 000 research participants were analyzed in 65 studies and in another 8,000 participants were used in 27 studies. There were only twelve studies in common. The two analyses indicated support each of the fundamental promotion motivation theory variables predictors of behavior and/or intentions. Self-efficacy had the most consistent, most robust and strongest effect (Shumaker et al. 2009). The reasoned action theory The reasoned action theory was developed from socio-psychological research on the attitudes and the relationship of the attitude-behavior. The behavior has the assumption that a majority of behavior of social relevance (inclusive of health behaviors) are under volitional control, and that the intention of a person to perform a particular behavior is both the single best predictor and immediate determinant of that behavior. Intention is a function of two determinants that are basic: subjective norm and attitude toward towards the behavior. Individuals will possess intentions that are strong to perform a particular action if they positively evaluate and if they have a belief that important others think that they perform it. A person who has a belief that the performance of a given behavior will occasion mostly positive personal consequences will hold an attitude that is favorable towards the behavior. The attitude is viewed to be a function of the sum of the salient behavioral beliefs of an individual in relation to the results of an action each weighted by the evaluation of that result. A belief-based, in direct, measurement of attitude can be occasioned by the multiplication of behavioral belief by its corresponding evaluation result and consequently adding up the results. Personal norm is the main purpose of the belief of a person that particular groups or individual think he should do or should not carry out the behavior. Many of the behavior cannot be carried out at will; they will require skills, resources, opportunities, or cooperation for them to be executed successfully (Denise & Bertha, 2006). Theory of planned behavior According to McNees (2006), the theory of planned behavior was an effort to prolong the theory of reasoned action to encompass behavior that are not entirely under volitional control, for instance using a condom or giving up smoking. To take into account such behavior, a variable known as the alleged behavioral control to the theory of reasoned action is applied. This relates to the perceived difficulty or ease of carrying out the behavior and has an assumption to reflect anticipated obstacles as well as past experience. Behavioral control that is perceived is a function of control belief in the similar way as subjective norm is a function of normative belief. It is presumed to have a direct impact on the intention. For desirable behavior, more behavioral control perceived should result into intentions that are strong (Amico et al, 2002). According to Abraham, Norman and Conner (2001), several of meta-analyses of the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior have been carried out. The finding showed that when intention is predicted from subjective norm and attitude or from attitude, perceived behavioral control and subjective norm, between 50 and 40 percent of the variance on average is explained. When intention is the only prediction of behavior or perceived behavior control and intention, around 19 to 38 percent of the variance is explained. Trans-theoretical model In this model of predicting behavior, change of behavior has been conceptualized in to a five stage process or a continuum concerning the readiness of an individual to change: contemplation, pre-contemplation, action, maintenance and preparation. Individuals are viewed to go through these stages at rates that are varying, usually moving forth and back along the continuum several times before reaching the target of maintenance. The stages through which change occur are cyclical or spiral as opposed to linear. Individual utilize process of change that are different as they go from one degree of change to another. Self-change that is efficient is influenced by carrying out the right action at the right time. Tailoring interventions to go with the individual’s stage of change or readiness is very vital. People who are not thinking about being more active should be encouraged to go through the process step by step (Bandura, 2004). In study carried it was indicated that smokers distributions across the three first stages of change was identical approximately across three large samples representative. About 40 percent of the smokers were in the stage of pre-contemplation, also 40 percent were in the stage of contemplation and the remaining twenty percent were in the stage of preparation. The distribution might have been different in different nations but were very similar in European samples but dissimilar from the American samples. In samples from Europe about 70 percent of the smokers were in the pre-contemplation, 20 percent were in the stage of contemplation and 10 percent were in the stage of preparation. This theory is very much in application. Analysis of Social Cognitive Models In the social cognition models, a number of constructs are common to more models. For instance, perceived vulnerability or perceived susceptibility is seen in both protection motivation theory and health belief model. Some constructs seem to be very similar, for instance, self-efficacy and perceived behavioral control. Shumaker et al. (2009) says that Resolving the prevailing controversies relating to the degree of overlap among such constructs calls for the developing of definitions which are clear in order the construct can be told apart on conceptual ground, and greater common tests of validity that is discriminates to find out whether sets of seeming similar measures are tapping different or same constructs. The models have an assumption that persons are future oriented and seize up the benefits and costs of possible future pattern of actions. They take into account lesser or great degree of expectancy (Cameron, 2009). The models have been criticized for providing rational account that is unrealistic of the way people come up with intentions and make decisions. Nevertheless, the models to not give an impression that always make optimal decisions from deliberating carefully. Individual may not be conversant with all the options available and consequences stemming from these actions. They may harbor incorrect beliefs concerning results. Abraham et al (2000) argue that decisions can be made using a few considerations. Some will not look at the merits and demerits of a particular decision. Social cognitive models show limited rationality by sometimes suggested. The models are viewed as being static although the criticism is unfounded. Models of health behavior must show the time lags that exist in the causal processes but a majority of them do not. Implicitly that impact on intention is nearly instantaneous while effects on behavior may be delayed (Leventhal & Nerenz, 1999). The models differ in relation to application scope. Rothman and Salovey (2003) note that the main constructs in the health belief model and protection motivation theory comprise of perceived severity and perceived susceptibility in relation to a given threat on health. Majority of the models are being applied in the daily life in the prediction of health behavior. Further research should be done on the certainty of the models and give an elaborate function that is easily understood by common people who will want to implement them (Glanz, 2008). Conclusion In this paper a majority of theoretical models used to predict behavior have been looked at and the meta-analysis of some discussed. The relationship of these models to each other and the overlapping of some of the constructs in specific models have been outlined. While the strength of the models has been mention, the weaknesses of the models have not been left out. The health theories used to predict behavior are very important in people day to day life. References Hayden, J. (2009). Introduction to health behavior theory: Jones & Bartlett Learning, Glanz, K. (2008). Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice: John Wiley and Sons. Cameron, M.E. (2009) Essential readings in health behavior: theory and practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Kegler, M. (2009). Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research. :John Wiley and Sons, Abraham, C., Norman, P., & Conner,M. (2000). Understanding and changing health behaviour: from health beliefs to self-regulation: Psychology Press. Rothman, A.J. & Salovey, P. (2003). Social psychology of health: key readings. :Psychology Press. Shumaker, S.A., et al. (2009). The handbook of health behavior change. :Springer Publishing Company. McNees, K.B. (2006) Relationships of agency, communion, unmitigated agency, and unmitigated communion to health behaviors among college undergraduates. : University of Kentucky. Denise T. D., & Bertha, J. (2006). Self-regulation in health behavior. Wiley and Sons. Lindzey, G. & Fiske, S.T. (2009) Handbook of social psychology. John Wiley and Sons. Davies P, W. A, Grimshaw J: (2003). Theories of behaviour change in studies of guideline implementation. Proceedings of the British Psychological Society, 11:120 Abraham C, Norman P, Conner M. (2001). Towards a psychology of health-related behaviour change. In Understanding and changing health behaviour: From health beliefs to self-regulation. Edited by Norman P, Abraham C, Conner M. (2000). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers; 343-369 Weinstein N.D. (1999), Testing four competing theories of health-protective behaviour. Health Psychol 1999, 12:324-333. Sutton, S (1997). Transtheoretical model of behaviour change. In Cambridge handbook of psychology, health and medicine. Edited by Baum A, Newman S, Weinman J, West R, McManus C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997:180-182 Prochaska J.O., DiClemente CC, Norcross JC: (1992). In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviours. Am Psychol, 47:1102-1114 Leventhal H, &, Nerenz D. (1999). The common sense representation of illness danger. In Contributions to medical psychology. Volume 2. Edited by Rachman S. Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1999:7-30. Amico K.R. Toro-Alfonso J, Fisher JD. (2002). An empirical test of the information, motivation and behavioral skills model of antiretroviral therapy adherence. Godin G, Kok G: (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health- related behaviours. Am J Health Promot 1996, 11:87-98. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav, 31:143- 164. . Read More